Submitted 2 years ago by wigglehard@wolfballs.com to main@wolfballs.com
Anytime anyone posts a scantily clad person or nude photo it must be marked nsfw out of respect for people who view the site at home with kids around or at work. I saw some photos recently of half naked chicks not marked nsfw, in my nudity room all posts are matked in this way amd i think going forward this should be our website policy and breaking the rule results in three warnings then a ban if fuckery continues
I'll put it in the side bar
Yes, this seems to be common sense.
Scantily clad women are NSFW... thus, mark them NSFW.
I was looking forward to the olympic female events, i guess this fatwa is going to de-fun sporting events.
Not just nudity surely... Extreme gore... And images of sexual deviants too I guess you won't be nsfw-ing drawings of mohammed.
To the deviants, even normal photos are porn. Most see child clothing models in sales papers and think nothing, but for some, that is what they use for, you know...
Masturbation? Yeah, like watching aquatic sports too.... But wanking over an adult woman is not quite so weird.
I like it.
I agree
I don't know. I think the NSFW flag for the entire community needs to be used to keep this content off the front page. So that balances between speech and comfort. If a community is NSFW, then make it where every post is already marked.
So make it technically impossible to see things in the wrong places.
That's what blacklisting is for. Or hide community as its called now. My pr is almost done for that. So any community that is to offensive for c/all will be kept out if all unless subscribed. That's what most sites do.
Also if your account is set to not allow NSFW post they all don't show up anywhere for you.
On top of that users can block communities and users so you really only see what you want to see. There isn't really any excuse for complaining about any one communities content.
All Admins are really suppose to do is keep dead people, bots, and child porn out of a free leaning site. And maybe prune c/all to be someone publicly acceptable. IMO.
Dead people? I guess you mean gore and "snuff films" (videos of murder, war, tragic accidents, and suicides).
I don't think, if a user dies, that their account should be removed, though, it probably should be locked and marked as a tribute page or whatever. I'd say to lock it unless a family member wants to resume it, for security reasons. They won't be able to update their password or look for account tampering.
As for bots, Reddit allows purpose-driven bots that don't otherwise break the rules. Some of those are helpful. Users can summon them via keywords or actions. Like the N-word counter bot, profanity counter bot, Bible quote bot, Churchill quote bot, etc. Some bots are not as useful such as a bot that tells you how much battery life the phone that took the photo had left. If the bot can "see" that in the image to report that, then so can the users.
And Reddit had a problem with annoying bots. And then folks who tired of the bots made bots to retaliate against the other bots. So a user might make one typo and a dozen bots reply to them, with most of the bots attacking each other. When I encountered that as a mod, I just banned the involved bots from my subs.
Tbh, if you're at work and surfing to a site called wolfballs, you probably ought to only be doing it on your phone and using a VPN.
Privacy isn't really the issue being discussed, though your suggestions do hold true. While the site name is rather innocuous in most cases, yes, it can be misinterpreted in a workplace scenario and likely not something you'd want in your usage history.
It is more about the reputation of the site and for the comfort of the users. Ruqqus went down after a bunch of racist and Nazi posts showed up on the front page. I don't know if that was massive trolling, leftwing shills, or actual Nazis. Still, that ruined the brand and made it hard to operate a site.
Yes especially when we discuss medical matters likeasturbation.
Common sense but ok...
I looked on the sidebar, and it says "no illegal content", and i'm thinkin', ...illegal where?
American law is irrelevant to me. I'm not American. I'm not in my home country. I use vpn for any old country, based in yet another country. So i have no idea what "illegal content" even means ... There are a few universals across jurisdictions, but in the physical jurisdiction i am in, things that matter in a US jurisdiction are mostly irrelevant, and vice versa. So, how is a rule like that even meaningful?!
In some ways, I don't think that matters too much as most have a fuzzy idea of what that means.
Most illegal content anywhere worldwide would involve child porn, terrorism, copyright abuse, stalking, and actionable criminal threats.
But yeah, this is an important legal clarification to make. Good question. You are right that there are differences such as drugs being legal to trade in some places, but speaking on certain topics or criticizing certain people may be illegal.
Terrorism is freedom fighting. The American Dept of Homeland Security is trying define things that the American state is guilty of as terrorism, if it deems them done by the public, in direct contraventionof the first amendment.
Child porn is a universal, but the afe of consent varies. In many countries 17, 16 or even 15, is the legal age of consent. We know that the universal is the obviously young, and prepubescent. I dislike the idea that in some jurisdictions very old men could have their way with 16-year-olds, i have a niece that age, its a yuck factor.
Copyright abuse is bit unimportant unless money is at stake, or reputation/credit.
Stalking is a bit subjective
"Actionable criminal threats" seems meaningless. I don't see why threats should be criminalised at all.
BearBalls@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I propose that it's only NSFW if your balls touch
wigglehard@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Hmmmm interesting
Monarque@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I lol'd