>>352380
>Expand all images

There you go.

>>352398

See
>>352235
(please note that it's Dylan's id, not someone random's opinion)

>>352380

Cookies are usually used to do that. The website has a form you can submit that returns "Set-Cookie: show=porn,gore,bitequest" which then instructs your browser to send with every request to that website "Cookie: show=porn,gore,bitequest". The website can then send different image links, to the censored or uncensored thumbnail depending on the value that gets sent.

Offensive Bite images have been temporarily deleted pending the Spoiler system.

A hide post function would be nice to have. Don't like an image? Hide it.

I want an option to turn spoilers off for me.

>>352421
...The ones that should've been deleted were already deleted. What are you even doing now? What point does this serve?

I am quite upset at these actions. The admins promised this would not happen!

Slinkoboy ## Admin ## 2011/09/09(Fri)06:52 No. 42650 ID: d6ae01
File 131557635661.png - (42.14KB , 500x400 , Slinko sheriff.png )

>>352432
Doing that at 2am while super tired was acting a bit hasty, and I apologize for that.

Leaving the images causing drama up while the drama is still going on and while a resolution is still being worked on feels like the wrong way to handle it. Even if you don't agree on their deletion, it's only temporary, and it's for the purpose of minimizing damage.

Admitted, everyone who was going to be shocked by them probably already was, but there's no reason to not play it safe and avoid upsetting anyone else while Dylan continues work on a spoiler system.

Anyway, I am Slinkoboy. Dylan's birthday present to himself is putting me in charge for a day and tasking me with handling this situation.

So I'm going to clean up this one-horse town.

>>352450
inb4 the horse goes up in flames.

Typo !TEEDashxDA 2011/09/09(Fri)07:03 No. 42652 ID: 3bd8ec
File 131557703439.png - (38.39KB , 512x512 , dead horse.png )

>>352450
WHY DID YOU KILL MY HORSE SLINKOBOY

WHYYYYYY

>>352363
Wait, hang on.

Is this a "people aren't required to spoiler their images" or "people aren't required to have spoiler images on" or what? It seems like the first one would kind of defeat the whole idea of having spoiler images to begin with.

>>352345
>You've deliberately not responded to the one thing I actually give a shit about you responding to twice now.
I am not clear what this is, since I haven't been arguing in fanart. Saying "don't do a think you haven't been doing" is not very clear communication. I very specifically did not engage anyone else in fanart. Arguing in fanart is bad. My first attempt at talking to Bite was there because:
>Dispute resolution starts with communicating, which I did to Bite in the context of the problem.

And, given arguing in fanart is bad, why is there currently arguing in fanart, from about >>352432 downwards? (I did report this, but there have been mod posts since and it is still present, so I assume it isn't considered "throwing a shitfit" for, uh, some reason.)

Slinkoboy 2011/09/09(Fri)08:07 No. 42656 ID: d6ae01
File 131558085437.png - (42.61KB , 512x512 , Beating a dead__.png )

>>352452
Well, I had to make room for my horse over--

Oh.

Oh god.

>>352453
If we're required to spoiler images that fit certain criteria, then you'll have to define those criteria, which will result in people arguing about those criteria. It should be voluntary... well, unless it is actually SPOILERS. Then I think it'd be necessary.

Well, I guess if everyone has to spoiler NWS images then there'd be less argument about what to spoiler. I doubt that'll happen though!

>>352453
Bite has said he would use spoilers voluntarily, and Bite is a focal point of problematic images, so they wouldn't be useless.

Someone else who wants to draw awful things but refuses to spoiler them (and if that constitutes trolling) is a can of worms which I believe is currently entirely hypothetical.

Am I the only one that thinks it's weird that a whole site bends over backwards, both regarding rules and board software, to please one troll who thinks it's his constitutional right to post torture-porn wherever he wants?

Any other place he would have eventually been perma-banned for constantly stirring up drama.

>>352461
Am I the only one that thinks it's weird that a whole site bends over backwards, both regarding rules and board software, to please a handful of trolls who thinks it's their constitutional right to bitch loudly about drawings wherever they want?

Any other place they would have eventually been perma-banned for constantly stirring up drama.

>>352461
Maybe. But I think this spoiler system is a step being taken to change all that.

I think a guideline should be set (leaving it up to bite to guess would, as he admitted, create problems of people going "OMG WHY ISN'T THAT SPOILERED)... the question is how far does an image go before it needs to be spoilered?

This should be mod-enforced if it does go too far, I think.

If you guys can not argue for a second, I would love to hear your thoughts on where this "line" would be. I know we all aren't going to agree on this, but if we can find a middle ground that everyone reluctantly goes "...okay fine" at, things could be nice and smooth.

>>352461
Have you read anything Bite has posted anywhere?

Starit 2011/09/09(Fri)10:49 No. 42667 ID: f5e4b4
File 131559055128.jpg - (102.89KB , 500x366 , big-kitties--large-msg-1114737762-2.jpg )

>>352464

Back to square one.

Again, the only real line we can clearly draw is when the pictures are illegal. We'll never have a consensus about what should stay and what no. Some people can't stand gore, some other folks think that a bit is fine, but defining what's "too much" of gore isn't easy. Others don't care. Some people don't even want any kind of porn at all. And every time we try to draw the line, we only make everybody fight over it without reaching any conclusion of significance.

Remember the first infamous Tiny Deer picture? When it got deleted, it caused a shitstorm. "It's not guro, it's just hardcore bondage", "Superficial cuts and bruises are not guro." And funny enough, I remember how the predominant opinion was that the mods shouldn't have removed it.

Same scenario, this time the pictures haven't been removed. Now it seems that it's all the other way around, people raging about how that kind of thing shouldn't be there. There's no way to please everybody, eh?

But we're going to use spoiler images for that reason, so I don't see why this argument keeps going over and over, beating the same point. Ok, I'm done ranting.

>>352464
The ability to hide individual posts would be better than any spoiler bullshit, on grounds of hiding enabling the user to hide that which he already knows he does not like, while spoilers hide everything forcing you to look at it to find out what it is and whether you can live with it or not in the first place.

Then limit moderation to actual shitposting, such as illegal content, macro-only content (image macros and/or "u mad" "i troll u" etc., while allowing all of the above if there's more to the post), copypasta and spam - in essence, bumps without content, which could be called "nonposts".
This would leave all "drama" untouched, which any user can freely hide or reveal for themselves. Basically allow whatever Bite's been accused of and similar and allow free feedback. Basically, if you post stupid pictures or act like a twat, you're not breaking rules, but nobody breaks rules by calling your pictures stupid and you a twat, either.
And again in turn allow people to freely comment on comments. Et cetera.

Example cases: Bite, Technomancer.

I say if the "drama" persists - and as an actual problem - for the long term then, and only then, intervene. You'll learn from how all positions and each individual poster conducts themselves and can then more accurately react to the actual problem.
That, and if the site really implodes from some magical "drama" unless the userbase is held by the hand by moderators then it probably deserves to die like a bitch.

Always remember that, outside of war, freedom is killed almost exclusively by the accumulation of well-meaning restrictions. And then everyone becomes an invertebrate retard zealot with a thousand dicks in their mouth.

>>352468

We aren't actually 4chan. If you want a site that's a lot like 4chan, there's, well, 4chan.

>>352463
This is the real problem here. This edit of a dumb post has it right.

Bite's a bro. This whole everything is pretty dumb.

Post hiding means people are forced to see it first. And cookies and similar mechanisms are massively unreliable.

Defaults are supposed to be as good as possible.

>>352467
The fact that the site complains about any and all action is no reason to take no action. A line can be roughly drawn, and people told to Deal With It. If people complain too much... that's what Seal is for :3c


>>352468
The idea is for shocking images not to shock people in the first place.

>>352477
As of this post, any more of this back and forth useless arguing and finger pointing will be deleted.

The decision's already been made to use spoilers. You can either calmly explain what you'd feel should or shouldn't be spoilered, or you can calmly wait for this nonsense to finally die down.

Or you can argue about it in the Big Dumb Arguments thread, I guess.

Starit 2011/09/09(Fri)15:04 No. 42697 ID: f5e4b4
File 131560589581.jpg - (39.44KB , 640x427 , cute-kitty-kitties-12265134-640-427.jpg )

>>352496

Yeah, that's what we used to do. And it didn't work out very well, as you probably remember. Because the problem aren't the images that blatantly break the rules, we can deal with those without problem, and on top of that, they're pretty rare.

The problem are all the others, floating in the grey area, it's not easy to draw a line for those. So when do you consider a picture stops being "gore" and becomes "guro". How many ccs of jizz shown? Stablish how deep the cuts have to be. Missing limbs? What if they're only missing teeth?

Summing it up, when this happens, we have to decide specifically depending on the picture and the context, disregarding the line. So why draw it anyways?

Besides, all this argument is moot, once we have spoiler pictures, as long as they're not illegal, we shouldn't have to worry about all this. That's the point.

>>352497
I guess defining the grey area would be nearly impossible, so I propose this policy:

Everyone should use Common Sense (I know, I know) when deciding if their images should be spoilered. If you are unsure if your image should be spoiled, spoil it anyway to be safe or ask a mod. If you see an image you feel should be spoiled but isn't, report it and the mods will decide if they should spoil it or not.

Images that are blatantly illegal would still be deleted.

Enforcing spoilers would only apply to the Fanart and ITQ threads, as they are threads intended for general use. /Draw/ will be unchanged and free-for-all, and /quest/ or /questdis/ likewise, as threads can simply be hidden. The general-use threads should try and be polite about it, basically.

If anyone has thoughts on this policy, feel free to discuss it. I still don't want anyone doing circular finger-pointing arguments, though.

Additional possibility, hinging on the "Expand All Images" function not expanding spoilers: Allow spoilers in /quest threads, suggest their use when people other than the quest author post an image in a quest thread. Keeps the thread from becoming cluttered with image replies, but still allows them in a slightly neater fashion than currently.

>>352500
Posters are already by default not allowed to post unrelated images. Image macros and similar bullshit are only allowed if the quest author allows them. The people that think posting image macros in a thread is a good idea are not the type to read or care about rules, suggesting they use spoilers wouldn't change anything.

>>352500
Something like that I imagine would be left up to the quest authors. they could request folks use spoilers if they want, or decide they don't really mind reaction images etc.

Side note: I think it was mentioned earlier, but I support the idea of an "off" switch for spoilers, so people who frown at it can turn it off and see all images like normal.

>>352502
>the idea of an "off" switch for spoilers, so people who frown at it can turn it off and see all images like normal.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
It'll be like nothing ever happened (for those of us), and everyone gets their way. Best idea.

Anonymous 2011/09/10(Sat)00:27 No. 42729 ID: 9c538a
File 131563967674.jpg - (28.84KB , 700x474 , nisse.jpg )

>>352502

Not to be redundant I just wanted to mention that >>352408 is how you do it, for the vast majority of websites.

So wait, is draw even going to have them? I just deleted a bunch of images because they could have been subjectively considered 'offensive,' since I thought the spoiler system was on its way.

If it's supported board-wide, then disregard this. I already know it won't be enforced there.

Furthermore, is it even possible to post illegal artwork? Like, can such a thing even exist?

>>352533
"Don't do anything illegal" is a global rule/"deal with anything that could get us in legal trouble" is a moderation guideline. Skimming the PROTECT Act 2003 on Wikipedia, it looks like drawn CP is illegal in the US, as an example.

>>352535

>>"Don't do anything illegal" is a global rule/"deal with anything that could get us in legal trouble" is a moderation guideline.

Yeah, I understand that; it's a given.

>>it looks like drawn CP is illegal in the US, as an example.

That's more what I meant. Not that I was going to draw anything like that, just didn't know that it was a crime.

>>352501
>>352502
I didn't mean reaction images, more like copies of quest images with things drawn on them, or innumerable paperdoll designs. Things that, while relevant to the quest, clutter things up a lot when using expand all.

>>352533
/draw/ is pretty much free-for-all with no content restrictions (or spoiler requirements) except for illegal things like mentioned. if what you're drawing is 18 or over, you're pretty much golden from what I understand.

but drawing CP can be legal
all you need to do is state in your post that they're actually 21 right?

>>352542
AIUI, US (and UK) law covers the "she's 21, she only looks 5 because herpa-derpa-durp" bullshit defence with a healthy dose of "average man on the street" interpretation. PROTECT seems to use the "appears to be" wording for this.

Anonymous 2011/09/10(Sat)20:52 No. 42782 ID: 9c538a
File 131571315419.jpg - (24.67KB , 572x358 , baby_ferrets.jpg )

>>352546

Because laws depending on intentions as opposed to acts make such a good precedent and have never had any negative consequences in history that may have inadvertently caused every society to only judge based on acts. But hey never mind that. Let's have some fun with implications of this law!

AFAIK PROTECT never went to the SCOTUS so its legality is therefore like most US laws in equestion. Not that police ever stopped attacking people over whether it was illegal or not.

Plus PROTECT doesn't say "appears to be" it says "is or appears virtually indistinguishable" from actual kiddie porn. So only photorealistic kiddie porn drawings would count. It's not whether you can tell it's a minor it's whether you cannot tell the difference between it and actual evidence of abuse, which having turned over to the police to enact justice, you now are a criminal sex offender.

Basically if someone thinks they found kiddie porn and give it to the police trying to catch the pedos, before PROTECT if that kiddie porn turned out to be very realistic drawings the bearer wouldn't become a convicted sex offender. After PROTECT, it doesn't matter if it turns out to be fake or not. It just has to be convincing enough for you to notify the authorities. You can personally thank Senator Orin Hatch and Congressman Mike Pence for that lovely state of affairs.

tl;dr nobody's getting arrested over a tiny deer, regardless of the fact that LW retconned her to being 17 trololol so calm the fuck down

>>352582

She's not even human, it'd fall under the general obscenity laws as bestiality, which would depend entirely on which judge looked at it (here's a hint, they'd laugh this shit right out of court).

>>352582
I never retconned Oken to be 17
she's always been 15

>>352590
Yeah, Oken's always been 13. I dunno why you guys thought she was any older than 11 when she's clearly 9.

>>352582
>Plus PROTECT doesn't say "appears to be"
Uh. That was a direct quote from the text of it:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ21/html/PLAW-108publ21.htm
You want "Sec. 1466A", I think. It's a very repetative set of legalese covering a wider scope than just drawings, not a lawyer, etc. etc.

>short, factual post elicits reply with huge rant, ending with "calm the fuck down"
Irony, etc.

>>352586
Very likely. And once the shitstorm settles, I believe both US and UK law are heavy on following precident.

More pressingly, this is all completely irrelevant since the board rule is to keep tgchan out of legal trouble. Arguing if the law is "right" or not would be better suited to, say, >>/meep/13522 .

>>352582
>>352593
Just don't draw children. This isn't exactly rocket science.

If you want to discuss laws and how dumb they are, feel free to follow 2563d4's advice and head to the BDA thread. Child porn isn't really a Spoiler issue, as those images will still be deleted completely.

>>352597
Whups. I meant porn of children.

As much as it looks like a statement of sarcasm, it is a statement of me forgetting a word.

Hugs Quest features children pressing their wet, naked bodies against eachother, sometimes while the smaller one struggles to get away.

Slinkoboy 2011/09/11(Sun)15:15 No. 42808 ID: d6ae01
File 131577930642.png - (61.58KB , 652x570 , 1260.png )

>>352600

Anonymous 2011/09/13(Tue)16:10 No. 42882 ID: 9c538a
File 131595540579.jpg - (194.04KB , 727x739 , novus_ordo_seclawesome.jpg )

>>352593

You've got to be kidding me. It- *searches* it does, jeezus christ. How can you follow a law like that?

>short, factual post elicits reply with huge rant, ending with "calm the fuck down"

awesomeface.png.tiff