WARNING: Posting NSFW Content Will Result In Banning

I can entirely understand wanting to limit the probability of people accidentally ending up at porn they didn't mean to click on, and therefor banning links to porn as a whole, even if tagged.

However, in regards to your mention of the possibility of porn content on ff.net, what if there is a story we feel has actual artistic merit but also has lemon content? Could the name of the story be discussed (especially in the rec threads) without a link with the understanding that people who went and searched google for it on their own knew what they were getting into? Or is even that too close?

It SEEMS obvious to me that it should be okay to say the name of a story and let people find it on their own, but many times I interpret things differently than other people, and this feels like the kind of situation where everybody wants the general ambiguity levels to be low.

Also; since a profile with links to porn is specifically mentioned... What's the deal on that? I know I personally auto-scroll to the bottom when I click on a profile. Should people who want to post a link to one skim through to make sure there's no NSFW links/content?

May I suggest modifying the forum policy then?

Disappointingly, it does not mention works of erotica. While I can wholeheartedly support your efforts to keep mature content away from the delicate minds of minors, and protect us from the tasteless, crass, and obscene (no, I can't define that... but I know it when I see it), I can't help but wonder if the great number of first time offenses that aren't repeated are simply due to the policy in its current incarnation seemingly permitting it.

I'm not even going to bring comment on my thoughts regarding the censorship of sexuality in general in fiction, but SB is -not- a public venue, and as such we, the posters, need to do our best to adhere to the wishes of those maintaining this private board and permitting our presence here. I think that adjusting the policy for compliance to the desired level of censorship will help reduce the mistakes that occur.

Just my thoughts. Hope they help.

Hollewanderer

Your signature has a verse from one of my favorite fictional plays. The King In Yellow is awesome. I salute you!

I am also curious about what Bailey Matutine asked.

There are literally no words to express my sheer dismay at this. In spite of my utter hatred of furries, I somehow find this alone so much worse than all the others. Why would anyone post any of this? Why would anyone post hardcore porn of pubescent girls?!

I have to admit I'm surprised at most of this. I know that the BROB forum had to deal with most of this, but I thought that CrW only had to deal with underage characters and pornographic content in general.

This needs to be done if for no other reason than to remove the out of date exemption to the Anime Subforum.

In as much as this concerns me, I'll in short order do a general revision of the Big List and remove direct links to the stories I know to be in violation of this policy.

However, if somebody could give an authoritative answer to the acceptable line in regards to semi-decent literature that happens to contain raunchy scenes, it would be cool.

I'm a fan of the "if you have to ask, the answer's no" policy - better safe than sorry, right?

I'm hardly authoritative, though. So take that with a grain of salt.

The issue with that policy is that it creates a never ending spiral. It's the principle reason why censorship kills expression. The "if you have to ask, the answer's no" policy just perpetuates self-censorship, which in turn contracts the expectations that guide community standards, until everyone in your stories are left wearing burqa and never expressing an emotion more intense than the polite suggestion that another method might be even more advantageous than the one you've proposed.

This isn't a slippery slope argument. It's an actual slippery slope, one that hundreds of millions have taken the slide down before. I think the administration needs to clearly delineate exactly how far they're willing to go in their efforts to censor the members of this board, so that it doesn't become an ever contracting ring that ultimately leads to people losing interest. With clear standards that will remain in place, that issue is averted, and those who don't like those standards can leave, while those who can live by them can remain with a reasonable expectation of that censorship retaining the same level of invasiveness, rather than perpetually increasing.

I do think "linking to linking to pr0n" is a bit far removed to be punishable. Someone really has to try to end up at pr0n in that case, and the expressed purpose of these new rules is to "make SB SFW" - if someone's following a link on a non-SB page that happens to be linked to from SB, it's not SB that's NSFW.

"IF you don't know. ASK" is a good idea. also the thread I've noticed the most violations of in (that I follow) are the barge pole threads. Which tend to link to lemons and just do entire pages of image macro spam.

I believe the profile in question (although I didn't see it) was less "a few NSFW links" and more "A directory of porn." It'd be no different than linking to a Fetish Links website.

It was. I actually was there when it was posted. Grant you, I'm careful and don't actually add links.

There is a lot of drama to be found in those first tentative youthful experiments. It's a awkward and uncertain time, full of turmoil and change, that everyone has been through and everyone can identify with.

Since this seems to be the same topic, should I assume this is also a ban on links to sites like Spoony's where the adds are uncontrolled?

Because, I've seen some rather horrific adds pop up at the same time in a lot of threads here.

Speaking as a user who doesn't want to get a virus, if you're posting links to a place with uncontrolled pop up adds you're a colossal douchebag anyway.

They aren't pop up adds, they're the banner adds.

Oh.

But "check every link on every page you link to to make sure you're not secondary-linking to porn" seems rather excessive, and that's how it's phrased.

Which is hopefully not the interpretations the mods will go for. But I have no problem in the slightest with them saying "Don't like to a profile filled entirely with links to porn." The one in question apparently had "word pages full of links to porn" after all.

Linking to porn is bad, sure, but links to sites with links to porn (and the terms used are extraordinarily sweeping) goes beyond the responsibility of the individual. This allows for banning people who forget to check every link on every page they link to.

Can we get clarification on directions (name of story, name of site where story is posted) to finding stories which may contain graphic scenes, but are not in fact links to porn? I understand that links to stories with true artistic merit are not allowed if the stories also contain graphic sex scenes, but I am wondering if attention can still be directed to these stories in a more work safe manner, for the purposes of recommendation threads.

I need to clarify, kinda directed this question to the wrong place.

But what if I were to write something of this nature that might toe this line for only comedic value?

Its nothing explicit, nothing even descriptive, but just a punchline to deliver in under a sentence. Then it soon does not get mention again.

I just need to be sure before I post it at a future date. Or never at all, depending on the answer.

I think clarification is needed on what, precisely, you mean by sexualization of children for comedy purposes.