Topic: Rating System needs Revision + Censorship (Should genitals be rated questionable? Part 2)

Posted under General

This topic has been locked.

SurferOtter

Member

As the original was LOCKED before the discussion could be settled. Read that thread for missing context previously discussed.
https://e621.net/forum_topics/26445

The rating system is clearly broken as things by the Definition of "Explicit" when you Google it do NOT match the content or context of the image.
"Questionable" is a joke as well as "Safe" as things that the context would mark as "Explicit" are not being marked as Explicit because of tags being the Only Implicator. As such, alot of "Safe" art is being marked as "Explicit" because of genitalia being depicted.

As the final submission by Member "Demesejha" in the topic points out, the system clearly needs to be fixed and Any subsequent Locked discussion are a show of abusive admin power as they do not want to admit that and have taken Laziness up to general Sloth.

Now, let me C&P this and do a checklist to see how I can be silenced by their vague rules.Oh, would you look at that, This is how.

How I was silenced before.

Spamming or Trolling
Suggested Suspension Length: 3 days, or Permanent
This category includes:

Excessively communicating the same phrase, similar phrases, or pure gibberish (Don't like us making a point, huh)
Creating comments, forum posts, or threads for the sole purpose of causing unrest (Wanting change and talking about wanting that change not welcome here either)
Causing disturbances in forum threads or comments, such as picking fights, making off topic posts that ruin the thread, and/or insult other members
Making non-constructive or derailing forum posts or comments.
Bragging about saving DNP material, or encouraging others to save it
Abusing the Report system or other website tools by sending false information or nonsensical messages
Creating forum threads about existing topics less than six months old (Unavoidable by us as we do not want to wait 6 months to talk about this more)
Creating a separate forum thread about an existing topic for further discussion in another forum category
Creating a separate forum thread about an existing locked topic for further discussion in any forum or site (We didn't lock the forum, you did because you didn't want us talking anymore)
Excessively posting old threads without adding anything to the discussion
Excessively creating pointless threads like forum games, asking for opinions on site irrelevant themes, asking for free art, etc
Numbering a thread, IBTL, ITT, TL;DR, or any other fad statements

Spamming is self-explanatory, but unless the entire thread is joining in and enjoying an offensive or harassing comment, someone who posts insulting comments should get flagged. We will have to use common sense when enforcing this; people can have opinions and state them, but that does not allow them to make someone else feel bad or unwanted. If no one complains or gets offended, AND it’s not an outwardly offensive remark, then it will be okay. However, if someone complains, gets offended, OR it’s an outwardly offensive remark (I think *NO ONE is an asshole and should be shot), then they need to be flagged.
(Well, we don't get offended on the Internet, that's common sense. Do you as Admin use this to just control speech or peoples opinions)
(Changed to *NO ONE as Including the name or what could be a name would make me shoot myself just for C&P your own words here.)

I am not going to go combing through all the CoC. Locking a thread and forbidding us from reopening it because you are losing is Censorship. Funny as you are hosted in the USA and openly Do Not Support Freedom of Speech by Locking down forums or discussions you don't like because it makes *you look bad.

Updated by Millcore

Siral Exan

Privileged

If a thread is locked, it's likely for a good reason. Rather than creating new ones, you could ask the admin who locked it for it to be unlocked; creating new ones usually results in the new threads locked too.

Jacob

Blocked

siral_exan said:
creating new ones usually results in the new threads locked too.

And the creator of the new one getting at least a neutral record, I'd imagine...

SurferOtter

Member

siral_exan said:
If a thread is locked, it's likely for a good reason. Rather than creating new ones, you could ask the admin who locked it for it to be unlocked; creating new ones usually results in the new threads locked too.

Main issue is calling attention to the fact it was locked to discourage further discussion. Asking the Admin to open it (as they were the ones to lock it in the first place) would likely just be refused. The only chance it would have is if it was one Moderators decision to close it rather than a group decision. Even then, it could be relocked immediately by another. By reading the linked previous deicussion, you can see there was no reason to lock it, only being we were making a firm point and they wanted to end it there by making us have to wait 6 months as pointed out. Funny as they pointed out how this convo seems to pop up every few months as they put it.

Updated

Demesejha

Member

As I was specifically asked to comment I will: Yes the system is broken. Yes it needs to be overhauled.

The Idea here is that its "Safe" meaning there's no sexual content or anything of the source.
Questionable is supposed to be used for when that Safe content is clearly kink material.
And Explicit is for when the content is graphic in its depictions of material.

Genitals should not mean explicit.

Kink content and sexual explicitude should as THAT is what needs to be hidden from view.

The fact clearly sexual and fetish content is NOT hidden under the current system is wrong. It needs to be fixed.

I have no more to say on the matter unless it is constructive and specifically is aimed towards improving the site.

This thread will be locked like the last one was but the point stands revision does need to happen.

Again: I was explicitly asked to respond by the op. Thank you for your time.

SurferOtter

Member
Last Comment by Demesejha on previous discussion.

demesejha said:

ccoyote said:
First, that was not an attack; it was an observation. It was accurate, and I stand by it.

Second, you can't complain that I've ignored portions of your argument when you've ignored 100% of mine.

Finally, you've called my premise faulty when you've literally misquoted and misrepresented the dictionary definition of the word.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word's definition is "b: open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" (emphasis mine).

I agree with you that nudity is not a problem, but you're talking about a puritanical societal issue that is beyond the scope of this site's policies. If you want to change that, get involved in law and politics, not e621's rules and forums.

Webster is not the only dictionary in the world.

Believe it or not. Its not a misquote.

https://i.imgur.com/BqpAfG8.png

Google the word and this is the result.

One last thing, if this argument comes up enough that its had multiple threads over a decade, maybe its time to re-evaluate the system.

post #2188239
post #1677560
post #1587898
post #1793726
post #1793733
post #1416207
post #1368472
post #1516493
post #648945
post #871465

You really mean to tell me that all of those examples are explicit. But these following clearly intentionally sexual images are "safe"?

post #2244743
post #2026666
post #1651198
post #1191884
post #1044058
post #692258

This?
post #2115004

Is
post #2248631

All
post #1633573 (Focused breast expansion where its ripping her clothing)

Safe
post #1581296 (A little girl in her panties!)

And on e926 where allll the kiddies can see it.

Oh no this one clearly depicts a RECTUM! This should be EXPLICIT!
post #2023433

But no keep going on about dictionary definitions.

This entire tag. https://e621.net/posts?tags=foot_focus+rating%3Asafe
This entire tag. https://e621.net/posts?tags=rating%3Asafe+inflation

post #1490194 Is this really safe because its Null??? He's naked! Nakedness is a requirement for explicit. And further, looking at the thumbnail looks like theres male parts there until you click on it.

ccoyote said:
Definitions of the word "explicit" ... "having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted." (Emphasis mine.)

The argument falls apart under even the most basic scrutiny.

If Phraggle's content was posted on e6
https://va2.ib.metapix.net/files/full/3125/3125561_Phra...
https://va2.ib.metapix.net/files/full/3114/3114789_Phra...
https://va2.ib.metapix.net/files/full/3114/3114797_Phra...

It would all be listed as safe.

The system is broken. Fix it.

Oh and one last thing. Law is not something I can change as a single woman, this is a website run democratically under a group of volunteers. This entire forum exists to discuss the rules of this site so I dont know where you get off with

ccoyote said:
If you want to change that, get involved in law and politics, not e621's rules and forums.

Oh and

ccoyote said:
Second, you can't complain that I've ignored portions of your argument when you've ignored 100% of mine.

I havent ignored it. Ive stated its wrong, and WHY its wrong multiple times.

I didn't know that this:

ccoyote said:
It's really impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you, because you don't listen.

wasnt an attack, really could have fooled me.

Wanted this here for an excellent example. This was the final post before being Locked over there.

RiverInADryLand

Member

surferotter said:
As the original was LOCKED before the discussion could be settled. Read that thread for missing context previously discussed.
https://e621.net/forum_topics/26445

Locking a thread and forbidding us from reopening it because you are losing is Censorship. Funny as you are hosted in the USA and openly Do Not Support Freedom of Speech by Locking down forums or discussions you don't like because it makes *you look bad.

From what I saw, the thread was locked because it devolved from a reasoned debate into users attacking each other.

The rating system is clearly broken as things by the Definition of "Explicit" when you Google it do NOT match the content or context of the image.

Google's definition is the only one I've seen that doesn't match the site definition. Meanwhile, Dictionary.com's, Merriam-Webster's, and Wiktionary's (top search results) are all in line with the site definition. Honestly, we likely could go for quite a while digging up definitions that fit either side of the debate.

Honestly, I don't really see the issue with the ratings as they are. (Aside from x-anus being explicit. That's just silly, but I understand it.) The proposed changes I saw in the other thread make for a very subjective interpretation, which could lead to arguing over what is rated what. Keeping it tag-implicated gives a more objective line to follow.

NotMeNotYou

Admin

Guys (and gals), if you want to push for changes to a policy please read the actual policy first instead of trying to make assumptions based on what other people tag that haven't read the policy either.

Here's a link to the actual, official, detailed policy: https://e621.net/help/ratings

Bringing examples that are incorrectly rated under our currently policy to push for changes accomplishes nothing, it just makes me question why these aren't being reported so we can change the rating to how it should be.

Case in point most of the submissions Demesejha brought up as safe should have been rated questionable because the obvious fetishistic nature of them, even if they aren't sexually explicit. If more images like that are found, and there most likely will be, feel free to change them yourself, or report them if someone else is adamant about ignoring our rating guidelines.

  • 1