Fix this.

Posts: 6 · Views: 263
  • 20360

    People are changing purity of my uploads every f day it getting on my nerves maybe you shouldnt even allow it to all users.Fix it.

  • 20392

    SymbioteCoyote said:

    People are changing purity of my uploads every f day it getting on my nerves maybe you shouldnt even allow it to all users.Fix it.

    By every f. day you surely mean they change it, you change it back, then someone else changes it again, no? So it's your personal opinion vs. several other people's opinion regarding your pictures' purity. I've looked at your uploads. In what universe is a picture of three women in lingerie from behind which is an excerpt from a beginning of a porn shoot with the logo of the porn site in the lower right corner "sketchy"? I couldn't have phrased this question without using the words lingerie and porn several times, so maybe there should be a technical solution that prohibits lowering the purity filter, so people could only flag a picture more explicit, but flagging them less explicit would need moderator approval.

    Half of your sketchy pictures should be NSFW and half of your NSFW pictures are already reported for being overly sexual (and it wasn't me). You need to seriously re-evaluate what purity you upload your pictures as.

  • 20394

    Considering the site owner is the one who has adjusted some of your wallpaper's purities and locked them as nsfw I would say maybe there is a reason for some of the changes in purity.

  • 20397

    Asagrim said:

    In what universe is a picture of three women in lingerie from behind which is an excerpt from a beginning of a porn shoot with the logo of the porn site in the lower right corner "sketchy"?

    In our universe. The rules for "Sketchy" include:

    "Images with a subject in underwear, swim-wear, lingerie, latex, etc. but no genitals or (female) nipples showing." "Low cut tops/High cut bottoms/Lightly provocative poses."

    If I assume we're talking about this wallpaper:

    loading
    2000 x 300061

    Then is fits all the criteria for "Sketchy." That is, subjects in lingerie, no genitals or (female) nipples showing, high cut bottoms, lightly provocative poses. Check check check.

    This image does not, IMHO, meet the criteria for NSFW:

    "Images with nudity, including cupped/covered breasts, strategic covering, implied nudity, bare asses and genitals/nipples visible through clothing." "Extremely suggestive poses (bent over/hands on genitals/etc.)."

    I guess we could debate the line between "high cut bottoms" vs. "bare assess" vis-a-vis thongs, but... it's a fine line. As I've recently said in another thread, I think the rules themselves are fairly clear and well-balanced. The source of the image (yes, a porn site) does not define the image's purity; it's what's in the image itself that does. For example, I have a photo of a cute seagull from a porn site (it kept running into frame during a beach shoot); it is an extremely SFW image, despite the logo in the corner!

  • 20459

    That argument of yours ran its course when you had to mention a porn site, basically saying except there is porn logo in there. No exceptions. The exception makes it NSFW. If there is no such thing as NSFW by association, we might just go ahead, and call the first few frames of an ISIS execution video SFW, because there's nothing in them except a few people standing and/or kneeling. Sorry but that's just unconscionable.

  • 20485

    Yes, it's certainly a slippery slope from pornography to terrorism. Be careful out there.

Message