About the New Forum Rules

[Simping For Hina]

There doesnt really need to be a change here, though. Most of the trouble comes from jokes and strong opinions, but that is what this site is about anyways and changing that takes away from people expressing themselves and their beliefs, measures that limit conversations and connections that would be unwarranted anywhere else. There have been discussion on rape, incest, abortions, pedophilia, perversion, etc and many of them have been civil. Only on a few measures have thingss gone arye. Then, measures were taken to fix that. The modding has been fine. If anything, there should be a change of flow and direction with how to act when the topica get too heated or out of control. Repercussions to follow. Everything else has been fine.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

That's the bloody problem, it's not like we're all posting Dicks and Tits in every other post

 

YCM is barely sexual...do you want me to apologize for the Dick Joke a made?

 

Seriously, YCM needs to grow the funk up

Okay I have to say that the "grow up" thing bothers me. i called for a change in the rules to reflect a more specific set of what's okay and what's not. Having more solid rules on what's good and bad is a very good thing. That's why this thread exists, to discuss how to make this better. But you've been just consistently saying why it's wrong that they made the rules at all. Instead of trying to be productive and suggest legit changes that would be best for all parties.

I'm trying to figure out what the level of decency could be. Because I'm sure you can at least somewhat agree that it'd be fine to limit some of the more absurdly sexual things?

[VCR_CAT]

Okay I have to say that the "grow up" thing bothers me. i called for a change in the rules to reflect a more specific set of what's okay and what's not. Having more solid rules on what's good and bad is a very good thing. That's why this thread exists, to discuss how to make this better. But you've been just consistently saying why it's wrong that they made the rules at all. Instead of trying to be productive and suggest legit changes that would be best for all parties.

I'm trying to figure out what the level of decency could be. Because I'm sure you can at least somewhat agree that it'd be fine to limit some of the more absurdly sexual things?

 

Right. I think the subject of sex is fine; we can talk about sex, we can discuss about things relating to sex. That's cool. Like I said before; so long as it doesn't become just straight porn in either an image or text format I'm good with it.

[Simping For Hina]

Right. I think the subject of sex is fine; we can talk about sex, we can discuss about things relating to sex. That's cool. Like I said before; so long as it doesn't become just straight porn in either an image or text format I'm good with it.

Which it never has, or measures were taken against that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Okay I have to say that the "grow up" thing bothers me. i called for a change in the rules to reflect a more specific set of what's okay and what's not. Having more solid rules on what's good and bad is a very good thing. That's why this thread exists, to discuss how to make this better. But you've been just consistently saying why it's wrong that they made the rules at all. Instead of trying to be productive and suggest legit changes that would be best for all parties.

I'm trying to figure out what the level of decency could be. Because I'm sure you can at least somewhat agree that it'd be fine to limit some of the more absurdly sexual things?

It's been fine up till now

[Susie]

Right. I think the subject of sex is fine; we can talk about sex, we can discuss about things relating to sex. That's cool. Like I said before; so long as it doesn't become just straight porn in either an image or text format I'm good with it.

 

Pretty much this. By banning anything thats even remotely sexual/seductive/lewd/whatever weve pretty much gone overboard the whole PG-13/PG rating and gone with the standard of G rated and nothing else. It was never that offensive to anyone or anyone in the majority so the rules update on the sexually explicit material was a bad idea especially considering how were up to the point of where even the least questionable material is worthy of getting a warn.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Which it never has, or measures were taken against that.

But now there is possibility for more solid rules. Before it was easier to get away with it because of how the rules were. That's the biggest thing. This is less a "strike against sexual things" as far as I see it, more a "actually enforcing things better". Or at least that's what I think it should be reworked to be.

[Simping For Hina]

But now there is possibility for more solid rules. Before it was easier to get away with it because of how the rules were. That's the biggest thing. This is less a "strike against sexual things" as far as I see it, more a "actually enforcing things better". Or at least that's what I think it should be reworked to be.

Then change and fix all of the mandates, because the rules of YCM are pretty much solidified in all of the same aspects. This is a specific targetting plow, and unjust when all of the other rules are just as crappy.

[vla1ne]

But now there is possibility for more solid rules. Before it was easier to get away with it because of how the rules were. That's the biggest thing. This is less a "strike against sexual things" as far as I see it, more a "actually enforcing things better". Or at least that's what I think it should be reworked to be.

why did the rules need this revamp? why did they need to be solidified? to the best of my knowledge, nothing about that particular rule does anything constructive. there isn't really anything that that rule needed to be established for. and as said earlier, there is no real need for any of the rules except the increased escalation. this particular combination of rules is terrible. two of them interact in such a way that issues will now needlessly escalate instead of drop swiftly. why increase the punishment AND increase the ease with which people are punished simultaneously? these 3 rules, each on their own are untasteful, but altogether, there is absolutely no need for such a thing.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Then change and fix all of the mandates, because the rules of YCM are pretty much solidified in all of the same aspects. This is a specific targetting plow, and unjust when all of the other rules are just as crappy.

I agree. Full reform of the rules are needed. All the rules. Along with proper enforcement and making sure the mods know how to deal with the situations.

 

And v I already said like 4 times that the rules need to be fixed to account for that issue.

This is why Dae calls me a broken record >.>

 

The rules needed to be solidified because things people shouldn't have gotten away with they did because the rules didn't really account for it.

[MiracleGhost47]

But now there is possibility for more solid rules. Before it was easier to get away with it because of how the rules were. That's the biggest thing. This is less a "strike against sexual things" as far as I see it, more a "actually enforcing things better". Or at least that's what I think it should be reworked to be.

I gotta say, that makes a lot of sense. I was upset with the Role Play section's bigotry to "script format", but I was lenient because it really wasn't that big of a deal. I feel the same way regarding sexual talk. I personally don't care much what the limits are, as long as it can satisfy the majority. I don't think I've ever talked about sex here, so whatever the results, it won't have much effect on me. I wish this forum luck in maintaining a compromise, and a better enforcement of the rules. 

[Simping For Hina]

I agree. Full reform of the rules are needed. All the rules. Along with proper enforcement and making sure the mods know how to deal with the situations.

My problem is, there is no reason to target a specific set of rules but change the layout of all of them. YCM literally can never get its sheet together because it honestly is handled in a sheet manner, with every mod kind of pissing their own path in the snow. Which, none of that will change anyways and YCM will go back to what it was. No one is going to give a funk after a while, simply because this site is just a place for personal anguish and do whatever the funk you want. That is what people on this forum are used to.

[vla1ne]

the lewds rule is unneeded, anything that's truly lewd, like porn or such is already bannable, toeing the line is how it goes. instant warnings over flames is just a bad concept from any angle, pasion gives way to flames all the time. the scaling punishment is the only thing that's actually right, but it's bundled with two of the worst possible rules that you could pair such a change with. remove the other two, only one of the three rules makes sense from a structural standpoint, and the worst part is that due to the unneeded two, that one acceptable rule becomes the worst of the three.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

My problem is, there is no reason to target a specific set of rules but change the layout of all of them. YCM literally can never get its sheet together because it honestly is handled in a sheet manner, with every mod kind of pissing their own path in the snow. Which, none of that will change anyways and YCM will go back to what it was. No one is going to give a funk after a while, simply because this site is just a place for personal anguish and do whatever the funk you want. That is what people on this forum are used to.

tbh it almost feels like the entirety of the rules need to be removed and rewritten, with some input from members, to actually create something...workable and easily understood and enforced. I think there are still leftover rules in some places that completely clash with others.

[Simping For Hina]

There needs to be a more united front from the mods before that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm gonna say we should honestly go in the other direction. There aren't enough 13 year olds joining YCM, if anything we should appeal to the 17-23 branch that actually does stuff here

[Simping For Hina]

On the same side as Winter. Nothing will change once the rules go back to the way the were because no one actually gives a funk. And those who do only expect change because they want to make this place better, when it will never be.

[VCR_CAT]

I'm gonna say we should honestly go in the other direction. There aren't enough 13 year olds joining YCM, if anything we should appeal to the 17-23 branch that actually does stuff here

 

How about no.

 

 

 

Alright, good work everyone. Meeting adjourned. Really felt like we got some stuff done today; really feeling it.

[vla1ne]

How about no.

 

 

 

Alright, good work everyone. Meeting adjourned. Really felt like we got some stuff done today; really feeling it.

got a reason for wrapping this up or is it just that? 

 

he's not completely wrong, your average person on this site joins when they're 15-17 (in my case i lurked for over a year, made a spurt to 1000 posts, went cold turkey, and then steadied out), that's old enough to know why your balls dropped. appealing to the younger crowd is nice, but these rules aren't how you go about it.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

The new sexual content rule is NOT intended to ban ALL sexual-related content from YCM, but rather just explicit topics and images. Certain levels of sexuality/discussion are fine. Keep it PG-16 and you're fine.

 

I'll bring up the two things that warranted a discussion of the matter; both of which were brought up among the rest of us for discussion.
 
1. AEZ's statuses on certain sexual acts and their kink game in Games would be considered as inappropriate, especially the former. Yes, most of us are of legal age and have/heard of sexual content at least a few times, but you do not post a status about how to lube your private area for sex among other things. 
 
2. Moog's thread had images that were pushing it in terms of sexuality (which was either excessively large breasts, scanty clothing or otherwise provocative). There were images in there that were fine. In terms of their current signature, it is pushing boundaries (although it is a furry with a bare chest laying on a bed). 
 
I have no problem with sexual images or content up to a certain point, but the other staff members will have their own definitions of what is acceptable. What one of us deems appropriate may not be to another. The same goes for the rule on swearing. 
 
As already mentioned several times in this thread, some members do not appreciate seeing comments about sexual acts in threads/statuses. 
 
----

I know Winter brought up something about ISIS/Daesh burning a man; that is still a graphic image and will be penalized accordingly. The same goes for other explicit images, such as a person being literally sawed in half, mutilated (dead) bodies, person/animal defecating, etc. We will still punish you for posting graphic images, but the sexual issue was mentioned because there needs to be a standard so that you all have free reign to post while keeping this family-friendly. 

----
 

On sexual content:
 

1. Refer to buttocks in the rules, not asses.

2. Ban anuses.

3. Give better reference(s) on what is considered abnormally large.
4. Also ban abnormally large buttocks (asses) that are not emphasised. (Also, just what is considered "emphasised," and why aren't abnormally large breasts just lumped into the category of emphasised breasts? At the momemt, I am just assuming that it means "focused on," so as to differentiate abnormal largeness from it, but further clarification in the rules is needed.)
5. Also ban the abnormally large bulges of genitalia that are not emphasised.
6. Allow more forms of sexual discussion, such that I can say things about Rewas.
7. Explicitly say in the rules that nipples are explicit territory. (Does this include male nipples?)
8. Clarify on whether the rules differentiate between breasts and nipples. Are abnormally large nipples on small or normal-sized breasts allowed, for example? (Also, is this question considered offending sexual discussion under these new rules?)
10. Lack of clothing in which certain areas? And on what? Is an exposed arm, or an unclothed dildo, rack, or stick, against the rules? (I'm not trying to be pedantic; the rules need to be more clear. Right now it appears that it's trying to dance around the fact that it should specify which areas of the human body should be covered in images.)
11. Are depictions/images of sex toys and/or other inorganic sexual items considered inappropriate? If so, also ban them.

 

1. That can be done, although we can just rewrite it to "butts". 

 

2. Can be done, and supposed to be banned too. 

 

3. Abnormally large breasts, butt cheeks and genitalia. Large muscles and legs are fine. 

 

4. That can be done, and that was also discussed. Emphasized being that the focus is on a particular part of the body (i.e. swimsuit girl on the beach; artist decides to focus the image on her butt or her breasts)

 

5. That should've been implied in areas emphasizing the genitals, but sure. Normal size bulges are fine. 

 

6. You guys can talk about romance and the like; stuff like abstinence, STDs and other discussions that aren't going explicitly into adult territory are fine. In terms of fanfics (as a member PM'd me about this), provided you are not explicitly going into details about sexual contact and just implying it, you're fine.

 

7. We'll need to talk about it amongst each other (referring to mod discussions), but male nipples should be fine.

 

8. I would advise not posting images with extremely large nipples on otherwise acceptable size breasts. And no, it's fine, considering you're trying to ask about what's fine and what isn't. 

 

10. Images of males can be bare-chested / wear tank tops but otherwise should be wearing shorts (speedos are fine). Female ones are slightly more difficult, but bikini girls are generally fine. At a minimum, the genital area needs to be covered. 

 

Arms and legs can be exposed, assuming there is no offensive content on them otherwise. 

 

11. Yeah, dildos/sex toys are considered to be adult material. 

 

----

We're not being North Korea and censoring everything inappropriate for small children / punishing you harder, but we need to keep this site age-appropriate and amiable for all members (some of us do not want to read explicit statuses/posts about sex). 

 

Basically, would you be fine viewing this site publicly?

[Susie]

The new sexual content rule is NOT intended to ban ALL sexual-related content from YCM, but rather just explicit topics and images. Certain levels of sexuality/discussion are fine. Keep it PG-16 and you're fine.

 

I'll bring up the two things that warranted a discussion of the matter; both of which were brought up among the rest of us for discussion.

 

1. AEZ's statuses on certain sexual acts and their kink game in Games would be considered as inappropriate, especially the former. Yes, most of us are of legal age and have/heard of sexual content at least a few times, but you do not post a status about how to lube your private area for sex among other things. 

 

2. Moog's thread had images that were pushing it in terms of sexuality (which was either excessively large breasts, scanty clothing or otherwise provocative). There were images in there that were fine. In terms of their current signature, it is pushing boundaries (although it is a furry with a bare chest laying on a bed).

 

This leaves better but it still isnt really exactly implied by the rules themselves, the way it was worded really seemed the opposite and that things were getting worse. I dont really see how my siggy is pushing PG-16, its just a bare chest with nothing else being shown, but if it really is that big of a deal ill get rid of it as silly as I think that is.

[Shradow]

If that's a male furry in your sig then I don't see the problem, personally. We can joke about equality in the sexual depiction of genders all day (such as the common "shirtless on the beach for both genders" sort of thing), but in society no one really cares about a bare-chested male. Admittedly the posing of the image is questionable, but not offensively so, imo.

[Arimetal]

If that's a male furry in your sig then I don't see the problem, personally. We can joke about equality in the sexual depiction of genders all day (such as the common "shirtless on the beach for both genders" sort of thing), but in society no one really cares about a bare-chested male. Admittedly the posing of the image is questionable, but not offensively so, imo.

It's a male, so I think it's fine

 

---------------------

Sakura, you didn't really answer the question on the limit of bust size and the like. Like what is large? D Cups? Cuz saying abnormally large can mean like Eiken level stuff.

[Susie]

If that's a male furry in your sig then I don't see the problem, personally. We can joke about equality in the sexual depiction of genders all day (such as the common "shirtless on the beach for both genders" sort of thing), but in society no one really cares about a bare-chested male. Admittedly the posing of the image is questionable, but not offensively so, imo.

 

Yes its male, there be no booby here.

 

Sakura, you didn't really answer the question on the limit of bust size and the like. Like what is large? D Cups? Cuz saying abnormally large can mean like Eiken level stuff.

 

Theres other stuff too, a lot of the wording in the new rules is too vague, open to interpretation, and loose-ended. Like Sakura said different mods have different personal lewd standards, so with that in mind we should really make the definition of whats 2hardcore4YCM more clear and strict, and also considering that the broad wording was part of what made this shitstorm over the new rules start.

 

Im quite sure that abnormally was like Eiken level/Hyper furry level of boobd. But yeah that could be more clear.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm gonna say we should honestly go in the other direction. There aren't enough 13 year olds joining YCM, if anything we should appeal to the 17-23 branch that actually does stuff here

Well actually there's still a ton of underage kids joining, maybe not being very active, but they are here. Which brings us to the issue of potentially eliminating the possibility of them joining weighed against not allowing certain things to appeal to older crowds.

Plus I am unsure about legal issues but I don't think we can shift to a more mature site because of how YCM is advertised and the amount of guests that come and go all the time.

But in any case to me it's kinda like this.

 

Keep certain sexual things away, some older members don't get to do everything they want and have to keep that to themselves/other sites

or

Let them happen and alienate younger/less comfortable members.

 

To me that's kinda how it feels like, and I'd rather not alienate a whole group to give a perk to another.