Bob 2015/11/04(Wed)07:59 No. 27527 ID: 2a7417
File 144665279953.png - (17.62KB , 805x159 , 1000 hours in MS paint.png )

>>27524
Why do people keep pretending this isn't written right there in the rules?
http://tgchan.org/kusaba/news.php?p=rules

>>27527
Where does it say "NSFW" there? Your lack of reading comprehension offends me, now spoiler everything you say.

The phrases "If you think" and "might be Offensive" really bring out the subjectivity of that rule and practically makes it into a small request.

It's far different from the blunt "Don't post shock images", where one can highlight the word don't.

>>27531
Attempting to rules lawyer this point due to gentle language violates the firmly-worded Rule One.

>>27531
Yeah it's pretty much just "don't be a dick" but with regards to spoilering images.

>>27512
Agreed.

Bob 2015/11/06(Fri)14:33 No. 27540 ID: a788b7
File 144684919851.png - (38.04KB , 1276x497 , RULEZ.png )

>>27527

Let it be known that I don't consent to the presence of 'spoiler/nsfw' cover images in any of my quests if I didn't put them there.

Since, you know, that's the same justification for removing reaction images.

>>27533

I feel like 'forcing other people to censor themselves because I don't want to accidentally see a booby' is a huge dick move. Especially on a site that is banning people for being underage to begin with. So, your post is offensive to me, please delete it in accordance with the rule about making sure nobody has to see something that might offend their sensibilities.

>>27540
I don't really get how you can call spoilering NSFW content "censorship" when it literally takes the absolute minimum amount of input possible on a computer to reveal it. It's really just common courtesy.

>>27541

I don't really get how you can call going into a community and demanding they inconvenience themselves to accommodate your pathological need to not accidentally see a booby anything other than discourteous.

It's a not-worksafe board. Putting up 'NSFW' images all over the front page isn't going to change the message to anyone you link the board to. People will just say 'why are you linking me to a site full of porn' anyway.

It's not a worksafe site to begin with. It never has been. It's fucking hilarious to me how many people (like 4, but still) argue that 'they really like this community so they don't want to go somewhere else to host their quests' while simultaneously saying 'this community should change for the sake of my poor over-clutched pearls." They are completely incompatible statements.

>>27542
Ah yes, clicking a check box, the greatest inconvenience known to mankind. I have nothing against NSFW quests, I frequently enjoy NSFW quests. It's just that sometimes I'm in a situation where I'd both like to use this website and not want onlookers to think I'm looking at porn. And for the most part I'm able to, most people on this website tag their porny stuff, I'd just like to be able to count on that more reliably.

>>27542
"Don't like it, go to China" is rarely a constructive position though.

>>27543
See, the problem is nobody cares what you want. Nobody cares what I want. Nobody cares what any one person short of Dylan wants. And nobody should. One person wanting a thing is not a valid reason to change a site. If you want something, that's your own problem and it's on you to fulfill that.

>>27543

It's more a matter of 'have a bunch of spoiler images scattered around hiding art.'

I don't want to have to expand every image on the board to see it, thumbnails are there to say 'oh hey this looks like it could be neat' and then you expand it. And then you know! But if the image is spoilered that option vanishes. whoops.

Also yes, clicking the checkbox is more effort than I intend to put in. It's too much effort for you to hide threads that you know contain porn when you're going to be looking at the board in a public place, and that's also one click.

>'d both like to use this website and not want onlookers to think I'm looking at porn.

If you're looking at a website with a bunch of images that say 'THIS IMAGE IS NSFW' on it they're going to assume it's a porn site anyway. If they aren't going to look closely enough to notice all the NSFW blocks, they're not looking close enough to notice thumbnail'd porn anyway.

>>27543
Maybe don't look at NSFW sites while in places you don't want to be seen looking at NSFW sites?

I like having options
I don't like being forced into an option
Granted, not a quest author, but I sympathize (empathize?).
Regardless, considering the site's origin and its nature as a chan, well, at that point it should be known that these boards can get a bit groady. In the end though, it should still be up for the author to decide on an individual basis since it IS primarily an art site.

>>27546
>>27547
You know you don't have to expand the spoiler to see the thumbnail, right? You can just hover the mouse over it.

And I think there's quite a difference between showing people a site with some pictures spoilered by "NSFW or spoilers" pics, and a site with dicks and vaginas in full view, isn't there.

>>27549

Still more effort than I'm willing to put in, rather just scroll. Especially since:

> I think there's quite a difference between showing people a site with some pictures spoilered by "NSFW or spoilers" pics, and a site with dicks and vaginas in full view, isn't there.

There really, really isn't.

>>27549
Nope.

>>27550

I disagree. I think there's a large difference, and that after a while, the difference would increase.

>>27558
Your opinion is not relevant.

>>27558

You are incorrect.

This thread is so dumb.

>>27561
>people disagree with me
>better call them dumb!
>baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw

>>27559

What makes your opinion relevant and mine not?

>>27560

You are incorrect.

>>27563

How will it possibly change over time? People seeing NSFW images that have been there for a day will not look at timestamps and know that it is different from NSFW images that have been there for a month.

>>27564

The difference between new and old is that the new ones are, briefly, on the front pages of the various boards, and will be visible to people who have not deliberately chosen to read that particular quest. There are people who don't want to see certain things and, as they stand, if people use the spoiler system courteously, they don't have to; and there are plenty of quests they can still enjoy. The gap of personal responsibility between "I'll click on this quest and whoops it's something I don't like I just won't read it again" and "I can't even go on this site without seeing something that is distasteful to me" is quite large. If people post that sort of thing freely without using the spoilers, then the chance that something of that nature will be on the front pages is quite high, and people who don't want to see that kind of thing will become leery of browsing through the front pages.

If those people are no longer so willing to browse, they will be less likely to pick up new quests and to suggest for them. Those people who DO want to see that sort of thing will become more active, proportionally. As a result, they will start becoming more common as quest makers and suggesters, which will nudge things along to a further increase in the proportion and extremity of content that is currently spoilered. That will push away another further layer of people who don't like the new level that's been reached, the process repeats, and so on.

To be frank, I'm not concerned with things being "NSFW", just that people are showing some sense of respect for the fact that other people have different tastes from their own. If you know that you're posting something that other people using the site would prefer not to be exposed to, and doing so in a way that you would be springing it on those people while they are trying to look at other things they do enjoy, then you should use the spoiler function.

Because it's polite.

"NSFW" is just a catch-all label for those kinds of things, not an indication of what it is that makes them objectionable. I imagine that any entertainment site is not safe to look at while you're at work.

>>27565

tgchan hasn't exactly had problems with growth without forcing spoilers. We have a hide thread feature.

> If you know that you're posting something that other people using the site would prefer not to be exposed to, and doing so in a way that you would be springing it on those people while they are trying to look at other things they do enjoy, then you should use the spoiler function.

There have been people using this site with angry, upset reactions to things like 'characters appearing to be in a relationship.' Like, actual real people have actually thrown fits over unexpectedly being exposed to characters in non-platonic relationships. What makes their offense less genuine than 'I don't want to see a booby?'

People are going to be offended by anything. I think it is better to foster a culture where people shrug and hide something they don't want to see than one where they make it even one half of a step more troublesome for the people who do want to see it to find it.

TGchan has legitimately gotten more complaints from people coming to the site and deciding not to stick around because of seeing talking animals than from coming and seeing dicks. Should we spoiler any picture of a furry? Because that has more of an observable history of being 'damaging to the growth of the community' than any amount of smut.

>>27565

Oh, and:

>Those people who DO want to see that sort of thing will become more active, proportionally. As a result, they will start becoming more common as quest makers and suggesters, which will nudge things along to a further increase in the proportion and extremity of content that is currently spoilered. That will push away another further layer of people who don't like the new level that's been reached, the process repeats, and so on.

If this were the case, tgchan would basically be nothing but porn quests by now. Except the proportion of smutty quests has never really increased even without heavy-handed enforcement of spoiler rules.

>>27567
ay, this bob
this bob gets it

>>27562
"you are incorrect"
I don't even care that much about this "issue" either way. It seems like this thread has deteriorated to people just stating their opinions without even backing them up with an argument.
>>27567
>>27565
>>27568
... or it did when I made that post.

>>27567
>Like, actual real people have actually thrown fits over unexpectedly being exposed to characters in non-platonic relationships.

Well, yes, there will always be someone upset by any particular thing. You can't just dismiss the argument by saying "oh no matter what we do it'll always offend someone", though, because that could excuse any kind of bad manners or discourtesy. I could call you a tremendous cock-snorting faggot scumbag, and answer any accusations of rudeness with "well someone could get offended at anything I might have said". You have to give some consideration to the proportion of people likely to be to have a distaste for any particular thing.

If we assume (without much accuracy, but for purposes of this argument) that people coming to the site are 50% one sex or another, and that of those half again are heterosexual to the point of actively not wanting to see depictions of the genitals of one's own sex in detail, then we can assume that 25% of people coming to the site will feel at least some revulsion, and have their day worsened a little bit, by accidentally being exposed to such an image. If you use spoilers, you prevent that, in exchange for the very mild inconvenience of needing to hover your cursor over an image and then click a link. To be frank, it sounds pretty whiny to complain about what a hassle it is to perform two small actions with your fingers on a mouse, and that people should suck up their issues so that you don't have to.

Hmm. Did I phrase that in a way that could be offensive or provocative? Well, someone could have taken offense no matter how I'd said it.

>If this were the case, tgchan would basically be nothing but porn quests by now. Except the proportion of smutty quests has never really increased even without heavy-handed enforcement of spoiler rules.

Alright, I'll admit that point.

But, that's because porn quests tend to be self-destructive. There was already an explanation as to why that is, elsewhere: >>/questdis/90199

However, even though porn quests don't last long, while they exist they stand a chance of driving people away from the site. The more porn quests there are, the more the effects which drain porn quests of their suggesters, and therefore their ability to keep going, will affect the rest of the site, to a diluted but still present effect. The more easily-visible "NSFW" images there are, the more people will become nervous about linking the site to other people (I myself would love to link this site to some of my friends and family, because I think they would enjoy certain specific quests, but I've felt I can't due to the reaction I anticipate in them if they happen to try browse the rest of the site), and the less keen they'll be to keep coming back and checking up on new quests.

>TGchan has legitimately gotten more complaints from people coming to the site and deciding not to stick around because of seeing talking animals than from coming and seeing dicks.

...

...

yeah but fuck those guys

>>27572

>the more people will become nervous about linking the site to other people (I myself would love to link this site to some of my friends and family, because I think they would enjoy certain specific quests, but I've felt I can't due to the reaction I anticipate in them if they happen to try browse the rest of the site)

It's still a site full of porn. If they browse the site they're still going to run into porn even if it's spoiled. Spoilers aren't going to change that.

>yeah but fuck those guys

okay but you see:

>However, even though porn quests don't last long, while they exist they stand a chance of driving people away from the site.

...

yeah but fuck those guys.

see, YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, in THAT VERY SAME POST, is 'people are more likely to be offended by this particular thing and shrink the community, so it should be spoiled.' It has been repeatedly and statistically shown that people coming by tgchan are more likely to be offended by furries than by dicks. By your own argument, if NSFW content should be spoilered all images of furries should DEFINITELY be spoilered.

>>27573
>see, YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, in THAT VERY SAME POST, is 'people are more likely to be offended by this particular thing and shrink the community, so it should be spoiled.' It has been repeatedly and statistically shown that people coming by tgchan are more likely to be offended by furries than by dicks. By your own argument, if NSFW content should be spoilered all images of furries should DEFINITELY be spoilered.

Alright, alright, sorry. I was being flippant with the "fuck those guys" remark. I think I was going for something like "this is basically what you're saying about people who don't like dicks"? But it wasn't a good choice. That sort of thing doesn't transmit well. I was in error and apologize.

But I still think you're mistaken. My actual counterargument to the "furry" argument would be to question your terminology and sources.

First, you say "offended" a lot. My argument isn't based on whether people will be offended, it's based on whether they will be repulsed, disgusted, upset, or otherwise have their otherwise pleasant day made a little less pleasant (or, alternately, their miserable days made more miserable). Saying that someone is "offended" conjures up an image of some sort of entitled, whiny person who loudly objects to things. The people I'm concerned with are those who will just quietly leave because they think they can't find anything they would enjoy here.

Second, I would content that, in all likelihood, the people who object to furries are simply a lot louder than people who object to dicks. So, I would like to see your evidence that there is a proportionally greater number of people turned away by furries than there are people turned away by gratuitous sexuality, violence an whatever else we're proposing to spoiler. My expectation is that there is merely an appearance of such due to how many anti-furries like to loudly proclaim how terrible furries are, while the kind of person turned away by our other category of things are more likely to just be discouraged from trying to enjoy the site.

>It's still a site full of porn. If they browse the site they're still going to run into porn even if it's spoiled. Spoilers aren't going to change that.

Again, as said earlier, I think there's a difference between actively searching and finding porn, and being slapped in the eyeballs with it when you're idly looking over the front page.

>>27576

>Second, I would content that, in all likelihood, the people who object to furries are simply a lot louder than people who object to dicks.

That is irrelevant to the point that there has, in fact, been plenty of evidence that (whether to offense, disgust, or whatever else) - there has been a ton more actual, observable evidence of people deciding to not use the site because of furries than because of porn.

You're not only saying 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' here (metaphorically, of course), you're saying 'THINK OF THE INVISIBLE CHILDREN!' It's not a stance I can respect or take seriously.

>So, I would like to see your evidence that there is a proportionally greater number of people turned away by furries than there are people turned away by gratuitous sexuality, violence an whatever else we're proposing to spoiler. My expectation is that there is merely an appearance of such due to how many anti-furries like to loudly proclaim how terrible furries are, while the kind of person turned away by our other category of things are more likely to just be discouraged from trying to enjoy the site.

You are the one asserting that the chance of accidentally seeing a tiddy is damaging the site's community and growth. Where are your sources and numbers on that?

>Again, as said earlier, I think there's a difference between actively searching and finding porn, and being slapped in the eyeballs with it when you're idly looking over the front page.

It's amusing to me that when I don't want to deal with the hassle and annoyance of seeing a spoiler image it's a complete non-issue, but they're somehow an insurmountable bulwark against naughty parts for the pearl-clutchers of the world.

And I would argue that somebody who is so disgusted by a dong that they're going to just leave the site and never use it again would very likely be disgusted by a site that is hosting a ton of porn even if it's hidden behind a 'o no its porn' blurb.

>>27577
>You're not only saying 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' here (metaphorically, of course), you're saying 'THINK OF THE INVISIBLE CHILDREN!' It's not a stance I can respect or take seriously.

First, ok, you're summoning up the "think of the children" image, and all that's associated with it, and dumping that on me? That's either an ad hominem or a straw man of some sort. I never contended the people I'm concerned with are children, or anything like children.

>You are the one asserting that the chance of accidentally seeing a tiddy is damaging the site's community and growth. Where are your sources and numbers on that?

I've been saying "gratuitous sexuality or violence", not "seeing a tiddy". Personally, I think a tit or a limp dick, or in the case of violence a bit of blood - what's generally referred to as "softcore" - stands low enough chance of causing dismay that it's permittable. Detailed depections of sexual activity, or detailed depictions of distinct organs being torn out of someone, for violence, are what I'm talking about. There are other possible extremities, too, of course, but my guideline would be to put out the same sort of stuff that an art gallery would - the site is effectively a kind of art gallery, after all. I don't contend that extreme material should be removed or even put in its own section, just that it shouldn't be put in the metaphorical front room to be seen when people walk in off the metaphorical street.

As for sources and numbers...

>That is irrelevant to the point that there has, in fact, been plenty of evidence that (whether to offense, disgust, or whatever else) - there has been a ton more actual, observable evidence of people deciding to not use the site because of furries than because of porn.

I disagree.

If what you say is true - that furries are more objectionable than explicit sexuality or violence - then every instance of furry across all media would be associated with a massive outcry. Instead, we see furry characters all over the place, in children's cartoon shows and films, in ads for products... or is that too mainstream? Perhaps you'll contend that tgchan has a more specific audience, and we need to worry about them? Well, let's see. Tgchan primarily appeals to a demographic that also likes science fiction, fantasy, comics games... nerd stuff.

Well, I won't bother enumerating all the instances of beastmen and suchlike in fantasy, that's obvious. Not much less so for science fiction. There are plenty of furry comics on the internet that are popular, and in print. Games? Elder Scrolls, Warcraft, those have furries right up front as playable races, so by your reckoning those should never have been very popular... but, oh wait. No.

No, I think the loud declarations of people saying that they can't enjoy something because it has been tainted by the presence of anthropomorphic animals is, actually, a rather small minority.

Perhaps people complaining about furry porn are of more concern, but it's the latter half of that pair that I'd say is the problem, and that only supports my argument.

>And I would argue that somebody who is so disgusted by a dong that they're going to just leave the site and never use it again would very likely be disgusted by a site that is hosting a ton of porn even if it's hidden behind a 'o no its porn' blurb.

I'm not talking about someone going "oh this is disgusting I'm never coming back here"; as you say, that kind of person will leave anyway. Who I'm concerned with is people who get a little bit worn down in their enthusiasm (the way I myself have been when I've seen certain authors be indiscreet with particularly extreme material), losing interest in the site a little faster than the stuff that appeals to them can stock it back up, until eventually they drift away.

I'm also concerned with the principle of basic courtesy.

Like... there's a difference between visiting a nudist colony, and visiting somewhere that guys are getting sucked off out on the street, you know? I'm kind of reaching for a metaphor to make my feelings understandable, here, and that's not a very good one so don't take it too seriously.

>>27578

>I disagree.

It doesn't matter if you agree. It's a fact.

>No, I think the loud declarations of people saying that they can't enjoy something because it has been tainted by the presence of anthropomorphic animals is, actually, a rather small minority.

It is an actual, visible thing that has actually happened. The number of people who have said that they have chosen not to use the site because of dicks is vastly smaller. Except for the invisible silent people that you are imagining exist and basing your entire argument on, of course. I guess I shouldn't discount those imaginary people.

>Perhaps people complaining about furry porn are of more concern

No, they were just complaining about the presence of furry characters in quests and on the site.

There were ALSO complaints about a few particular furry porn quests, but those quests already spoiler their images anyway. Whoops.

This isn't about some kind of broad-strokes statement across all of media. this is about actual complaints that actual visitors have actually made about the site and why they decided to either not use it in the first place or abandon using it after attempting to for a period of time. Your attempts to reframe the issue here are completely dishonest, and I'm pretty sure that you're aware of that.

>I'm kind of reaching for a metaphor to make my feelings understandable, here

What makes YOUR feelings more valid than a person who has the same feelings about a talking fox?

>and that's not a very good one so don't take it too seriously.

You have repeatedly attempted to derail arguments into irrelevant semantic discussions (like your bitching about 'I wasn't talking about children' at the beginning of that very post!) with regard to clear (and in that case, directly stated to be!) metaphors. You can eat a million dicks on this front.

Wow this conversation sure went places!

Maybe let's not clutter the spoiler/NSFW picture thread with discussions about whether or not adding a single click of obfuscation eats babies in the hellfire pit of anger and misery or is the last moral bastion of this wicked den of filth and debauchery? This is kind of "new thread" material at this point.

Just an incredibly late observation here. For what it's worth, I'll miss Jiniki but the current spoiler image is perfectly fine. Character references in site level content is so 2009, anyway. Really, there's a lot more that could be done from here. How about the 404 page?

hasty addendum because I hit enter too soon: not seriously suggesting derailing this thread into a discussion about the 404 page please don't crucify me

>>27443
I quite liked this one since it's nice and obvious at a glance and I love overblown warning signs.

I like >>27380 because it doesn't look like the kind of thing someone might put in a quest while also being kinda funny.

Why did this turn into a pointless argument about whether furries are destroying the site?

>>27586
Probably a proxy war carried over from the irc. Quite the hot topic in there, them furries.

>>27586

because the argument about forcing people to use spoilers is what kicked this whole topic off in the first place.

does this

oh i like this

>>27586
In hindsight, they probably were.

>>28845
Furries started this site, more or less, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The time for this argument was 2009.

>>28845
>>28847

You are responding to a post from over 2 years ago because for some reason somebody decided to use this thread to test strikethrough/color tags without even using 'sage.' You look very silly.