Broken rule (overly sexual)

Posts: 75 · Views: 2299
  • 20350

    Asagrim said:

    RazorBlack

    I do not see any difference whatsoever between picture 3 and 6. Just because their hips are at a slightly different angle doesn't change the fact that the purpose of both pictures is to present the vulva.

    Well I think the difference is quite clear. A photo can be of artistic nudity with or without showing genitals, as long as there is no emphasis on them (as stated in the rule). Sometimes a vulva can be seen just because it's there (as a secondary element in the whole image) and I don't consider it "overly sexual" or "very explicit".

  • 20367

    VincentTL said:

    friedrice said:

    Wow when did this turn to so PG-13?

    rotfl

    This is a rule I can get behind (even if a few of my uploads are somewhat toeing the line and might get nuked). There's definitely been too much of this stuff at some point and the line needs to be drawn a little lower.

    Here's an astounding idea, idk how hard it would be to implement: hide sexual images behind a filter that requires an account to enable, and then make it the default for it to be off! You could even call this filter "NSFW", and make it a BIG GOD DAMN RED BUTTON .This argument is infantile. Yeah, wallhaven isn't a porn site, but why restrict an activity that is both benign and optional? I already messaged a mod about it and I was given a similar answer so this comment is the end of my contribution to the dialogue. I just want it to be known that this is a ridiculous rule.

    I went through my uploads and a shitton were flagged so I just dissociated from them. Tired of logging in every day to see multiple notifications, and it's just deletions. I will no longer be contributing to the site, since the rules are vague and arbitrarily enforced.

  • 20372

    AksumkA said:

    I'm defining 'overly sexual' as any images that have an emphasis or focus on genitals. The rule is vague and will have a lot of 'gut' reactions in when it gets enforced. It's not that walls containing them (genitals) are banned, but I am going to be more strict about what is considered acceptable.

    The thing is your moderation team isn't following your definition, and deleting wallpapers just because it has genitals in the image. This is why being vague isn't good with this rule, if your moderation team can't follow it the way you intended it, then you have to be more specific

  • 20373

    ProTexanist said:

    Here's an astounding idea, idk how hard it would be to implement: hide sexual images behind a filter that requires an account to enable, and then make it the default for it to be off! You could even call this filter "NSFW", and make it a BIG GOD DAMN RED BUTTON .This argument is infantile. Yeah, wallhaven isn't a porn site, but why restrict an activity that is both benign and optional? I already messaged a mod about it and I was given a similar answer so this comment is the end of my contribution to the dialogue. I just want it to be known that this is a ridiculous rule.

    I went through my uploads and a shitton were flagged so I just dissociated from them. Tired of logging in every day to see multiple notifications, and it's just deletions. I will no longer be contributing to the site, since the rules are vague and arbitrarily enforced.

    As for being astounded, I really am how many people don't seem to get the difference between "NSFW/nude" and "obvious porn that's very hard to manually filter out".

  • 20374

    VincentTL said:

    ProTexanist said:

    Here's an astounding idea, idk how hard it would be to implement: hide sexual images behind a filter that requires an account to enable, and then make it the default for it to be off! You could even call this filter "NSFW", and make it a BIG GOD DAMN RED BUTTON .This argument is infantile. Yeah, wallhaven isn't a porn site, but why restrict an activity that is both benign and optional? I already messaged a mod about it and I was given a similar answer so this comment is the end of my contribution to the dialogue. I just want it to be known that this is a ridiculous rule.

    I went through my uploads and a shitton were flagged so I just dissociated from them. Tired of logging in every day to see multiple notifications, and it's just deletions. I will no longer be contributing to the site, since the rules are vague and arbitrarily enforced.

    As for being astounded, I really am how many people don't seem to get the difference between "NSFW/nude" and "obvious porn that's very hard to manually filter out".

    What is wrong with it? Any adult that has a problem with nudity has major issues. It's the human body, and the line between "porn" and art is literally just a physical position or expression - it's the exact same thing.

  • 20375

    Well there is for sure a difference of a woman who has a dick in her mouth or a women who stands nude at a beach. The Line has been drawn by our Boss, live with it or go to a Pornsite.

  • 20377

    WallpaperManiac said:

    Well there is for sure a difference of a woman who has a dick in her mouth or a women who stands nude at a beach. The Line has been drawn by our Boss, live with it or go to a Pornsite.

    That's the truth, but the moderators aren't following the definition set by AksumkA. I've noticed lot's of beautiful images being deleted for no other reason than a little lip showing

  • 20379

    Alright, this is becoming a bit funny now. A recent wallpaper of mine got deleted for Overly Sexual and there weren't any genitals involved. I think they considered it masturbation of something, but not even the hand is shown. I'm posting a link here so all of you can see:

    https://imgur.com/a/arUC29x

    So if anyone tells me this is porn and not artistic nudity I rest my case...

  • 20380

    lumberjacck said:

    Alright, this is becoming a bit funny now. A recent wallpaper of mine got deleted for Overly Sexual and there weren't any genitals involved. I think they considered it masturbation of something, but not even the hand is shown. I'm posting a link here so all of you can see:

    https://imgur.com/a/arUC29x

    So if anyone tells me this is porn and not artistic nudity I rest my case...

    Mine too was deleted. Apparently the palms should be visible, and not between the legs)

  • 20383

    Can someone from the administration tell me what is the overly sexual part of these two images:

    PIC 1 PIC 2

    Could tell who is reporting these images containing only normal nudity.

  • 20387

    I feel overall that the SFW / Sketchy / NSFW categories and the uploading rules are quite clear and well-balanced. The only problematic part of the rule in question is the last item in the list:

    "Sexual content (masturbation, oral sex, sex toys, penetration, bodily fluids, stretching/gaping of genitals), closeups of genitals, child pornography (including lolicon), and other overly sexual images are all strictly prohibited."

    “Overly sexual images.” All of this discussion goes to show that what is or is not "overly sexual" is open for debate and comes down to matters of personal taste.

    If that last clause were to be dropped, the rest of the rule (and the 5 images per set rule) would still be enough to prevent the site from becoming a “porn board,” while still allowing Wallhaven to be the freewheeling, ever interesting, and sometimes sexy place that it always has been.

    I’d, say, if an image contribution follows the rest of the rules but is not to your personal taste, if you feel that it is too this, too that, too much, too nude, too explicit, has the wrong lighting, the wrong hip position, whatever, don't click on the image. Scroll on past it. Others, of different taste, may rather enjoy it!

  • 20390

    lumberjacck said:

    Asagrim said:

    RazorBlack

    I do not see any difference whatsoever between picture 3 and 6. Just because their hips are at a slightly different angle doesn't change the fact that the purpose of both pictures is to present the vulva.

    Well I think the difference is quite clear. A photo can be of artistic nudity with or without showing genitals, as long as there is no emphasis on them (as stated in the rule). Sometimes a vulva can be seen just because it's there (as a secondary element in the whole image) and I don't consider it "overly sexual" or "very explicit".

    It's cute that you think there are varying degrees of sexuality, and putting an adjective such as artistic before a picture's subject matter that's depicting sexual intent plain and simple, somehow disarms that sexual intent. Artistic nudity in the particular manner you are trying to label pictures with is like alcohol-free vodka with all the taste but none of the buzz. It just doesn't exist.

  • 20433

    I'm really having a hard time understanding this rule. Several wallpapers have been deleted again and I really don't understand:

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/j5yjwm

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/ox68xp

    https://wallhaven.cc/w/vgd5xl

    How are these "overly sexual"? Quoting the rule "stretching/gaping of genitals, closeups of genitals" - clearly doesn't apply. Also, the way you described "Overly sexual", again, doesn't apply:

    AksumkA said:

    I'm defining 'overly sexual' as any images that have an emphasis or focus on genitals.

    So these images do NOT have a focus on genitals, they can barely be seen. I'm also uploading them to imgur so others can see and decide, maybe I'm crazy:

    https://imgur.com/a/L5HC3fW

    https://imgur.com/a/mWXsyDb

    https://imgur.com/a/XN7fN9X

    Please explain.

  • 20437

    sannukas0016 said:

    Are you sure those were deleted for overly sexual? To me those just seem like low quality.

    When a wallpaper is deleted, the reason is specified for the user who uploaded it.

    lumberjacck,

    It seems that moderators still don't understand the rule and some users as well. On Discord, AksumkA said it will improve the rule for the staff to apply it better.

    Last updated
  • 20440

    sannukas0016 said:

    lumberjacck Are you sure those were deleted for overly sexual? To me those just seem like low quality.

    Yes, it says the reason is "Overly Sexual". They look low quality because I uploaded them to imgur and they got heavily compressed.

    MrDraper said:

    On Discord, AksumkA said it will improve the rule for the staff to apply it better.

    I'm glad to hear it's being worked on.

  • 20441

    lumberjacck I'm glad to hear it's being worked on.

    Yeah, man. Yesterday I uploaded a picture and was instantly reported. Probably as overly sexual, so I contacted aksuma and he removed the report. Now the same image has been reported again. Let's see if moderators will delete. Out of control.

    NSFWYou need to be logged in to view this wallpaper.

  • 20442

    MrDraper Sadly reports can't be locked. While it would be a nice feature for some wallpapers, overall it might lead to issues where a report may be locked but another issue (such as copyright or dupes where the original version is uploaded) may arise later on.

  • 20443

    MrDraper said:

    Yesterday I uploaded a picture and was instantly reported. Probably as overly sexual, so I contacted aksuma and he removed the report. Now the same image has been reported again. Let's see if moderators will delete. Out of control.

    Yes, I see so many wallpapers flagged... a good addition would be to see what was the report for (for your own wallpapers, at least).

  • 20446

    lumberjacck said:

    Yes, I see so many wallpapers flagged... a good addition would be to see what was the report for (for your own wallpapers, at least).

    Yeah, then the uploader could re-evaluate the wall and delete it. It would also relieve moderators of having to review multiple pics.

    404011xz It would be good for sure, but now I quite understand :)

  • 20458

    I got some uploads removed as overly sexual too, mostly sets with light content, yet I just stumbled across this one which was already reported and is standing still:

    [nz19zy]

    I guess that it's on the queue for being analyzed?

  • 20460

    ranisalt That one will most likely get deleted. There are thousands of reported wallpapers and only a handful of those who can clear them.

  • 20472

    It's all good but if you want to only allow walls that are SKETCHY, then get rid of the NSFW category and be done with it.

  • 20479

    Why these restrictions and who are they designed for? Are you implementing them to protect the site and you dont want people to look at "porn" - or is it because you want to protect the users from it? If a user dont want NSFW, what is wrong with them having to unbox the tab?

    I remember from Wallbase, where entire catalogues of professional pornographic nudes got published (from Met-ART etc).. never did I thought that was a problem.

    I get it if these restrictions is for protecting the site from legal reason and shutdown, but if they are because you think the users cant handle seeing a certain material(?).. that seems very un-wallhaven like.

Message