The future of NSFW

Posted in

#126 by encrypted12345
2020-02-24 at 17:23
Yeah, "extreme" porn is definitely a conversation that will go downhill fast, especially for a website where all of the users have differing levels of ... sexual tolerance for lack of a better term.
#127 by ginseigou
2020-02-24 at 17:59
Are people really that bothered by violence on the vndb? We see it in the news everyday. Violence is not a taboo, but certain genres of porn are.
#128 by warfoki
2020-02-24 at 18:01
I don't know about your news, but over here pretty much anything even remotely bloody gets blurred out or just not shown outright. Sure, news TALK a lot about violence, but talking and graphically showing it is not the same thing.
#129 by encrypted12345
2020-02-24 at 18:37
I think other countries have different standards of violence from the US much like they have different standards of sexuality, so it kind of depends on where you're from. Either way, no harm in making one metric for violence and another for sexual content.
#130 by sakurakoi
2020-02-24 at 18:40
Are people really that bothered by violence on the vndb?
So few are so bothered that they want to bother others by wanting it mandatory to vote on it separately (still wanting the H and not refraining from checking whether works are violent themselves before jumping to the screens) rather than letting them at least refrain or even making voting easier/swifter~
#131 by warfoki
2020-02-24 at 20:06
Alright, so I'm going to have crack at trying to define the different tiers of sexual content and violence. Also, example images, because I think those can be very useful. As a note to Yorhel: either force people to go to to the FAQ page regarding this info before they could edit or have it visible right on the edit page (edit: scratch the latter, this clearly cannot be fit on the sidelines...). Point is, don't just assume that people will look up some obscure FAQ page before flagging on their own, especially if you really intend to rely on this flag system to filter content for the safe proxy. If I have any notes that are not part of the definition, just a note for discussion, I leave them in brackets [like this].

SEXUAL CONTENT
-----------------------

Safe
-----

Images flagged as "safe" in terms of sexual content do not depict anything sexualised. Obviously nothing explicitly sexual belongs here, even if there is no nudity involved. The only thing that could be fine is not mouth-to-mouth kissing, as long as it is performed by fully dressed individuals.

In terms of clothes, fully visible underwear, especially if the image focuses on it, should be flagged as suggestive in and of themselves. Other clothes are safe as long as they are not see-through, torn in inappropriate places or so skin tight that you can easily see every little curve under them.

[Note: I'm unsure what to do with swimwear here. I personally feel that reasonable swimwear like in link should be safe, skimpy micro bikinis and slingshot bikinis should be suggestive and see-through or open cup stuff should be explicit, but feedback is welcome on this issue. As such I intentionally do not mention swimwear or use images with them as examples, they should be added once we reach a consensus on that.]

Examples:

link Fully clothed, no hint of any sexual actions.
link Obviously images without any people in them whatsoever are always sexually safe, unless they depict outright sextoys.
link Both characters are fully clothed and the peck on the forehead is very much safe.

Counter-examples:

link Both characters are fully clothed, but "proper", mouth-to-mouth kissing should be flagged as suggestive.
link Fully visible underwear is always "suggestive" at least, no exceptions.
link See-through clothes (regardless whether they are like that by design or because they are wet like in this example) that allows underwear / naked body to be seen is always at least suggestive.
link Even if the character is fully dressed, the image can be still not safe if it is eroticised in some way. In this case the condom in her mouth makes this suggestive, without that the image would be safe.

Suggestive
-------------

Suggestive images are in some way sexualised, however they are not enough to be called outright pornographic.

In terms of action this can mean "proper" mouth-to-mouth kissing, posing in a clearly suggestive, erotic manner, mimicking sexual acts, having sextoys in the background and so on. Any form of penetrative sex should be flagged as explicit, even if the image does not involve full nudity.

Clothing-wise anything goes as long genitals, and for female characters, nipples are not shown naked. Skimpy outfits, bondage gear, even "ecchi style" full nudity: like taking a bath while a strategically placed mist hiding the naughty bits.

Examples:

link Even though both characters are fully clothed, mouth-to-mouth kissing makes the image suggestive.
link See-through clothes (regardless whether they are like that by design or because they are wet like in this example) that allows underwear / naked body to be seen is always at least suggestive.
link Even if the character is fully dressed, the image can be still not safe if it is eroticised in some way. In this case the condom in her mouth makes this suggestive, without that the image would be safe.
link Fully visible underwear is always "suggestive" at least, no exceptions.
link Full nudity in and of itself is normally explicit, but if it is framed in a way where female nipples and genitals of any kind are not actually visible, it should be flagged as suggestive instead.
link Kinky outfits and bondage is always at least suggestive.
link The very presence of sextoys makes any image at least suggestive, provided that they are not actually in use. Actively using sextoys is always explicit.

Counter-examples:

link Both characters are fully clothed and the peck on the forehead is very much safe.
link No sexual acts, but the visible, naked nipples still upgrades this image from suggestive to explicit.
link Active use of vibrators makes this explicit, even without any nudity.
link Similarly, penetrative sex is always explicit, regardless of nudity.

Explicit
---------

Explicit images are the ones that could be easily considered pornographic in their content. Performing any and all sexual acts that involve genitals or penetration goes here, regardless how well dressed the characters doing them are.

The lack of clothing alone can only make an image explicit if it shows naked female nipples or naked genitalia (as a general rule of thumb: if the latter is exposed enough to be hit by the Japanese mosaic censorship, it's explicit).

Examples:

link Full frontal nudity is always explicit, regardless if the situation itself is sexual or not.
link Having sex in the nude is blatantly obviously explicit, no matter what.
link No sexual acts, but the visible, naked nipples still upgrades this image from suggestive to explicit.
link Active use of vibrators makes this explicit, even without any nudity.
link Similarly, penetrative sex is always explicit, regardless of nudity.

Counter-examples

link Full nudity in and of itself is normally explicit, but if it is framed in a way where female nipples and genitals of any kind are not actually visible, it should be flagged as suggestive instead.
link Kinky outfits and bondage is always at least suggestive, but they are only explicit if they are used as part of a sex scene or if they leave either the genitals or female nipples visible.
link The very presence of sextoys makes any image at least suggestive, provided that they are not actually in use. Actively using sextoys is necessary though for this alone to make the image explicit.

____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

Alright, so that's my first draft for the sexual content flag guidelines. I think this can be refined further, maybe there are some other potentially common borderline cases I didn't bring up and then there's obviously still the issue of swimwear to be discussed. Still, it's a starting point. I'll make a similar set of guidelines for the violence flags tomorrow, I'm kinda tired at this point.Last modified on 2020-02-24 at 20:14
#132 by skorpiondeath
2020-02-24 at 20:10
So few are so bothered that they want to bother others by wanting it mandatory to vote on it separately
Everyone disagree on the 4rd option for extreme sexual content I guess it's time for me to back down on that idea and just follow the majority of users.
But if I still can count it seems there is more indecision about having two separate flags. And actually from your edits I dont' think it will bother you in both cases, so I guess it's time to leave other users to speak for themselves.Last modified on 2020-02-24 at 20:10
#133 by ginseigou
2020-02-25 at 01:19
Everyone disagree on the 4rd option for extreme sexual content I guess it's time for me to back down on that idea and just follow the majority of users.
Not everyone, it's just a fact that a few users are participating in this discussion makes it feel so. I might as well say that everyone doesn't care about violence in the vns and just a few active participants want these flags. I think one flag would be enough for violence - it either exists or not - those who can't take the sight of violence would be satisfied. It's illogical to have a gradation for violence and not to have it for porn. Different people may have a different take on violence levels and future disputes are unavoidable, but somehow it's alright in this case. On the other hand, the same can't be said about porn - it's bad to let users decide by vote whether it's extreme or vanilla.

@131 The main problem of your guideline is that it ignores certain slippery points that already were mentioned in this thread. Are human excretions count as explicit or suggestive content? A kid peeing himself, visible stains on underwear, a pile of shit definitely don't make a movie to be for adults only. Is sexual torture like the one with pliers in euphoria explicit or suggestive link ? Is it violence? Or is it both? Is this picture of girls taking a bath link explicit or suggestive? It might be even safe because there are no visible body parts. Is a picture of girl drinking white stuff count as suggestive link or is it safe?Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 05:03
#134 by rampaa
2020-02-25 at 02:03
I'm unsure what to do with swimwear here.
I think marking them as (at least) suggestive would be the most headache-free solution for everyone involved. Plus, I don't think link is more suggestive than link. If anything, that underwear probably covers slightly more skin than that bikini.

potentially common borderline cases
I have a question regarding a potential borderline case, should areolae themselves considered as suggestive or explicit? (link)

I think this can be refined further
I have one suggestion regarding that:

I think the guideline should advice people to err on the side of caution when in doubt. Similar to our "In case of borderline cases, always prefer to tag the character with the bigger size" rule. This might resolve some potential edit wars before they even begin.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 02:08
#135 by warfoki
2020-02-25 at 06:38
@Ginseigou:

The forums are open for everyone, so if anyone feels interested in forming this future policy, they are welcome to voice their opinion. Assuming that the silent majority is on your side without anything to back that up is kinda dishonest. We will have the same gradation for violence as for porn: how visible it is. So there is a gradation on both ends, the same three tiered one, both essentially decide how "SFW" the images are. Let me use a movie analogy: A movie with some light slapstick comedy violence is still going to be at worst PG-13. A movie where people draw blood with weapon or punch the shit out of each other is probably gonna be an M. A movie where they gut people alive is an R. The same scale for sexual content will look something like this: fully clothed, very mild sexually suggestive themes, PG-13 a minimum. Some nudity, not fully clothed sex, M. Fully nude sex scene: R. It doesn't matter if the sex scene is plain old missionary or hardcore BDSM, it's still an adult only movie.

Now I alone have spent three posts arguing against the 4th flag at this point. So how about that instead of claiming a silent majority on your side, you actually present some counterarguments to address our concerns? That might actually get you somewhere.

While I used movies as analogy just above, note that we are not grating things by the same criteria. Visible nipples hardly make a movie 18+ by default. So, to actually answer these borderline cases: visible stains of pee or feces is suggestive. If you can actually see them existing the body, that means the genital area is exposed enough to be considered explicit. If they come out as part of a sex scene then obviously explicit. I actually covered the bondage part: without nudity it's suggestive. The violence part will be handled by the violence scale. The bath one should be fairly obvious from the guidelines alone: implied, but not visible nudity, no sexual act, so suggestive. link is a true borderline case, personally I'd rate it as suggestive mostly because that's not a drinking cup or a drinking straw, and the look makes it suggestive. This where the voting system comes in though.

@Rampaa:

While you are right about the amount skin covered, the reason I was thinking about it is something like this: link To put it simply wearing swimwear in public can be socially acceptable, wearing nothing but underwear in public cannot. But yeah, if go down on that route we'd have to make guidelines on just how skimpy is too skimpy to be safe and that's be probably more pain than it's worth. I'll think about it...

Areolae alone I think is still suggestive. I mean, if we put fully nude bodies is suggestive as long as the pose strategically covers certain parts, it makes sense to me that areolaes themselves don't make an image explicit.

Erring on the side of caution: of course. These are just the specific guidelines for the flags, there would a be a general set of guidelines above these in the final version of this FAQ page.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 07:36
#136 by yorhel
2020-02-25 at 07:55
@warfoki: Looks good! I've made d19 for the FAQ page draft, you can edit that one directly or just continue here.

Addition for suggestive: Unrealistic and oversexualized body proportions like Deneb should fall under that as well.

Swimwear: I agree that non-sexualized swimwear should be safe. Not sure how that should be worded exactly, but with voting I don't expect that approach to be too problematic.

it's just a fact that a few users are participating in this discussion makes it feel so.
I mean, this is true, and it's one thing I'm struggling with. People posting on these boards make up just a teeny tiny part of the VNDB userbase. Most people who use VNDB regularly don't even have an account. But that is absolutely not an argument for or against any of the proposed ideas. Either we incorporate the feedback that we do get and do whatever we believe is right based on own judgement, or we go and run a site-wide survey to gauge interest and opinions. The latter takes a whole lot more time and effort to do well.

Everyone disagree on the 4rd option for extreme sexual content
Not so much that I disagree than that I'm not sure how this would work. I still don't really see how we should judge "extreme" sexual content in an image that doesn't also hit the violence flag.

or have it visible right on the edit page
I had planned to display a few bullet-point hints when mouse-overing the options. Should still work with a larger FAQ page, with links to the relevant section for more guidance.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 07:58
#137 by rampaa
2020-02-25 at 07:57
wearing swimwear in public can be socially acceptable
Wearing swimwear at a public beach is indeed socially acceptable, but I feel like looking at images that have gals in swimwear while you are in a bus might not be as much. So calling them sexually suggestive makes sense to me.

as long as the pose strategically covers certain parts
I was trying to clarify if areola is one of those certain parts but I guess not.
#138 by adamstan
2020-02-25 at 07:59
I still don't really see how we should judge "extreme" sexual content in an image that doesn't also hit the violence flag.

I guess the loli/shota explicit pictures could fall into that category. Especially since there are places, where such images are considered CP and thus illegal, even if "normal" porn is okay, so it could be good to give users a way to block this category even if they are fine with other kinds ("general NSFW") of explicit content.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 08:01
#139 by warfoki
2020-02-25 at 08:17
@Yorhel:

I don't think the body type alone should warrant a suggestive flag. Like I would flag the profile picture of Akihabara Momoko as safe any time. Now the image you linked does warrant a suggestive flag just based on the guidelines I proposed (those thong-like things are hardly anything more than an underwear and her clothes are so tight fitted that the nipples along with the areola are clearly visible).

Swimwear: yeah, wording this is the issue. Like, a normal bikini often covers less than a set of underwear. And Rampaa has a point there that while wearing a normal bikini is perfectly socially acceptable and safe of a beach, it is highly context dependent. Wearing the same bikini to, say, school is not. And in a lot of times there's very little effort put on the background of CGs, so hard to get the context. And you know, how do we mark the lines between suggestive and safe in terms of skimpiness? If we want to err on the side of caution, putting swimwear as suggestive is probably the idea. Well, maybe fully covering, non see-trough one-piece swimsuits for women and those almost knee-length swimming trunk for men should be safe.

EDIT: Oh, and I can't edit the FAQ. I'm not a database or board mod, I only have the clearance to edit tags and traits.

@Rampaa:

In that case, I'd say areola alone is still a better fit for suggestive than explicit.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 08:23
#140 by yorhel
2020-02-25 at 08:41
EDIT: Oh, and I can't edit the FAQ. I'm not a database or board mod, I only have the clearance to edit tags and traits.
Yeah I just realized that. You're a dbmod now.
#141 by ginseigou
2020-02-25 at 09:13
We will have the same gradation for violence as for porn
@135 No, we wouldn't. The first two flags are for all content: safe means NO fanservice and porn, suggestive means that there's a fanservice like in anime, not porn. All that is left exclusively for porn is the 3rd flag, while you're suggesting additional 3 flags only for violence. Like violence ever was a huge problem for a majority of the site users.

I don't see the point in making additional 3 flags for violence, if it could be done like this:
The user checks the single flag for violence, if the violence is cruel like guro, then he checks Explicit from sexual content in addition. If there's no violence, then the user only chooses safe and it's over.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 09:50
#142 by warfoki
2020-02-25 at 09:21
Like you have the right to speak for the majority of the site users. And one more time: we have gradation on how visible violence / porn is on the given image. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, how about you start addressing some actual counterarguments instead of keep beating on that poor strawman?

Replying to your edit: so, basically you don't like binary flags... but you want binary flags for violence. How does that make sense?Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 09:48
#143 by yorhel
2020-02-25 at 09:57
All that is left exclusively for porn is the 3rd flag, while you're suggesting additional 3 flags only for violence.
I'll take a more charitable interpretation of this one and read it as a misinterpretation of what is being proposed.

To clarify: The three options for sexual content and violence work in tandem to flag the image, not separately. So there are a total of 9 (not 6...) options, as I explained in t13541.116. The existing options cover extreme/dark sexual content: Guro/BDSM/Rape all count as "sexually explicit + violence" or "sexually explicit + gore".

What is not covered by the proposed solution is loli, shota and bestiality. I'm not sure that even counts as a 4th option of "dark" or "extreme", either. (though a good portion of bestiality is rape, so that'll be flagged as such anyway)Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 10:04
#144 by ginseigou
2020-02-25 at 10:09
@143 I don't think that this 9 options system will ever work right, just take a look at how tags work right now and it would be enough to understand why.
#145 by yorhel
2020-02-25 at 10:12
just take a look at how tags work right now and it would be enough to understand why.
Not. Convinced. At. All.

Note, in case it still isn't obvious: The 9 options system and the two 3-options system are one and the same.
#146 by naiohoras
2020-02-25 at 10:27
I'm kinda tired at this point.
no wonder you're tired after thinking and writing that much... thanks Warfoki!

I think woman swimwear should be at least suggestive to avoid something like this. also, does cleavage should be counted as suggestive? there are pics showing cleavage which sorta 'fine' such as link but there are also not really 'fine' images such as link link (thanks rampaa for the images!) I'm not too sure about it but to avoid confusion we should count it as suggestive, perhaps? and from that, I made the 'guidelines' image for clothing's cover area here. in case someone has better idea for this, here's the template.

still, where does tight outfits such as link link link belong to? I think it's suggestive enough but I don't know.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 10:52
#147 by warfoki
2020-02-25 at 10:57
I think woman swimwear should be at least suggestive to avoid something like this.

You mean a 404 error? :P

As for the cleavage images... I haven't considered this. Will add some cleavage guidelines for the next iteration. The explicit / suggestive border is pretty clear (visible genitals or female nipples = explicit, otherwise suggestive), the problem is going to be the safe / suggestive borderline.

Suggestive bodysuits: basically, if you can clearly see the nipples through the fabric or a cameltoe, it's suggestive, otherwise safe. So all three of those would be safe while something like link (bodysuit on the left) would be suggestive. I mean, if a pretty much skin tight outfit like link is perfectly suitable for a prime time children's TV series, then I don't think we should go all puritan on this.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 11:10
#148 by skorpiondeath
2020-02-25 at 13:04
The 9 options system and the two 3-options system are one and the same.
Yes they are. The discussion is divided in two parts:
1) Having violent content classified in a single 3-option system pratically reusing sexual options for it, or classifing violent content by using two 3-options system (one for violence and one for sexual content) or by using 1 single 9-option(merged sexual-violence) system.
2) Adding a 4th option (extreme) for sexual content.

@yorhel: My main concern was to have the possibility to express an opinion, not to force it on everyone here, because you know defending your own ideas just doesn't make you automatically a dictator while some users seems just bothered I don't fall immediately in line with everyone else idea (which by the way is the primary goal of having a discussion...). But as the discussion progressed it's time to face reality and to back down on the 4th option for sexual content, it's around 10 (maybe more) users against 3, and with 2 moderators and you amongst those 10 users.
About classifing violent content with two 3-options system seems the best idea in my book, but if simplicity should be the main goal then let's have a 3-options system, should never be the case to hurt some users selfcentered empathy.

I don't think that this 9 options system will ever work right
Face reality mate. It will work either way we choose...it just won't work as we want... and so be it. I don't think you will let warfoki change his mind with that kind of vague answers while he is just argumenting every single detail of his decision.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 13:19
#149 by ginseigou
2020-02-25 at 13:29
Yeah, whatever, I won't care anymore. It's no wonder that no one wants to participate in this discussion because everything's decided by those with authority.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 14:22
#150 by skorpiondeath
2020-02-25 at 14:46
Yeah, whatever, I won't care anymore. It's no wonder that no one wants to participate in this discussion because everything's decided by those with authority.
What's the point of whining? We tried our best...we lost...now we go home. No need to take it to a childish level.Last modified on 2020-02-25 at 14:47