[Reminder & Discussion] Sexual Content

[Blake]

While the site is surely not a family friendly one, despite the moniker for YGO being "children's card game", the team WOULD like to remind you all that the site is to be kept PG17 or under.

 

Pornography and overly risqué images and discussions will not be tolerated. Talks of sexual positions, touching of oneself or others, and so forth, though case by case examples exist, of course.

 

This is not a new rule, but merely bringing to attention the rules that already existed. I hope this serves to assuage some of your fears, as we don't want to police your thoughts or tell you not to be yourselves, merely to not expose minors to outright sexual content. Given the site's public nature, this does apply, basically... Everywhere.

 

And what I've covered is only based on our existing rules, not what may be, so that there is no contention towards the mod team or the rule, which has always existed.

 

The actual rule based on this information is still being debated and discussed in the mod forum, but feel free to chip in thoughts about the draft that you, the members, saw last month, or what you think should be done about members who post such content.

 

Discussion is good, and the new rule, or lack-thereof, could certainly use some input to help move the process along.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Can I ask what brought about this rule (a month ago)

 

I haven't noticed and over-abundance of people posting tits and dicks everywhere. It just seems like unnecessary bureaucracy.

 

Don't post porn. Clean and simple. I don't think anyone is so innocent that a blowjob joke will cause a brain implosion 

[Goose]

Can you clarify in the actual rule thread that it's PG17 and not PG13 as that thread implies? It's been over a month guys, get y'all sheet together.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

We're getting to it; just be patient while it's been fixed. 

 

Can I ask what brought about this rule (a month ago)

 

I haven't noticed and over-abundance of people posting tits and dicks everywhere. It just seems like unnecessary bureaucracy.

 

Don't post porn. Clean and simple. I don't think anyone is so innocent that a blowjob joke will cause a brain implosion 

 

I think I explained it in that discussion thread in Debates a month or so ago, but I'll reiterate the reasoning in short form. 

 

Basically, stuff like Kitty/AEZ posting things about lubing yourself for sex (among other adult topics like kinks) and Moog's thread containing images from e621 (most of you know this is a porn site, correct?). There were SOME acceptable images (or ones that wouldn't be classified as pushing the border); others were either touching it / already passed. Former instance is certainly banworthy; latter basically sparked a talk about the images in question, and that a definitive standard for acceptable images/content needed to be implemented. 

 

Like Black mentioned, this rule has always been around, but the addition was simply a reiteration and more specifics on the matter. We never intended to restrict content to PG-13 (the original wording was bad, yes, and should've said PG-16), but rather be more specific about what is allowed and what isn't (and get a common standard that the team as a whole can use).

 

We are working on a specific draft to address said specifics, but otherwise, just keep it PG-16/17 in terms of content. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I really don't get it. You learn about sex when you're in 5-6th grade. Lubing just doesn't seem like it's that far out there. I get that there are laws about posting porn, but it seems like an over-reaction to a degree. But ok, I'm just wondering what the appeal process is for bans off this rule is. Not really eager to get banned for making a dick

 

Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

 

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003).

 

It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998). The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

 

Is this what you guys are worried about? Not entirely sure "lubing" violates any of that

[Airride]

I really don't get it. You learn about sex when you're in 5-6th grade.

Just chipping in that, as a Texan, no. We got nothing of the sort. Like, ever, even in High School. 

[EndUser]

Just asking for additional information:

 

Instead of trying to remind us of this at times, have you actually had reports from annoyed/embarred/young people or is it simply because you're ...kinda "pressured" to do it?

Also, what about the rest of the things that shouldn't be violated? Do they appear less as a problem, compared to the current one?

[~~~~]

Here's the thing y'all not getting:

 

We don't just need to stay within the law. We need to be entirely and unambiguously safe for children. 

This is because of the following situation.

 

What if a soccer mom takes YCMaker to court over YCM? He would put up no resistance and YCM would be gone forever. ;_;

[Blake]

Here's the thing y'all not getting:

 

We don't just need to stay within the law. We need to be entirely and unambiguously safe for children. 

This is because of the following situation.

 

What if a soccer mom takes YCMaker to court over YCM? He would put up no resistance and YCM would be gone forever. ;_;

The youngest a person can join YCM without a parent signing what is, more or less, a waiver is 13. Our concern is members witchin 13-17.

 

We cannot control if someone tries to make a court case, but the site has no upper age limit, and the rules, as they are, are based on PG16-17.

 

If you want to make a case for why it should be stricter, feel free to do so, but dot use emotional and/or somewhat hyperbolic examples to do it, as that felt like a pinch of both. Not too much, but.

 

Just asking for additional information:

Instead of trying to remind us of this at times, have you actually had reports from annoyed/embarred/young people or is it simply because you're ...kinda "pressured" to do it?

Also, what about the rest of the things that shouldn't be violated? Do they appear less as a problem, compared to the current one?

While I don't think we should have named an example, as happened above...

 

It's the law. We aren't allowed to expose minors to sexual content, among other things. And the opposite is also an issue, were a minor to expose an adult to it, it could go horribly wrong.

 

There's obviously going to be some issue on the members' parts, but the rule is there for a reason, and the original one wouldn't be changing any time soon, at least not to enable R-rated content.

 

@Winter: That and the rest of that regrettably named example refer to sexual actions. What makes that particular example even worse is that it was, in fact, between an adult and a minor. Names will not be divulged.

[~~~~]

The youngest a person can join YCM without a parent signing what is, more or less, a waiver is 13. Our concern is members witchin 13-17.

 

We cannot control if someone tries to make a court case, but the site has no upper age limit, and the rules, as they are, are based on PG16-17.

 

If you want to make a case for why it should be stricter, feel free to do so, but dot use emotional and/or somewhat hyperbolic examples to do it, as that felt like a pinch of both. Not too much, but.

So, if you're not censoring YCM because some oversensitive parent might take YCMaker to court, then why are you censoring it? Do you actually mean that you want to stay within the law for the sake of it? Because YCM could break the law and if no-one challenges it, we'd be fine. But YCM could also stay well within the law and be challenged, which would probably result in the site being taken down, since YCMaker doesn't seem to give 2 hoots about this site.

 

What I'm saying is that I think the priority should be on reducing the risk of someone legally challenging YCM. I don't know what that would entail, but there are people who might do so over a "blowjob joke" as Winter puts it.

[Blake]

Dammit m pocket refreshed the page

 

talk of sexual acts: bad

Dancing Zootopia Tigers: fine

The WORD penis, in terms of a clinical or social discussion: fine

 

We are looking to lockout explicit activities, at present, but not content that does not go over the line. Nudity, pornography, talk of sexual acts, etc are explicit.

 

There is a debate to what degree of nudity constitutes such (I.E. girls in bikinis), but the gist is there.

 

Also YCMaker cares about the money, so.

[Aerion Brightflame]

OFF-T: Just to clarify my ability to swear freely isn't impacted right? Technically it's all censored out anyway, but I thought I'd ask.

 

OT: If we wanted to discussion a topic or tv show or game say that would be past the age limit, if we put a disclaimer in the topic title would that be acceptable? I.E. - Mature content inside or some variation of that topic

 

Likewise if discussions end up escalating to that sort of thing (Because it's YCM, it's bound to happen at least once) can we retroactively make an edit to the topic title to reflect said change so that the discussion wouldn't have to just stop then and there?#

 

Essentially whilst obviously porn would still be a no-go, there's still discussions that can be had which are above PG-17 that would be interesting at some point in time. 

[Dad]

OFF-T: Just to clarify my ability to swear freely isn't impacted right? Technically it's all censored out anyway, but I thought I'd ask.

 

No, it should not be impacted at all.  I know 13 year olds who swear more than I do.

 

 

OT: If we wanted to discussion a topic or tv show or game say that would be past the age limit, if we put a disclaimer in the topic title would that be acceptable? I.E. - Mature content inside or some variation of that topic

 

Likewise if discussions end up escalating to that sort of thing (Because it's YCM, it's bound to happen at least once) can we retroactively make an edit to the topic title to reflect said change so that the discussion wouldn't have to just stop then and there?#

 

Essentially whilst obviously porn would still be a no-go, there's still discussions that can be had which are above PG-17 that would be interesting at some point in time. 

 

Are you asking if discussing R-Rated movies is okay, or are you asking if discussing pornographic adaptations of a series is acceptable?  Because there's a fine line between both.  And while I personally don't think we need to be monitoring movies harder than it is now (because sex scenes are bound to happen in some of them, and the discussion will come up eventually), I do believe that showing some restraint shouldn't be hard.

 

Mentioning the sex scene is fine.  Going into every single detail about it is ban worthy.

[Smear]

With swearing keep in mind that excessive swearing is still a warn-worthy offence. Swearing casually is allowed. This has always been the case, this is just a reminder.

[Simping For Hina]

Question:

 

Was this post not appropriate? If not, funk the system, man. I stopped talking about masturbating and I have kept to posting porn that was visually appealing, and not risky.

[~~~~]

Question:

 

Was this post not appropriate? If not, f*** the system, man. I stopped talking about masturbating and I have kept to posting porn that was visually appealing, and not risky.

 

 

visually appealing

In the context of porn, this is ridiculous

[Simping For Hina]

In the context of porn, this is ridiculous

You should see some of the angles since it is just me trying to take the pictures. No camera men or anything.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Thank funk for that. 

 

Are you asking if discussing R-Rated movies is okay, or are you asking if discussing pornographic adaptations of a series is acceptable?  Because there's a fine line between both.  And while I personally don't think we need to be monitoring movies harder than it is now (because sex scenes are bound to happen in some of them, and the discussion will come up eventually), I do believe that showing some restraint shouldn't be hard.

 

Mentioning the sex scene is fine.  Going into every single detail about it is ban worthy.

 

I'm asking if discussion on topics that would be 18+ but not pornographic would be infringed upon by this. Game of Thrones is the obvious example - It's a show and a piece of literature that features sexual content and violence quite brazenly, and would technically be beyond the age limit we are trying to impose. 

 

I understand that the idea of the rule is to cut out sexual content because we can't ensure that those who read are entirely above the age of consent to view such topics of there own accord. But that logically extends to more than just sexual content. 

 

Essentially I'm asking so long as it's not outright posting porn or graphic violence for the sake of posting that, but if say if there was a discussion on a terrorist attack and there was footage of said attack, and I put a disclaimer for mature/disturbing content could that still be posted for the sake of it being relevant to the discussion?

 

Likewise with shows and games so long as a disclaimer is given in the topic thread, would otherwise non pornographic R rated content (Like Deadpool, or GTA) be allowed? This is a bit silly to ask, but it's an issue I had with the first iteration of the rule and I don't feel it was addressed well enough. 

[Dad]

Thank funk for that. 

 

 

I'm asking if discussion on topics that would be 18+ but not pornographic would be infringed upon by this. Game of Thrones is the obvious example - It's a show and a piece of literature that features sexual content and violence quite brazenly, and would technically be beyond the age limit we are trying to impose. 

 

I understand that the idea of the rule is to cut out sexual content because we can't ensure that those who read are entirely above the age of consent to view such topics of there own accord. But that logically extends to more than just sexual content. 

 

Essentially I'm asking so long as it's not outright posting porn or graphic violence for the sake of posting that, but if say if there was a discussion on a terrorist attack and there was footage of said attack, and I put a disclaimer for mature/disturbing content could that still be posted for the sake of it being relevant to the discussion?

 

Likewise with shows and games so long as a disclaimer is given in the topic thread, would otherwise non pornographic R rated content (Like Deadpool, or GTA) be allowed? This is a bit silly to ask, but it's an issue I had with the first iteration of the rule and I don't feel it was addressed well enough. 

 

No, those types of topics would not be infringed upon necessarily.  But you'd better believe we'd be watching them.  Those types of topics tend to blow up with sheet posts, personal attacks, and more.  So while the topic itself wouldn't be forbidden, it would be a heavily guarded topic.

[Susie]

Never noticed this thread until now but im quite glad that were finally getting some light shed onto this. Just out of curiosity was the recommendation of putting lewder material in spoilers considered, I know there was some people who thought that was a good idea.

[Blake]

Never noticed this thread until now but im quite glad that were finally getting some light shed onto this. Just out of curiosity was the recommendation of putting lewder material in spoilers considered, I know there was some people who thought that was a good idea.

Yes, that has been brought up, but one criticism of it is that... It's common sense.

 

We cannot allow content that goes into the 18+ territory, and otherwise, nsfw beign spoilered just seems like common sense, so it may be too heavy handed as a rule.

[Susie]

Yes, that has been brought up, but one criticism of it is that... It's common sense.

 

We cannot allow content that goes into the 18+ territory, and otherwise, nsfw beign spoilered just seems like common sense, so it may be too heavy handed as a rule.

 

So if I wanted to post something that was say pushing it such as the whole hyper breasts, exposed female chests or such it would be common sense? I get that it is a bit common but it would be nice to point out what is pushing it too much and get into the fact that they should be used considering that spoilers have been rarely used for lewd material in the past here. Theres nothing harmful with specifying something thats a bit more common sense within the rules.

[Blake]

So if I wanted to post something that was say pushing it such as the whole hyper breasts, exposed female chests or such it would be common sense? I get that it is a bit common but it would be nice to point out what is pushing it too much and get into the fact that they should be used considering that spoilers have been rarely used for lewd material in the past here. Theres nothing harmful with specifying something thats a bit more common sense within the rules.

But your points only further show the issues with making this rule. Everything seems to be too heavy handed or too open ended, and it's made this process a pain.

 

Spoilers should be common sense, but yeah, they seem to not be for some reason, yet it CAN be seen as overbearing easily.

[Susie]

But your points only further show the issues with making this rule. Everything seems to be too heavy handed or too open ended, and it's made this process a pain.

 

Spoilers should be common sense, but yeah, they seem to not be for some reason, yet it CAN be seen as overbearing easily.

 

So with that being said would somebody still be able to get away with having things such as groping, upper female nudity, hyper breasts, male bulges, suggestive poses etc. in a spoiler so long as they dont have genitalia, full on sex, or are linked from an 18+ website because technically those things dont go against PG-17 but they arent necessarily what everyone would wanna see.

[Blake]

So with that being said would somebody still be able to get away with having things such as groping, upper female nudity, hyper breasts, male bulges, suggestive poses etc. in a spoiler so long as they dont have genitalia, full on sex, or are linked from an 18+ website because technically those things dont go against PG-17 but they arent necessarily what everyone would wanna see.

Female chest nudity is a plain no. Hyper breasts are a contention, but lean to no. Bulges seem like a no, though that's not been discussed, and suggestive poses seem very case-to-case.

 

If it's from an 18+ site, rehost it before posting, as not to lead people to the source.