>If you don't think spoiler images are good enough please explain why in this thread.

I may as well copy this from IRC in the interest of debate then:
>TBH I'd still be uncomfortable posting fanart in a thread full of "warning: awful extreme porn fetish crap" and/or non-specific spoilers that when subjected to curiosity reveal awful extreme porn fetishy crap, but that's a tangental issue and maybe just me and I should suck it down and post fanart straight in quest dis threads or something if I'm going to.

While that could theoretically happen, so far there haven't been all that many extreme images compared to the bulk of fanart.

>>352220
I'VE GOT IT.

New feature: breathalyzer tests! You must be this sober to post fanart.

The nonspecific spoilers do seem like it would be a problem. Maybe sort it into categories like "spoilers", "porn", "gore", and "offensive fetish" or something. So somebody who's not offended by most of the stuff but IS offended by another category would not have to restrict themselves from seeing, say, anything with spoilers from a quest.

>>352222
But bite normally posts the day after.

>>352223
I can try doing categories but there are a few problems. Are people going to bother tagging all porn? How gorey is 'gore'? Do people have to start tagging their quests?

I don't know about other people, but I would type the content of the image in the body of the post if I spoilered an image. That seems way easier than having multiple spoiler tags.

So for instance "bloody bdsm bondage of fuze" would be the text, and then a spoiler image for the image, obviously.

I am not trying to be a dick, so I'll definitely spoiler stuff.

Yeah, spoiler image + a description of what is spoiled is really the best thing to do. If somebody is TRYING to shock someone into opening something they don't want to see, they're as likely to abuse a generic spoiler as a set of specific ones. Having a bunch of specific spoilers is basically pointless.

>>352225
I agree with this. Let's have the general policy be that you need to say what the image is spoilered for.

Ñ 2011/09/06(Tue)12:17 No. 42428 ID: ce4a4d
File 131533663640.jpg - (93.94KB , 720x484 , white_kitten-8369.jpg )

As long as it avoids the song and dance that happens every few months when bloody rape pictures get posted. "It's not guro just blood play" style arguments get really old. Personally, I would rather just have things that need a "knife wounds and semen-encrusted bondage" tag on /draw/, because I am a prude.

A specific point beyond
>>352220
which I somewhat agree with:

"Expand all images" does what? Does the user explicitly need to maximize spoilered images? User preference with a cookie perhaps?


Finally, just to clarify, since there seems to be confusion. ARE there any content restrictions on boards other than /draw/? I see "don't post shock images" and "don't post things to stir up drama" which of course is purely mod discretion and oh Jesus did this cause drama again. Who is at fault here? The person that keeps posting things that he knows will be reported, or the people that complain? I'd really like to know the mod perspective here since reporting didn't appear to do anything but complaining in thread got a number of posts deleted seemingly at random and caused ban threats to appear :\

>ARE there any content restrictions on boards other than /draw/?

Yes, but hardline content restrictions are basically 'shit that is illegal.' This is because hardline restrictions outside of that are basically impossible to nail down and just lead to the sort of bullshit we had back when the rules tried to be incredibly specific (IE: Long-winded arguments about whether or not something did or did not break the rules). While it may not be satisfying, the fact is that deletions DO ultimately come down to Reports that call attention to it and Moderator discretion. The moderators actually do talk to people about the rules regularly when somebody actually addresses them in, say, IRC. Shitting up threads with arguments is not the way to do it though.

>The person that keeps posting things that he knows will be reported, or the people that complain?

The people arguing in the threads are the ones who are at fault. The prevaling mindset amongst the moderators appears to be actually deleting two of the reported pictures, but there's this hazy spoiler thing on the horizon and I guess the people who wanted to delete it are hesitant to do so because of it or something? There wasn't really a decision about it made before this thread happened and I don't really want to delete content because people think it's gross unless it is causing an actual problem.

The reason that complaining in the thread got deleted and the ban warning (with an arbitrary and excessive time period appended) appeared was that people have been told repeatedly, including IN THE THREAD IN QUESTION, that throwing a big shitfit and telling people to stop posting things because they don't like them is not appropriate. The posts saying that they didn't like the picture were left. The argument where people were telling bite to stop drawing fanart because some of it was gross (and the responses to it, including mine) were deleted because they didn't belong there.

>>352228
No, really, I have no problem with the spoiler tags at all. I would have spoilered the Fuze picture, the Hatch picture, and the whale penis.

I am replying to your spoilered text.

Dude, I don't fucking know. I am the only person who causes problems like this. I understand there is a segment of the community that hates my stuff, but there is also a group that really likes it. Part of me is like "Well, why should I give a shit about the people who loathe me anyway," but I really do not enjoy these drama shitstorms that inevitably stir up in the wake of whatever the fuck I happen to be doing.

When I first drew the tiny deer pic I was like "Well, this is probably a bad idea" (like I said at the time) but what I did not expect was the encouragement I got after I posted it from people. After the whole shitstorm was over. And then people kept asking me to draw stuff like that. Maybe they want me to piss people off? Maybe they actually enjoy it? I have no fucking clue.

Putting content restrictions on what I draw seems like compromising my morals. It's admitting that I will let the people who don't like me anyway keep me from providing content for the people who enjoy it. I understand, though, that it's a public board and I could possibly be chasing people off or upsetting people collaterally. I don't really want to do that either.

It doesn't help that I'm usually stressed out and exhausted, so my level of care is down real low. That's not an excuse. I legitimately enjoy drawing all the pictures, clean, dirty, gross, bloody, romantic, cute, whatever. Each presents a special challenge and a way of looking at the material that's engaging and fun for me. There's plenty of content that upsets me. I've drawn a decent amount of stuff I don't like, but I have no problem drawing it and if somebody else posted similar content I would just ignore it. The things that I do not enjoy are the giant drama shitfits in the wake of me posting something gross.

That's not an excuse either - I understand that it's legitimate to get upset by upsetting things. I don't know this is a long, rambling post and I don't really know what I'm saying or who I'm saying it to, but I figure I'll say it and just be like "Ok, I said it."

Ok. I said it.

Cirr 2011/09/06(Tue)13:19 No. 42431 ID: ae98cc
File 131534036422.jpg - (39.59KB , 506x380 , kitten-duck1.jpg )

Spoiler images seem fine and a fair compromise.

...Don't feel like I'm really adding much else to the topic at hand, so have another kitten. Now with bonus babby bird.

>>352230
Being respectful to the wishes of others could "compromise your morals".
Do you sometimes step back and actually think about what you write?

>>352232
I am being disrespectful of some people no matter which option I choose.

Spoiler placeholders with appropriate text descriptors is fine. Otherwise people have to hide the entire thread to keep from seeing certain objectionable content.

Anonymous 2011/09/06(Tue)15:05 No. 42435 ID: 953355
File 131534670201.png - (30.37KB , 200x200 , spoilerth.png )

Expand all images will not expand spoilers. I can make some kind of setting if people bug me but I don't expect spoilered images to be all that common.

As currently planned, mousing over will show the actual thumbnail, giving you guidance on if you want to click to expand.

>>352235
Awesome. I like this plan.

Now gross/offensive stuff has three potential layers of protection: text description to the side, spoilered thumbnail, and the unexpanded image itself.

I'm kind of lazy though, so when I mouse over a post referring to another post (like >>#######), I don't like going to the post itself, just looking at the thumbnail. Is there anything for that or am I just going to have to stop being lazy?

(PS I'm glad this is getting done also because I am a prude in some common groups of (fan)art, like certain sexy things. And what was also mentioned earlier, I don't have to cringe every time I happen to pass a certain thread.)

I am in favor of users being able to label their own images as "spoiler images."

Something I find far more offensive than any fanart is the terrible 4chan or #tozol attitude that people have that makes them think it is appropriate to shit all over a thread because they don't like a post in it. Also, if you're worried about someone being "uncomfortable" about posting fanart because some of what's posted might be more extreme, how do you think people feel when they see users shitting on artists that are just posting requested fanart?

>>352233
I don't think it would be disrespectful to anyone if you just posted gross stuff in your /draw/ thread. Whether that is actually the proper thing to do here is something I won't pass judgement on.

Ñ 2011/09/06(Tue)16:15 No. 42439 ID: ce4a4d
File 131535093124.jpg - (108.42KB , 500x400 , 2146127109_2572a32071.jpg )

>>352229
Ok, why should anyone need to hop on irc to discuss a problem about the board instead of addressing the issue on the board in question?

This is not a rhetorical question.


Hope you don't take my comments personally, Bite. You're an ok guy. I just don't like some of your art when it gets put here on the regular porn board and not on the violent porn board.

(Maybe some people actually do love the stuff, but it feels like tgchan is trolling the fuck out of itself from both sides.)

>>352239
Now that there are spoiler tags it really isn't an issue! Although I think the sperm and blood cell picture would have been a much better spoiler image. This way it looks like I'm showing Jiniki all these terrible things D:

>>352238
Yeah, like I said, I get that people don't like it. I don't think that's illegitimate. I just want to draw pictures and not deal with this mess.

>>352239
Reports and the IRC are used to keep arguments from shitting up the actual board.

>>352229
The problem with the warning is it lacked clarification, and looked like a threat that wanted to gag people rather than handle the issue.

Something like "The mods/admins are looking into it, stop complaining or bans will ensue" would at least give the message that it's being looked into, not the message that people are being banned for being unhappy about something.

>>352235
Random gallery of spoiler images? :3c

>>352243
>>people have been told repeatedly, including IN THE THREAD IN QUESTION, that throwing a big shitfit and telling people to stop posting things because they don't like them is not appropriate.
>>352062
It was already clarified earlier in the thread. The people who keep complaining have been told many times not to shitpost like that, and they continue to do so. The fact that it was just a warning and not a ban is already being lenient.

Slinkoboy 2011/09/06(Tue)16:57 No. 42446 ID: d6ae01
File 131535344569.png - (83.68KB , 500x400 , probably not canon.png )

>>352241
"Oh geez, this is like the time I accidentally found mommy's secret happy folder."

"J-Jiniki, don't say that! People will think it's canon!"

okay definitely not going to use the jiniki image in the fanart thread itself

>>352245
I think it still would have worked better with clarification. This site should not give the message of "If you disagree with our methods, too bad", and it shouldn't have taken half the entire site raising a huge storm for anything to get done. The fact that they raised a storm 3-4 times because of bite's images is not THEIR fault, but the fault of everyone who refused to take some action about it beyond "stop whining"

Telling half your users to stop whining is not good moderation. Compromise, like this new spoiler system, is good moderation.

It shouldn't have taken 3-4 instances of this happening to finally have good moderation.

Ñ 2011/09/06(Tue)17:19 No. 42449 ID: ce4a4d
File 131535477291.jpg - (29.21KB , 300x251 , cat-businessman.jpg )

>>352245
Thing is, sometimes the art gets deleted after it's reported. Depends on the phase of the moon or the price of tea in China or something.

So obviously that post was not true. There IS policing. There ARE content restrictions. Otherwise, we wouldn't have heard that the majority mod decision was to delete two of the pictures, would we? No one would ever have complained about having posts removed. :|

To end on a more polite note, thanks for your hard work to get this in, Dylan.

>>352249
>So obviously that post was not true. There IS policing.
>>There is no quality policing.
>There ARE content restrictions.
>>Bloody fanart is not against the rules.

Yep that post is full of lies. Oh wait maybe you meant the other post.

>There ARE content restrictions.
>>"ARE there any content restrictions on boards other than /draw/?"
>>Yes, but hardline content restrictions are basically 'shit that is illegal.'

Nope you're just making shit up.

>>352250
Whoops, this is officially a Big Dumb Circular Argument That Will Go Nowhere (BDCATWGN). ...it's pronounced "buducatwiggin".

I am aware of the dance, and you already moved to "personal attacks". You have the advantage, as I don't remember who your ID belongs to.

And besides, they did go through the proper channels, and something got done.

Wait. That's a point for you, too! CUT AND RUN SLINKO CUT AND RUN

Allotter 2011/09/06(Tue)17:50 No. 42455 ID: f91e07
File 131535661016.jpg - (46.25KB , 360x571 , 1253898218210.jpg )

>>352241
>I just want to draw pictures and not deal with this mess.

I'm afraid that is simply not how things work. You are a creator, when you create something it reflects on your will, on who you are. Even if the drawing is a 'commission' the request of someone else, it's still your work, your art.

Maybe you can say that somehow it makes you the better man, to take requests without judgment or heed, to accept a challenge from all comers. To me however, it doesn't seem like a man at all, such a philosophy is fitting for not even a slave, but a tool. Even taking simple supply and demand into account, I find no moral highground to the mercenary code.

We are artists you and I, when we create we have absolute power over what we fashion to the extend of our skills. We can give over this power to the service of someone else, for free or for hire, but regardless this still reflects on what we are. It less the content which disappoints me at this, but the utter disregard for who your art may serve.

I have held you in some regard as the creator of an almost psychedelically imaginative setting, as someone who not only started and improved their art quest with satisfyingly deep and twisted plot, but someone who saw it through to the end. These are great accomplishments in a medium which sees the birth of so many dreamscapes only to wither and be deposited in the graveyard before the end of their first chapter, before they yeild fruit.

However, I've lately become more and more unable to ignore a separate perception of you, that of a drunken sot who values his own talent no higher than the feel good it gives him when some faceless clamor for empty flesh and gore praises his latest grotesque.

Perhaps it is selfish of me to demand one without the other, to demand a rose without thorns? I certainly cannot lay claim selflessness, but I find it so much harder to value someone to whom my opinion and request would mean no more than those who appreciate what I find so vile and offensive.

In summary: We cannot please everyone, nor I think, should we.

I suppose this really has nothing much at all to do with people complaining in the fanart thread, or even the subject of 'quality control' in general as I don't bother to complain. I usually sigh and scroll on rather than taking the time out to comment in the thread itself, I just could find no better place to voice this sentiment.

Anonymous 2011/09/06(Tue)18:04 No. 42458 ID: f66f3f
File 131535748720.jpg - (55.75KB , 604x453 , 3000.jpg )

>>352255
Hey Bite, you should draw the cats in this guys image, but holding Dicks. Big Dicks.

>>352239

>Thing is, sometimes the art gets deleted after it's reported. Depends on the phase of the moon or the price of tea in China or something.

>So obviously that post was not true

From that post:

>While it may not be satisfying, the fact is that deletions DO ultimately come down to Reports that call attention to it and Moderator discretion. The moderators actually do talk to people about the rules regularly when somebody actually addresses them in, say, IRC. Shitting up threads with arguments is not the way to do it though.

First fucking paragraph, dude. The first one.

You're usually a lot more reasonable than this, N.

>>352239

>Ok, why should anyone need to hop on irc to discuss a problem about the board instead of addressing the issue on the board in question?

Discussing the issue on the board would be fine. Having a giant rambling argument that prevents anything that is actually either a piece of fanart or commentary on a fanart (as it was commentary about a user) from actually being seen in the fanart thread is not that, it is shitting up a thread.

>Something I find far more offensive than any fanart is the terrible 4chan or #tozol attitude that people have that makes them think it is appropriate to shit all over a thread because they don't like a post in it.

Ding Ding Ding! This is, in fact, one of the bigger reasons that the site was initially created. This has been gone over before, as well. Repeatedly.

>>352248

>Telling half your users to stop whining is not good moderation.

The people whining are not even close to half of the users. If you want to make this utilitarian, we are basically REQUIRED to post all of the uncensored gross bloody porn we can find. Utilitarianism is stupid, though.

Anonymous 2011/09/06(Tue)18:32 No. 42462 ID: 2563d4
File 131535912109.jpg - (59.57KB , 600x450 , tabby-cat-1.jpg )

What a surprise. This thread turned absolutely retarded. Let's get the only useful bits out of the way first:

>>352235
>As currently planned, mousing over will show the actual thumbnail, giving you guidance on if you want to click to expand.
...add a second delay or something, so you actually have to explicitly point at it?

>>352244
>Random gallery of spoiler images? :3c
Cute as that would be, it would honestly be better with just a big black square with plain "SMUT" written on it, since that it's obvious that it's something that's been blacked out, not a piece of fanart of a character playing hide-and-seek.

>>352229
>Supporting Bite posting guro in fanart is fine
>Opposing Bite posting guro in fanart is "throwing a shitfit"
Classy as ever, Seal.

>>352230
>It's admitting that I will let the people who don't like me anyway keep me from providing content for the people who enjoy it.
It is ridiculously childish to conflate "don't like you posting awful shit in the fanart thread" with "don't like you".

Much like repeatedly using "they made me do it" as your excuse.

>>352251
Selective reading comprehension much? Quoting Seal:
>deletions DO ultimately come down to Reports that call attention to it and Moderator discretion
Holy shit, the mods aren't robots that follow the rules exactly, and may delete posts beyond the hard-line "illegal" limit, i.e. there exists content which is restricted! Amazing, isn't it.

>>352253
Best post in the thread.

>>352261
Sorry for the confusion; I was referring to the post referred to by the one I was referring to, rather than yours. Namely:
>>352062
Which did, in fact, say that there was no policing.

Normally I AM more reasonable than this, but the heavy-handed moderation got on my nerves and I am tired from working absurd hours.

My apologies for causing offense. My questions have been answered and I'm about three posts past where I should gracefully bow out until I have more commentary on the actual spoiler images.

>>352268
>Which, in fact, said there was no policing

No, it said no quality policing. Meaning, people could post fanart of, say, a three-year-old's rendition of Jiniki in crayon that was scanned in, and despite being of low artistic quality, it would not be removed.

What policing their is is of things people find objectionable, such as intestines falling out of characters after they have been disemboweled and another character ejaculated upon said organs.

Learn the difference.

>>352268
>Which did, in fact, say that there was no policing.

No. I said no, "quality policing," that does not give you the journalistic right to extend this to content or breaking the rules. That is not what I said. We do not delete pictures because someone, "Doesn't like it," or, "thinks it sucks."

>>352262
Your reading comprehension is apparently terrible. I have never said anybody made me do anything. I have chosen to draw every picture I've drawn, and I've never made excuses for drawing what I draw. I was pointing out that these were requests and I was drawing what was requested to show that A) I wasn't trolling and B) most of the twenty or so people in the stream anyway had no problem with the content.

Call it childish if you want, but you, N, Test, and whoever else hang out in tozol and don't talk to me at all anymore except to complain about my drawings. What am I supposed to think?

>>352255
I wasn't going to reply to this at first because honestly it's pretty ridiculous. You say this like all I do is draw the most horrible shit ever, when, oh god why do I keep having to repeat this, it's a tiny minority of what I draw. Look at Bite Quest again. That same content you say makes me a sot with empty flesh praising grotesques is right there in that too - gore, rape, violence, blood, disembowlement, everything you say makes me a bad person for drawing. I just don't care. I don't think drawing gore or porn makes me a bad person. Just like I don't think drawing cute snakes blushing or a lizard basking or anything else. I wish I had time to update my quest more, but the fact of the matter is when I'm tired and stressed I just want to draw. If you come in the stream I'll draw you a picture just like anybody else.

I did not delete any of those posts which seemed to have coupled with my message. It was not even a warning and nobody was banned as far as I know.
Policies concerning /draw/ were pretty much coming into necessity and practice in /questdis/ with the uprising of people telling people they should leave finally bleeding over onto this board. I personally felt that not everyone attends /draw/ so I was making people aware that is not behavior we are going to tolerate.

I don't think that expecting people to not behave like a lynch mob is, "heavy handed moderation."

Dylan is doing way more than he needs to to adhere to your wants. So many of these argument threads are the same five people. It's always pigeonholing each others posts with a passionate desire to outdo each other, or prove each other wrong over something frivolous.

You can not like something, and even express discontent/dislike with Bite's work as that's been allowed on many occasions. If you report it, and nothing is done about it. You either accept that it is going to be there, or discuss it with a mod/admin in private. If they still don't do anything then drop it.

When a report is made, the staff usually discuss it, sometimes for an hour. Most acts by the staff are not just, "How the mod feels right now," we go over the act. We go over past acts with similar conditions and consequences. We decide whether the policy is still good as it was in the last instance. If it is not working, we do something.

The spoiler image solution is doing something. However, I think it should be obvious that people who abuse the spoiler tag feature may receive action without warning.

>>352262

>>Opposing Bite posting guro in fanart is "throwing a shitfit"

Now, I DO expect this sort of flagrant dishonesty/ignorance from you at this point.

That isn't what happened at all. There were several posts to the point of 'if you're going to draw some gross things, just do us all a favor and don't draw and post anything.' One of them was quite large.

>Classy as ever, Seal.

I try. But I guess I'll never reach the level of class of joining an IRC channel, demanding that somebody who may or may not actually be present stop doing something, then insulting everyone there for saying 'it's not really a big deal why all the hubbub?' and leaving.

>>352268

>Sorry for the confusion; I was referring to the post referred to by the one I was referring to, rather than yours

Ah, I see now. As other people of mentioned, that post was specifically referring to policing based on image quality rather than content. Because every time an image DOES get deleted we get people (and yes, there is overlap between these people and the people who make content complaints) throwing a goddamn FIT over the apparent evidence that now there are quality standards that have to be met for fanart and that's so terrible.

>>352262
>Selective reading comprehension much?
You have misinterpreted my post, I assume due to suffering from the selective reading comprehension you accuse me of. My post was countering the statement made by N:
>So obviously that post was not true. There IS policing. There ARE content restrictions.
I was showing with quotes that N was making an imaginary target that never actually existed by ignoring important parts of the quoted posts. Namely, it said "no quality policing" not "no policing", and "Bloody fanart is not against the rules." not "There aren't content restrictions." The Seal quote was for the same purpose, explicitly showing that "There aren't content restrictions" wasn't something that was said.

>>352262
Okay, what? You're calling Bite names while in the same sentence saying that he can't say you don't like him?

>>352279
I think the point MiB was making here is that you're responsible for your art no matter wherefrom the 'inspiration' or need comes.

Anyone else read the part about a 3 year old drawing jiniki and think "oh my god that would be the cutest thing ever"?

>>352293
:3

Anonymous 2011/09/06(Tue)23:59 No. 42501 ID: 9c538a
File 131537879432.jpg - (371.32KB , 1024x768 , 4952135731_d4579ab265_b.jpg )

I would be concerned that all of the fanart would be spoilers, for anyone who hasn't started reading the quest yet. I never check the fanart thread until I'm caught up on my favorite quests. Perhaps a cookie to disable or enable certain types of spoilers?

As for tact, I'm with BiteQuest on this. Anyone who can't see around what little crazy porn you draw to appreciate your greater genius and talent, they're the ones with a problem I say. But that is not an argument against spoilers. Spoilers can help such problems, because it lets them browse here without getting battered by pr0n, and they can come slowly to realize from looking at the un-hidden thumbnails that drawing a little smut does not make you less awesome.

Plus it's actually not very comfortable to get the weirdest boner. People who haven't been forged in the fires of 4chan yet would probably appreciate some horse blinders to keep them from stressing out.

>>352276
>I have never said anybody made me do anything.
Oh come on, don't nitpick wording. This argument is going to get even more tiresome if we have to go over "made me" as "just doing what they wanted and I have no free will whatsoever" vs "they put a gun to my head".

>you, N, Test, and whoever else hang out in tozol and don't talk to me at all anymore except to complain about my drawings
...
That's bollocks, Bite. I'm many of the last several posts in Survivors dis, including >>349416 .

I also don't "talk to" a whole bunch of people who post around here like, say, Starit. I don't hate him either. Your streams tend to be in the middle of the night for me. That the main IRC channels make the Linux kernel mailing list look like a pleasant place to be full of socially functioning people doesn't mean I am shunning everyone within them like I decided to not invite them to my garden party, jesus.

>>352290
Nor does disagreeing with someone or their behaviour!

>>352287
>Now, I DO expect this sort of flagrant dishonesty/ignorance from you at this point.
I'm truly crushed to hear that from such a pillar of integrity as yourself.

Yay, baseless accusation slapfight! It's my favourite e-sport.

>There were several posts to the point of 'if you're going to draw some gross things, just do us all a favor and don't draw and post anything.' One of them was quite large.
That's nice. What about the posts that weren't that that got deleted? (Oh, no, I can't back that up with references because they got deleted. But I am certain I didn't tell Bite to stop drawing and I don't remember anyone else I saw saying that. Posts were deleted whose sentiment was "take it to /draw/", and in my case I think I said "leave it on FA". [I probably said it all exasperated and British and upset some delicate flowers with the use of the word "fuck", too.])

>But I guess I'll never reach the level of class of joining an IRC channel, demanding that somebody who may or may not actually be present stop doing something, then insulting everyone there for saying 'it's not really a big deal why all the hubbub?' and leaving.
The mistake I made there was entering that fetid shithole in the first place rather than just privmsging Bite. Something something generally people do seem to opt for joining a channel they're in to talk to someone and I derped and went with the flow.

Do you want to know why I didn't then privmsg Bite? I thought to myself "boy, a lot of people sure do seem to be disagreeing vehemently here, perhaps I should leave off a bit in case I just mad". By the point I concluded otherwise, things had moved on such that talking to Bite privately was useless.

I sure am a raging arrogant tosser, disregarding the opinions of all around me.

But lol at "demanding". The "please" in the line I typed (I'm afraid I did't log it, so if we're going to nitpick exact words to show what a terrible person I am someone else will have to rummage it up) was entirely sincere because I know Bite is normally pretty reasonable. For my trouble I got dogpiled by "IT'S NOT DISGUSTING YOU FUCKING PRUDE IT'S JUST A DICK EJACULATING A TORRENT OF BLOOD" and, really, arguing with LawyerDog present is a waste of time on a level with reporting Mozilla bugs.

>>352301
I don't believe anyone is really intending for spoiler images to be used for spoilers since, as you say, that would encompass almost all fanart. (Perhaps that's a point to consider when naming the feature so it doesn't mislead people.)

>What about the posts that weren't that that got deleted? (Oh, no, I can't back that up with references because they got deleted. But I am certain I didn't tell Bite to stop drawing and I don't remember anyone else I saw saying that.

Fortunately, I can bring up deleted posts and look over them at any time. I don't HAVE to rely on memory. I can just go through my dialogue and pop out a quote.

>If you lack the ability to censor yourself maybe you shouldn't draw.

There are also a ton of slightly less severe posts to the line of 'don't post fanart here if I don't like it,' for which my lack of tolerance (even for people I DON'T particularly like) is not even new information.

Furthermore, most of the posts that got deleted were a big argument about whether or not Bite was blaming other people for the drawings which basically consisted of him saying 'it's not their fault, it's my fault' and then other users would jump in with 'STOP SAYING IT'S THEIR FAULT, IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT IT'S YOUR FAULT' and then it would loop.

And you didn't even have a post in that argument that got deleted so I'm not even sure what you're on about.

>I sure am a raging arrogant tosser, disregarding the opinions of all around me.

Basically. Though I wouldn't say 'tosser.'

>>352305
Ok, this is not a nitpicky semantical argument, and it's rather irritating to me that you keep repeating it. I've always owned up for the things I've done. Somebody telling me to do something isn't remotely coercive, and I could choose to not draw something if I didn't want to. That's obvious to me. I don't know how much more explicit I could make it, and I feel like I'm repeating myself excessively. I even listed the reasons why I was pointing out that it was requested - the two main things I'd heard in the past was that I was trolling or that nobody wanted to see things like that. Once again, those statements were never meant as an excuse for my own behavior.

>That's bollocks, Bite. I'm many of the last several posts in Survivors dis

Look, all I know is that you used to be in one of the public channels, I don't know which one, and conversations would happen generally, and I was gone from IRC for few months and group of people disappeared. It looks like I was mistaken, but it's hardly an unreasonable conclusion for me to reach. I don't know what the hell happened in whatever channel that caused this massive bucket of bad blood to be spattered liberally over the walls and floor, but I got the impression that the people I named had generally decided they wanted nothing to do with anyone else. I always appreciate the fanart, of course.

>>352306
Great, so some "GTFO"s exist. I did bold "I saw", because not having mod powers or a perfect memory or F5ing in the right timezones I kind of expect to miss some! (FWIW my post was after the first bunch of stream art.)

Again:
>>What about the posts that weren't that that got deleted?
Which I assume are the ones you mean here:
>There are also a ton of slightly less severe posts
And to keep this in perspective of The Point, since neither of us like going off on pedantic tangents:
>The reason that complaining in the thread got deleted...that throwing a big shitfit...
They were deleted complaints, ergo by this you seem to be qualifying them as "throwing a shitfit". Thus, back to the start:
>>Supporting Bite posting guro in fanart is fine
>>Opposing Bite posting guro in fanart is "throwing a shitfit"

As one of the said folks who disappeared from IRC, I can say that this argument is big and dumb.

Polite sage, as I have nothing to add to it.
Err'one needs to learn to just chill out and not get mad all the time.

>>352307
>those statements were never meant as an excuse for my own behavior.
Look, I'm not going to try and dig up logs or anything (not least because I'm willing to believe that's your intent and thus everything will be ambiguously in favour of it at worst), but I don't think you've conveyed that well when the response to "jesus christ what the fuck" is "THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT :D".

And if you don't want to wind up dramastorms, why on Earth do you post things like mutilated Fuze, when you know, personally that posting LW's characters like that is not cool because your mutilated Oken very infamously got deleted? Honestly, "leave it on FA" isn't all glib smuggery: it has content-rating hiding, and I'll be surprised if anyone on your livestream wouldn't be able to log in and get at the result. You still get to draw the thing, they still get it drawn, there's even enough of a tgchan community over there that I'm not sure you could argue the exposure to people who want to see it is reduced. Hell, put a link in fanart with "and here's all the gross bits of the stream". It's like spoilers but without Dylan having to do anything. In fact I'm pretty sure that's what Slowpoke did with his Oken.

>I was gone from IRC for few months and group of people disappeared
...but then why would you assume that you were [part of] the problem? :|

I can't even remember what, if anything, specifically made me go "fuck this for game of soldiers", and I don't desperately care (I very much doubt anyone else does either, nothingofvaluewaslost etc.). Suffice to say that since getting out of those channels and BDA, the only times I've looked back (e.g. recent drive-by) have confirmed that it was a worthwhile decision.

The only reason I'm bothering to argue here is because, perversely, I have enough respect for you (and just about for Seal) to actually respond to discussion. (Ok, and also because I'm kind of retarded and get into Internet Arguments.) That is to say, I have some expectation that maybe something will come out of it, say, clearing up that I do not hate your guts.

Well, OK, I guess given the topic I do hate your guts. :V

>>352308
Okay, the thing that Seal said, or at least was trying to say, as far as I can tell, was, "opposing Bite's art in the fanart thread in and of itself is not throwing a shitfit, but making posts saying 'well maybe you should just stop posting fanart then, Bite' (i.e. posts you just said you did not even see anyway because they were deleted) probably qualifies as throwing a shitfit." Or, at least, Seal would see that as throwing a shitfit because in the past shitting up threads for the sole purpose of telling someone to leave the site has pissed him right the fuck off (see the stuff in /draw/ from a while back).

Now, about seven or so posts after the first bunch of stream art were deleted, including a post of yours that you appear to be referencing and two or three posts telling the people complaining that Bite should be allowed to do whatever he wants. The reason for this deletion appears to have been that they were an obnoxious fucking argument shitting up the fanart thread, which is something I don't think anyone wants.

>>352312
(Also, a quick check reveals that you didn't even bother reporting the image in question from the first stream you objected to and just went straight to complaining in the thread, which is something I really wish people would at least not use as their first resort.)

>>352311

Well, most of the time I've been pretty blasé about it, but, and I may be wrong, I don't really recall any attempt at a discussion here before. Mostly just snark from both sides. In the few altercations I've gotten into with specific people over things, (Slinkoboy, Peeved), I've never excused my behavior by saying it wasn't my fault I drew whatever. I've always owned up and said it's nobody's fault but mine.

I have seen people defending me excuse my behavior like that, but I have been pretty good about correcting those sentiments when I see them.

I would like to point out that Lonely World was IN the stream later on, and as far as I can tell his attitude seems to be that he doesn't like it, but he's not going to tell me not to draw it (which, coincidentally, is also my attitude towards this whole situation.) People have drawn fanart of my characters that I definitely have not cared for one little bit because of the content, but I'm not going to tell them not to draw it. I understand that this is far from a universal attitude, and I also understand that people who feel differently are reasonable for feeling that way.

Also, the aftermath of me drawing the tiny deer was him drawing me lots of fanart. Hell, he posted some fanart yesterday for me. Honestly, like I said above, the tiny deer thing was a situation where I 'should have known better' (like I said at the time) but afterward people from the community kept requesting the same type of content, and the second time I drew something similar, the reaction was mostly one of either disinterest, humorous-style alarm, or approval. My commissioners, on the other hand, mostly ask for clean pictures or nudes.

I think the spoilers tags is a superior solution because, honestly, there is not a 1:1 overlap between creepy furries and people who participate in my streams. Offsite linking to FA for mature images gives a blocked image afaik. Besides, it's /quest related fanart. I think it goes here. This way, you won't have to see it casually browsing, but people who want to can. Although I imagine after this requests for extreme content will probably be much lower.

>Well, OK, I guess given the topic I do hate your guts. :V

That made me laugh.

Anyway, I think this issue is pretty much solved for the foreseeable future, and I appreciate the mostly reasonable conversation.

>>But lol at "demanding". The "please" in the line I typed (I'm afraid I did't log it, so if we're going to nitpick exact words to show what a terrible person I am someone else will have to rummage it up) was entirely sincere because I know Bite is normally pretty reasonable. For my trouble I got dogpiled by "IT'S NOT DISGUSTING YOU FUCKING PRUDE IT'S JUST A DICK EJACULATING A TORRENT OF BLOOD" and, really, arguing with LawyerDog present is a waste of time on a level with reporting Mozilla bugs.

http://pastebin.com/2mR82Wiu

>LionsPhil: BiteQuest: Please, can you stop flooding the fanart threads with "ha ha so offensive" drunk shitscribbles.
I have no idea how someone could think your "please" in that sentence wasn't sincere when it was followed up with you saying his posting of fanart was "flooding" of "shitscribbles."
And I was unaware that zero people was enough for a dogpile. The only things close were Cirr and Squeegy saying that Bite's images weren't shock images, which they objectively are not due to them all being requests.

>>352313
Dispute resolution starts with communicating, which I did to Bite in the context of the problem. If I went "this is shit and should be deleted" without reporting (or in fact even with reporting), sure, that'd be wrong, but that is not what happened.

>>352314
Ok.

>>352315
Wow, you sure showed me, posting a log of everyone jumping down my fucking throat. As part of not actually reading it, you also seem to have missed that Squeegy/Cirr's "not shock images" appears to be directed at Daedalus, not me.

>>352316
>>If I went "this is shit and should be deleted"
If?
>LionsPhil: BiteQuest: Please, can you stop flooding the fanart threads with "ha ha so offensive" drunk shitscribbles.

>Wow, you sure showed me, posting a log of everyone jumping down my fucking throat.
You came in aggressively and insulting Bite and the response was pretty tame disagreement. People disagreeing with you and telling you to stop breaking site rules is not jumping down your "fucking throat."

>As part of not actually reading it, you also seem to have missed that Squeegy/Cirr's "not shock images" appears to be directed at Daedalus, not me.
That it is not even directed at you is a point against you. That was the only thing even close to what you said with
>>For my trouble I got dogpiled by "IT'S NOT DISGUSTING YOU FUCKING PRUDE IT'S JUST A DICK EJACULATING A TORRENT OF BLOOD"
Which is not representative of what anyone said. As I said, the only thing close to it was something sort of related and not even directed at you. You claiming that everyone else has no reading comprehension when it's just you not having it is getting pretty old.

>>352316
I think you have a problem seeing reality.

For instance, that 'fetid shithole' has like 3 active people in it that aren't in #tozol. LawyerDog is probably the only person that's really offending you! In fact he's the only person that spoke to you that wasn't also in #tozol at that point. I tried to point this out to you in a PM but you didn't respond. I doubt you have me on ignore, as we don't really fight on IRC.

Also, uh, you don't seem to get that using offensive language is offensive. You can't claim to be trying to be polite while throwing around insults. I guess this is why you're called Angry Drawfag but seriously, try to pay attention to what you're saying.

>>352316
I'm just saying that I wish you had picked a way of communicating with Bite that wasn't posting "for fuck's sake why didn't you just not post that" in the fanart thread and thereby starting an argument. That's all.

Augh for fuck's sake.

Maybe some people should learn that just because one or two people ask for something, it's not what the whole board wants to see. Maybe a few others should understand that, hey, this place was created because of mass trolling of Quests in /tg/ and it is therefore somewhat rude to tell someone to stop posting here, as reasonable as it might be. And maybe another, third party, can understand that some people really don't get etiquette at all, and it's better to ignore them than to try and teach them that curse words are curse words for a reason.

Seriously, just add spoiler images, trust authors to tag up their images in text, and then everyone can be happy. For fuck's sake, don't we have a seperate thread for this bullshit?

Anonymous 2011/09/07(Wed)11:40 No. 42526 ID: 9c538a
File 131542084445.jpg - (236.13KB , 500x375 , deerp.jpg )

The best thing is all this drama comes in defense of a fictional anthropomorphic deer.

>>352323
>Starting
Psst. I wasn't first. Nor is first in this discussion "starting it" since "Bite art causes issues" has been true so long that we have running jokes about the mods holding his dick while he pisses over the board, and then the counterargument about how he's had the most images deleted.

>>352324
>For fuck's sake, don't we have a seperate thread for this bullshit?
Yeah, it's this one. You can hide it. Fuckin' miracles of technology, eh?

It'd recommend it at this point. It's mostly just retardation left.

I think that this thread says a lot about the maturity of certain community members.

By which I mean I am laughing my ass off at how petty some of you people are.

>>352330
>Psst. I wasn't first.
You were, in fact, the first person to complain about the images in the stream! I have the posts right here in front of me.

Regardless of whether or not you technically started the argument, or whether or not the argument has been started before, I still don't think it's unreasonable to ask that in the future you find a way to "communicate" with Bite (or whoever) that doesn't involve participation in an argument with people who aren't even who you're trying to communicate with.

>>352333
1) There was a post by Driblis. I remember this because I looked at it and thought "well, if he's going to, I'll take that as a 'comment is OK'". And I also reported it after it was the only left standing after the first set of deletes as "more of the same", after which it vanished, so don't tell me the mods didn't consider it in that set, even if Driblis did it himself!
2) I did not argue with anyone in fanart. As you can see I also didn't bother spending the time on the IRC crowd either.

2011/09/07(Wed)13:23 No. 42540 ID: 43d730
File 131542702045.jpg - (19.27KB , 300x197 , pocket-deer.jpg )

>>352326
A tiny anthropomorphic deer.

This was the best thread. I needed some pictures of cute animals. Can we have Cute Wednesdays from now on?

>>352338
You've deliberately not responded to the one thing I actually give a shit about you responding to twice now. Don't know why you insist on doing that but I'm just going to assume that you have no intention of changing your behavior.

Oh hey, another question I had:

Can you spoil things you already posted, or does a mod and/or admin have to do that?

>>Supporting Bite posting guro in fanart is fine
>>Opposing Bite posting guro in fanart is "throwing a shitfit"

Actaully, it's more a matter of

>supporting anyone posting content is fine
>throwing a tantrum because anyone posted something you don't like is a shitfit

You keep trying to make this about Bite (and N did too), which is pretty offensive to me since I do take moderating the site seriously. This is, in fact, completely consistent with warning people to stop telling FlynnMerk to leave the site and the shenanigans that occurred on /draw/.

The issue is not that I like the content (in all three of these cases I did not particularly care for the relevant content, in fact), nor even that I liked the person who put forth the content (I was involved in an extensive argument and ban-on-sight stance against one of the people on /draw/ that I was telling people to quit harassing).

This is about believing that throwing a tantrum because somebody is doing something you don't like (like posting something gross, or not buying you that sweet new transformer) is something that fucking toddlers do, and that throwing a tantrum is not something that a responsible adult (and many of the people who have been stirring shit absolutely are not, attempting to claim that they aren't responsible for starting shitstorms because somebody did something they didn't like first) should do.

For fuck's sake, at what point can somebody look at taking a stance of 'I am going to shriek and be obnoxious if you do something I don't like until other people force you to stop so that I'll shut the fuck up' and NOT think that they are retarded? And how much of a shithead do they have to be to then accuse OTHER people of not taking responsibility for their actions while claiming that they aren't responsible for the fucking tantrums?

For the record, I grew up with a younger brother (to which I was not an asshole) who was not spanked. I have a history that gives me a very real reason to get extremely pissed off when I see people (ESPECIALLY people that I have interacted with and know are better than that) doing it.

>>352326
People care about a lot of things that don't seem to make sense when you look at them from a certain perspective. But even when our feelings seem silly, they're still there and we've got to deal with them.

That's "deal with" in a general sense, not in a "shut up and just deal with it" sense.

Alright, that's all I've got to say. Not accusing anyone of anything, just making a passing comment. Bye now.

So are we being forced to use spoiler images? Furthermore, will it apply on /draw/? Because that place is like a no-man's land that people are too afraid to visit in the first place.

Secondly, will it apply to quests? Since basically half of the more recent updates of my quest involve some kind of gore and whatnot, and censoring that would probably kill the mood.

>>352361

>So are we being forced to use spoiler images?

No. The spoiler images are going to be there for people who chose to use them for whatever reasons they have. There are no plans for a rule requiring their use for any purpose on any board.

>>352361

That whole "no man's land" thing is probably for a good reason :|

>>352361
Since the largest amount of traffic is /quest/ and /questdis/, and nudity/gore in /quest/ often happens for a goddamn reason (Why are you reading a 40k quest if you're off-put by gore), you can hide threads by an author you know is prone to gore, etc, I really doubt spoilers will see use anywhere but the fanart thread. Since, after all, you can't hide individual posts there, and the content varies wildly. It's there as a buffer between 'cute/softcore porn' and 'Bite got drunk again'.

It's another tool. Spoiler images that are heavily plot-affecting, so people who want to get into the quest don't have to worry about seeing the thumbs while looking through the site. Or, possibly, we could have a /spoiler/ board, or a variant?

I wonder how hard it would be to set up two file upload options: Spoiler File and File? Eh, probably overcomplicating things...

Is it possible to have a .css so that those of us who want to carry on like they have up to this point without spoilers - those of us who just *aren't* offended by anything - can continue living in a spoiler free world?

Because I would appreciate that as much as some people would appreciate spoilers, and I am sure I am not alone.

>>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