Remove ads

NSFW Images Excused Under Rule 8 For 'Artistic Merit'

Should this be infracted as a violation of Rule 6

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crawling Chaos

Crawling Chaos

From what I understand this site is meant to SFW, with the exception of the closed sub-forum Sufficiently Sexy, which means that images showing nudity and pornographic content are not allowed. Yet this post and the seven nude images of fictional characters contained within has been allowed under the excuse of 'Artistic Merit' which I find to be quite sketchy[1] considering that they're a blatant violation of Rule 6. What exactly makes these images 'Artistic' and allowable instead of being acknowledged as pornographic and removed from the site along with the poster being infracted for posting them?

[1] For reference these images wouldn't be allowed on a 4chan blue board due to the showing of nipples. It says something that 4chan has more consistency than SV does in this matter.
 
For fuck's sake:

6: Don't post porn.

You can't post anything pornographic or anything sexual about children. If it is risque, it must be behind a spoiler.
That means, for example, that you can't:
  • Depict children having sex, naked, or in any other sexual fashion. Whether or not they are fictional is irrelevant. If it is both relevant and tasteful, you may have age-appropriate content (kissing, for example) with a fade-out details for things that are more serious than kissing and a fade-to-black for actual sexual acts;
  • Post images that feature uncovered sexual characteristics for the primary purpose of sexual titillation;
  • Post text that explicitly depicts significant sexual activity.
  • Use a NSFW avatar.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The primary point of those is not titillation, else the features would be more defined and all of them would be more provocatively posed.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
For fuck's sake:



The primary point of those is not titillation, else the features would be more defined and all of them would be more provocatively posed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope, it's still NSFW I'm afraid and he even admits it "I probably wouldn't suggest opening the spoilers at work." in his post. He should have used Sufficiently Sexy, had some tact and not posted them, or ponied up some more money to have them drawn clothed.
 
Last edited:
Crawling Chaos said:
Nope, it's still NSFW I'm afraid and he even admits it "I probably wouldn't suggest opening the spoilers at work." in his post. He should have used Sufficiently Sexy, had some tact and not posted them, or ponied up some more money to have them drawn clothed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
NSFW and porn are not the same thing. Rule 6 is about porn, this doesn't quite break the porn-barrier. And it is risque and therefore spoilered as demanded by the rule as well.
 
NSFW yes. Explicit, no. Visible genitalia would make it explicit, but all we see are exposed breasts.
 
Crawling Chaos said:
From what I understand this site is meant to SFW, with the exception of the closed sub-forum Sufficiently Sexy, which means that images showing nudity and pornographic content are not allowed. Yet this post and the seven nude images of fictional characters contained within has been allowed under the excuse of 'Artistic Merit' which I find to be quite sketchy[1] considering that they're a blatant violation of Rule 6. What exactly makes these images 'Artistic' and allowable instead of being acknowledged as pornographic and removed from the site along with the poster being infracted for posting them?

[1] For reference these images wouldn't be allowed on a 4chan blue board due to the showing of nipples. It says something that 4chan has more consistency than SV does in this matter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you have content that you feel has artistic merit and a decent reason for posting, we have a way to get exemptions. It's the same way that Ford's images were cleared - you go to the Q&R board, and ask us in advance.

Really, the most important thing is just go to Q&R and ask rather than just springing it on the board.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
The point remains that it isn't against the rules as written.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
confusopoly said:
NSFW and porn are not the same thing. Rule 6 is about porn, this doesn't quite break the porn-barrier. And it is risque and therefore spoilered as demanded by the rule as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alright, question. Why are you arguing it's not a rules violation, if one that was waived? Ford says it is, after all, in the same post.
Ford Prefect said:
Please note that these images contain some mild nudity and that prior to posting them I sought an exception under rule 8 due to artistic merit. That means that, in addition to being posted under spoilers they cannot be reposted elsewhere on Sufficient Velocity, as they represent what would otherwise be a rules violation (though in @LordSquishy's view a fairly minor one).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Under normal circumstances, posting them, even spoilered, would get you infracted.

I'm not going to argue whether the exception should have happened or not, but at least admit there was one.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
If you have content that you feel has artistic merit and a decent reason for posting, we have a way to get exemptions. It's the same way that Ford's images were cleared - you go to the Q&R board, and ask us in advance.

Really, the most important thing is just go to Q&R and ask rather than just springing it on the board.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Really, it's straightforward: When in doubt, ask first on the review board, and then regardless of whether it's approved, you won't be infracted.

Barring cases of where an image is illegal in it's own right anyway. In which case I'm not sure why you'd post that.
 
Ramenth essentially has the right of it.

1. Rule 6 generally requires some prurient interest.
2. The more explicit the image, the greater the implication of prurient interest and the harder that presumption will be to overcome.
3. Not everything that shows nipples will, by definition, be prurient;
4. Apocal was speaking in shorthand entirely appropriate for the circumstances when he said what he said;
5. Review is where we can make exceptions or evaluate the prurient interest ahead of time, and so the presumption is different.

That's basically what it is. It's not complex.
 
Pidl said:
I'm taking it you mean that you won't be infracted for asking the question, not that you can go ahead and post the image anyway?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm pretty sure that when a mod reviewing your content says "don't post this" and you do anyway you'll be in trouble. At least I thought that was obvious.
 
4 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads
Back
Top