Inappropriate content

[meatfactory]

Just to clarify some stuff...



This is sexual content -

click

Anyone saying otherwise is WRONG (put kindly and polite).

There were some users in the past with similar avatars and maybe there still are. Mind the following.
We have this really awesome thing on the hive called Site Rules and this thing about posting sexual content...

I know what some of the "aristocracy" on the site thinks on the matter, but consider this.
If you think such avatars are "family friendly" grab your kids and show them such images or better yet take em' to a gay club or something.

 

[BloodDrunk]

Total agreement.

 

[Tanasren]

No, it's sensual.

Ok its not

 

[Shadow Fury]

Can you please hide this between HIDDEN tags?
Anyway, I fully agree with this.

 

[Wasabee]

I agree with your opinion.

 

[Ardenian]

There were some users in the past with similar avatars and maybe there still are. Mind the following.
We have this really awesome thing on the hive called Site Rules and this thing about posting sexual content...

I don't get the use of this thread. Yes, it is sexual content and therefore against the rules, but why is it your business ? I am sure moderators and admins will take care of it and therefore there is no need to outline this in a thread ( especially because there are two DUDES kissing)

 

[meatfactory]

I don't get the use of this thread. Yes, it is sexual content and therefore against the rules, but why is it your business ? I am sure moderators and admins will take care of it and therefore there is no need to outline this in a thread ( especially because there are two DUDES kissing)

If I created such a topic, there is a reason for it.

"I am sure moderators and admins will take care of it and therefore there is no need to outline this in a thread"

Wanna bet?

Can you please hide this between HIDDEN tags?
Anyway, I fully agree with this.

Done

 

[Ardenian]

Wanna bet?

I agree that the 'aristocracy' of Hive does not really take care of most things ( although there are MANY of them who do take care), but in case a picture is reported they surely will take care of it.

( EDIT: aristocracy = high-reputated, old members ; not necessarily only moderators)

 

[Heinvers]

( EDIT: aristocracy = high-reputated, old members ; not necessarily only moderators)

Yeah, ummm....no.

 

[meatfactory]

I agree that the 'aristocracy' of Hive does not really take care of most things ( although there are MANY of them who do take care), but in case a picture is reported they surely will take care of it.

( EDIT: aristocracy = high-reputated, old members ; not necessarily only moderators)

Optimist

 

[chr2]

Just out of curiosity; would you have a problem with this had it been a man and a woman kissing?

 

[Orcnet]

There were some users in the past with similar avatars and maybe there still are.

And yes, during in some part of that timeline, there were huge amounts of arguments and clarifications from a lot of users before all settled in a neutral result: We all just let it go.

There was also a time I thought it was also based on sexual content, but I would like to remind that being gay is somehow already been considered acceptable to most of the world, so I'll agree it is only sensual to the public.

Sensual, as for the examples that can be based on our mod is similar as seeing an Night Elf (and all elf women) Archer wearing less clothing, The Harpy(lol), and most of the humanoids of the fantasy genre that resembles fit, muscular, or really toned bodies as I think that could presume.

As long as its a kiss, hug, or smiling together on a picture that may be on the same gender, I'd say its fine.

As for the site rules, we wouldn't allow images that may cropped out from sex-related contents such as near pinpoints of the reproductive system(I'm too shy to say it, I meant to say penis or vegena), or the obvious - intercourse.

 

[meatfactory]

Just out of curiosity; would you have a problem with this had it been a man and a woman kissing?

I would still consider it sexual content (depending on a few things).

 

[SA Dashie]

Just out of curiosity; would you have a problem with this had it been a man and a woman kissing?

Or two girls wemon for example?

 

[Wasabee]

It still should be.

 

[Ardenian]

Yeah, ummm....no.

You don't agree that especially very old and experienced users hardly care about new ones ? Of course, it is not a general rule, I could name atleast five members for instance that take more care of newbies than anyone else, but in my opinion there are some users that do not act kind towards newbies, or to say, they act rude and selfish and their 'aristocracy' protects their behaviour .
I am sorry for going off-topic.

Just out of curiosity; would you have a problem with this had it been a man and a woman kissing?

I thought about asking the same question as I had the feeling that meatfactory has a problem with the gay topic, not with the sexual content itself.
As Orcnet pointed out, homosexuality is nothing special today and I don't think two men kissing as profile picture are such a great problem. It is sensitive, maybe sexual to some users, but it is not up to us to decide what is against the rules, but up to Ralle and his fellows.

 

[Heinvers]

You don't agree that especially very old and experienced users hardly care about new ones?

I don't agree about your definition of what is and what's not 'aristocracy' around.

...in my opinion there are some users that do not act kind towards newbies, or to say, they act rude and selfish and their 'aristocracy' protects their behavior.

I haven't seen such behavior coalescing like you say.
Honestly, I mean really really honestly some of the new users are fairly dumb and annoying(with exceptions as always).
They always want this, want that, want everything around to be served for them.
I wouldn't blame them if they'd really behave cold towards nobs around seeing their actions and annoyances.

Tbh a bad/dumb behavior deserved a cold response.

 

[Celaquil]

his is sexual content -
click


Anyone saying otherwise is WRONG (put kindly and polite).

Is the mouth a sexual organ?

And if so, would your honest opinion be that this
picture should be disallowed by the site rules?

Before you start blurting out improper assessments I suggest you stop to consider the
validity in what you claim. There is a clear distinction between sexual and sensual
content. Now, I respect your right to find gay couples kissing appalling, but I do not
respect your opinion that images portraying gay love should be prohibited. (Should that
be the case.)

 

[Kazeon]

I find the gif picture at the main post is so disturbing. It obviously seems unpleasing for some people's eyes. THW is the only forum I have ever visited which allows such pictures to be displayed in public places (except porn related forums of course).

I pretend you allow such thing not just because one of our moderator also use that picture as his avatar several times ago.

 

[SA Dashie]

And if so, would your honest opinion be that this
picture should be disallowed by the site rules?

Yes maybe so, although the original picture suggests more on the sexually suggestive side of things while the marries couple are celebrating their coming together.

The OP's pic suggests a more hit in the face gif showing to be more obvious while the latter suggests a little more of an Innocent act.

Either way, yes they do have similar argument but I am not really one to judge if showing this as your avatar is the right way to go (I guess lol).

 

[Ardenian]

I don't agree about your definition of what is and what's not 'aristocracy' around.

To be honest, I don't know what to call exactly 'aristocracy'. I miss words to express what I mean exactly, but 'aristocracy' is the most matching term. I also heard something like 'Ralle is the king', but this is not what I am referring to.
Basically, I mean there are especially old members that are like 'aristocrats', that means Hive is in some kind their playground and newbies are like dust in front of the castle.

I haven't seen such behavior coalescing like you say.
Honestly, I mean really really honestly some of the new users are fairly dumb and annoying(with exceptions as always).
They always want this, want that, want everything around to be served for them.
I wouldn't blame them if they'd really behave cold towards nobs around seeing their actions and annoyances.

Tbh a bad/dumb behavior deserved a cold response.

I think it is against the rules to blaim users / 'harrassing' about them. But I noticed it several times, starting with no response to questions, no reaction to requests and getting further to kind of calling you noob and worthless, with other words. I am actually surprised that you haven't seen such a behaviour as it happens often.
I agree with you, new users, especially with low English skills, are a pain, but I don't agree with your 'cold response'. It is not polite to not answer, just ignoring them. It is not difficult to write or even CnP a short message explaining that you have projects on-going and no time for them.

 

[Celaquil]

Yes maybe so, although the original picture suggests more on the sexually suggestive side of things while the marries couple are celebrating their coming together.

See, this is my point exactly. Strip away the fact that the picture is of a guy and girl,
and the fact that they are in "holy matrimony", and what do you have? still two people
simply kissing. It has to do with norm-based behaviour and perception, put something
in the right setting and people will accept it, put it in the "wrong" setting and people
will reject it, but the core aspect of the situation is still the same, and rules shouldn't
be biased like that, they should be direct and fair. Which, as I stated, in this case they
are.

If we are to disallow the OP picture, then we'd have to disallow people to post pictures
of themselves marrying their loved ones in the picture thread. I don't find that fair at
all.

Any act of passion is sensual, and most sensual situations have a sexual interpretation,
but the rule doesn't concern what the people involved are "thinking about", the rule has
to do with prohibiting pornographic content, and I will not agree that neither the picture
I posted nor the OP picture is of pornographic value. This is why it doesn't go against
the rules. Simple as that.

That all aside, this has already been discussed before, and the consensus was that it is
not against the rules, I am not inclined to have this discussion again.

 

[SA Dashie]

Yeh this is just cause it doesn't go by the norms of peoples general attraction and seems off putting to the way they feel towards the picture.
Sort of like how I find it disturbing myself. :/
Of course some people can be off put by a man and a woman kissing to.

This site doesn't necessarily fully support family friendly restrictions, so if this is the way you are fine with things I'm not one to stop it necessarily.

 

[meatfactory]

Yes maybe so, although the original picture suggests more on the sexually suggestive side of things while the marries couple are celebrating their coming together.

The OP's pic suggests a more hit in the face gif showing to be more obvious while the latter suggests a little more of an Innocent act.

Agreed.

Keiji, The sexuality of the gif has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants in it. It would still be sexual if it was male-female or even female-female kissing intensely like that. I don't have a problem with gay people. I dislike it when pictures of gay couples making out are thrown in my face from a gaming site. I disagree with your comparison between the two pictures and DeathChef explained the reason. I don't want any reactions from you, I just had something on my mind and I wrote it. Your presence on this thread is not mandatory.

 

[Celaquil]

Your presence on this thread is not mandatory.

Correct, but I, as much as anyone else, am inclined to take part in a discussion if I want
to, and that is what I am doing here, as well as offering an explanation of how this is not
against the rules from the staffs perspective.

The sexuality of the gif has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants in it.

And I repeat again, the rule is not in place to protect teenage kids from slightly
offsetting gifs, it is in place to prevent pornographic content. I could be inclined
to agree that something should be done if suddenly a majority of the community
set large gifs like this as their signatures, that then it would be distracting, and
we are currently debating the issue of flashy and distracting signatures on the
staff board, so there might be news in this regard sometime soon.

However, a small 100x100 avatar can be easily ignored, so no, I still don't see any
rational reasoning to prohibit it. Either deal with it, or convince the larger part of our
community to protest and present rational arguments. Do that, and maybe we'll
consider changing our view. But based on the former thread where this was discussed,
the consensus was to allow it.

 

[N.Knight]

@Keiji
Fully agreed

The issue here is not very convincing, its like making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[MasterHaosis]

I agree with meatfactory and Quilnez and few others about that.
I find myself that picture disguising and ugly. I think that people should discuss more about that, and this thread should go in Site discussion rather than off topic

 

[Chaosy]

I as many others find the picture disgusting. I would not like someone to use a gif of two straight people kissing either. I admit that I would care less if it were a straight couple, but I would definitely not prefer it.

Using a gif makes it even worse since it's harder to ignore it. I use a .GIF avatar but you barely see it moving unless you look in that direction. Meanwhile the gay avatar got much more movement going on. Make it a normal .png image and you'd put away 50% of my frustration. Sadly putting up a rule about sexual content in a form of .gif images are forbidden would be ridiculous.

 

[SA Dashie]

I feel a loophole happening here.

 

[Ralle]

I like how you may have tried to boost the gain of people's agreement by posting a gay picture and not a straight one. The gender on these people does not matter in reality.

Also, how do you know that these two men don't live in a REAL country where gay marriage is permitted?

Sorry, let my anger come out there.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

13. No pornographic/sexual/vulgar/obscene/gory content
- This is not that kind of site. Any topic should be family friendly.

Let's do a breakdown of the rule, shall we?

Is the OP pornographic?
-I don't see anyone's genitals so I'd wager the answer is "no".
Moving on

Is the OP sexual?
-While this is a more open one, I'd still dare say the answer would be "no"
since kissing is widely regarded as okay in public and thus would not make
sense for it to be sexual (again, this is open to individual interpretation)

Is the OP vulgar?
-write vulgar in Google images, tell me if you see 2 people kissing. Again,
this can also be interpreted with a sexual implication in mind but I'm inclined to believe most people don't immediately think of sex when they hear "Kiss".

Is the OP obscene?
-"(of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency."
By accepted standards kissing is not considered sexual or indecent"

Is the OP gory?
-This is self explanatory.

My opinion? I don't believe we should be going on a wild witch hunt because of a sensual gif. Sure, it's close to overstepping the bounds but until that happens I do not believe we should be burning anyone at the stakes now, right? As for grabbing my children and and showing them this kind of content, I feel I should remind 1 thing. Wc3 is rated at 12+ thus anything okay for 12 and up is also generally going to be okay here and most 12-year-olds are exposed to far more explicit content in other types of media.

 

[N.Knight]

@don svetlio agreed and very nicely explained. Especially the last part.

I find the whole idea of someone asking for a thing to be taken down because he\she finds it immoral very revolting. Its like asking to impose their sense of morality on everyone else. What if tomorrow someone asks to remove pictures of blacks or redheads to be removed because in their culture they are considered genetically inferior and are looked down.

Secondly, I have seen those avatars and they were small in size, they were on the left side of the screen and a person need only scroll right, or up and down to remove them from their sight if they found them so obnoxious. They were not shot into the face as it is being claimed.

 

[Ralle]

Well said.

It's funny how Wc3 is soon older than its rating.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

@don svetlio agreed and very nicely explained. Especially the last part.

I find the whole idea of someone asking for a thing to be taken down because he\she finds it immoral very revolting. Its like asking to impose their sense of morality on everyone else. What if tomorrow someone asks to remove pictures of blacks or redheads to be removed because in their culture they are considered genetically inferior and are looked down.

Secondly, I have seen those avatars and they were small in size, they were on the left side of the screen and a person need only scroll right, or up and down to remove them from their sight if they found them so obnoxious. They were not shot into the face as it is being claimed.

Exactly, nobody is forcing someone to view content they don't like and I am sure it could all be easily solved with a polite message or two. Everyone should be ready to make compromises if we want to get along nicely.

Well said.

It's funny how Wc3 is soon older than its rating.

I know right? I feel we should do something to celebrate. An event maybe, a contest? Potato salad? (I'm hungry ._.)

 

[Chaosy]

Exactly, nobody is forcing someone to view content they don't like

Give me the option to block a certain users avatar and I will agree that this is true.

 

[GhostThruster]

Give me the option to block a certain users avatar and I will agree that this is true.

you have the option to block everyone's avatars. join me, i live in blissful ignorance

 

[MasterHaosis]

Give me the option to block a certain users avatar and I will agree that this is true.

Do we have option to ignore certain member's avatar just as we have ,,Hide user customizations" if we do not like it?
I obviously do not want to watch two men kissing themselves

 

[meatfactory]

Its like asking to impose their sense of morality on everyone else.

Oh yeah? Kinda like a user with an avatar imposing their sense of morality by displaying "sensual" content?

Is the OP sexual?
-While this is a more open one, I'd still dare say the answer would be "no"
since kissing is widely regarded as okay in public and thus would not make
sense for it to be sexual (again, this is open to individual interpretation)

(again, this is open to individual interpretation) yes, yes it is.

Is the OP vulgar?
-write vulgar in Google images, tell me if you see 2 people kissing. Again,
this can also be interpreted with a sexual implication in mind but I'm inclined to believe most people don't immediately think of sex when they hear "Kiss".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar

Do we have option to ignore certain member's avatar just as we have ,,Hide user customizations" if we do not like it?
I obviously do not want to watch two men kissing themselves

I agree and also would like to know if such an option is available.

I like how you may have tried to boost the gain of people's agreement by posting a gay picture and not a straight one. The gender on these people does not matter in reality.

- I know it doesn't matter. Why did you even bother writhing this?

Also, how do you know that these two men don't live in a REAL country where gay marriage is permitted?

So, two things:

1st. Is a country not real if it doesn't allow gay marriage?
2nd. Wtf would that even matter, does being married make it less sexual?

I find this image inappropriate and annoying to watch (a specially animated).

 

[Deleted member 212788]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar

I am not sure if I am missing something but as far as I could see, nothing there was related to the issue.
"Vulgar is a Latin word meaning "common" or "pertaining to ordinary people", and can refer to:"
Unless there is a hidden and rare meaning behind either statement, that wikipedia page does not contribute to the discussion.

EDIT: Can't we simply be a bit more open-minded about this? As much as I regret saying this I will go as far as to say that what
you are asking for here is censorship. That I am not okay with.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Two men kissing is sexual? Next you will tell me that women holding hands is also sexual. Then that a mother kissing her own son is an act of paedophilia. Followed by no one under the age of 18 can own a pet because they are naked...

Get real people. Although the image does have slight sexual undertones it does not physically show any sex and so is not sexual by itself.

 

[Tickles]

The kissing is a bit extreme, especially for the type of website this is, but it's clear that it doesn't break any rules.

So for anyone that can't stomach it or any other images they come across, I suggest creating a custom filter/whitelisting the Hive with an ad blocker (to enable ads to support the site). Then all you have to do is right-click any specific images and choose to block them. If you block an avatar like that, you block the source and prevent seeing the avatar again in any posts.

 

[Chaosy]

@Tickles

That's actually true, I never noticed that it could block specific image with adblock. Totally gonna use that feature.

 

[Ralle]

While you're at it. Remember that the ads help pay for this website, even when you don't click on them.

 

[MasterHaosis]

Yes, ads are actually helping, while gay pictures obviously are not. I did not see how is that productive, yet again caused discussions here, so I am strongly supporting that idea of filtering avatar's/signatures

 

[Ardenian]

Yes, ads are actually helping, while gay pictures obviously are not. I did not see how is that productive, yet again caused discussions here, so I am strongly supporting that idea of filtering avatar's/signatures

I disagree. Saying that pictures of gay people does not have any use, you are wrong, in my opinion. Imagine there are no pictures of ANY gay content on the Internet. What would probably happen ? Being gay wouldn't be accepted and stay something unnatural whereas the presence of gay pictures not only mak aware of the topic, but also makes it slightly more acceptable due the confrontation with it. Of course, one could criticise that two gay people kissing show a wrong message or do not constribute to the support movement.

I am glad it is not upt to me to decide this difficult question about ad/avatar blockers.
But I don't think there should exist something like a specific avatar blocker. Maybe you disagree with the user that has the avatar, but it is up to each person what to do with its site, as long as it goes along with the rules. If you have a personal problem, that is not the problem of the person with an 'offensive' avatar, as long as the avatar does not hurt the rules.

 

[meatfactory]

Yes add blocker seems to do the job just fine. If anyone doesn't know it's a addon for firefox or maybe other browsers too.

 

[Chaosy]

It exists for Google Chrome too.

 

[Daffa]

It works in Firefox and Chrome AFAIR, dunno about Safari.
For smartphones and tablets, if Chrome/Firefox(?) for Mobile doesn't supported, try search for some Adblock Browsers like Mercury or Apollo(?).

 

[Dr Super Good]

Blocking the adverts on your favourite sites is not always a good idea, seeing how sites do not run themselves for free.

 

[Tickles]

And that's why it's great how you can customize them to allow advertisements on sites like this while still being able to block content you don't want to see.