Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[Proposal] Visual Content rules/guidelines

posted
Total Posts
51
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,936 posts
Joined April 2009
Topic Starter
Ephemeral
In light of certain unfortunate happenings, much fuss has been made over the otherwise 'unspoken' rules of thumb that dictated whether a particular image was acceptable or not. It appears that over the past few years, community rule 5 (aka: no NSFW content) has been viciously misinterpreted, misunderstood, and generally rendered useless by an enduring lack of common sense.

If it isn't obvious already, I really didn't want to write or propose this, but it seems as if there is no other way to put this issue to bed.

In any case, I've thus submitted a PR to the osu-wiki that encompasses a broad suite of examples and labels for what isn't acceptable in a beatmap's visual content, and what is acceptable in limited quantities. This covers everything from BGs, to SB's to skins and more, so it's a fairly hefty thing.

Please review the current details here.

Do note that this is a draft, and much of it will need discussing - from particular implementations, to whether we even really need this at all. Please discuss robustly. I'm counting on it.
Last edited by Ephemeral , edited 1 time in total.
K4L1
118 posts
Joined December 2017
K4L1
Unacceptable example: Three very busty anime characters wearing similar swimsuits with their breasts poised in obvious presentation, with said imagery occupying more than a third of the image's total scene.

#SaveNet0
Mordred
532 posts
Joined October 2015
Mordred
I see no reason to add all of these rules, using common sense to determine if something is fine or not should be more than good enough


"is it sexually suggestive? does it promote drugs / illegal shit / racism / etc." ---> bg is not fine

any bg this doesn't apply to is fine 9/10 times, adding all these rules is just gonna make things more complicated than they have to be
Joe Castle
802 posts
Joined September 2014
Joe Castle
https://twitter.com/JoeCastleVen/status/1088591814653812743

remember i made some polls regarding why the bg rule seems ambiguous and what can be actually considered +18/lewd?

the community has spoken, and we dont agree about these rules youre trying to implement.
Last edited by Joe Castle , edited 4 times in total.
RadicalMemes
30 posts
Joined February 2016
RadicalMemes

Mordred wrote:

I see no reason to add all of these rules, using common sense to determine if something is fine or not should be more than good enough


"is it sexually suggestive? does it promote drugs / illegal shit / racism / etc." ---> bg is not fine

any bg this doesn't apply to is fine 9/10 times, adding all these rules is just gonna make things more complicated than they have to be


Well, that in itself would be an issue since people could argue about what is considered promoting illegal activity. Could a bg of some anime character killing a bunch of people be considered promoting illegal activity? no? anyone can and will for a fact argue about these issues if there arent clearly defined guidelines.
Mordred
532 posts
Joined October 2015
Mordred
and here we have an example of how not to use common sense
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,936 posts
Joined April 2009
Topic Starter
Ephemeral

Mordred wrote:

I see no reason to add all of these rules, using common sense to determine if something is fine or not should be more than good enough


"is it sexually suggestive? does it promote drugs / illegal shit / racism / etc." ---> bg is not fine

any bg this doesn't apply to is fine 9/10 times, adding all these rules is just gonna make things more complicated than they have to be


what do you define as sexually suggestive? using net0's background as an example, some people find it suggestive, some people don't. who's right and who's wrong here?

otherwise yes, i agree with you, adding these rules complicates things and restricts more than it opens up. i see no other way of having this kind of regulation enforced even remotely fairly without these rules though, and that appears to be a big issue that i've seen voiced.
Tenshichan
595 posts
Joined September 2011
Tenshichan

Joe Castle wrote:

https://twitter.com/JoeCastleVen/status/1088591814653812743

remember i made some polls regarding why the bg rule seems ambiguous and what can be actually considered +18/lewd?

the community has spoken, and we dont agree about these rules youre trying to implement.

There is no real reason why you would ever need a BG like this for your map other than for clickbait. Just pick a normal background which isn't sexually suggestive, jeez. This is a rhythm game, not a dating sim.
Astreachan
453 posts
Joined July 2013
Astreachan
why not doing something like this? https://osu.ppy.sh/s/44666 (I mean, there is a lot of violence in the video of this mapset but the user prevent people with the picture of the mapset and in the description)

Or maybe adding a warning that we can put like the epilepsy warning in the map options? People can't put something in a BG because we can see it on the website or IG without playing the map but can put it in the SB or in the video, and mappers will put the option "add warning for gore content in SB/video" or "add warning for soft sexual content in SB/video" or "add warning for NSFW/vulgarity lyrics in the song" (of course, I don't talk about 18+ sexual content) and player can put in their game options "parental control" or "disable SB/video with 15+/gore content" that will automaticly disable SB/video with those contents when played (can have same thing for epileptic) Th
Last edited by Astreachan , edited 1 time in total.
Ephemeral
Inland Empire
3,936 posts
Joined April 2009
Topic Starter
Ephemeral

Astreachan wrote:

why not doing something like this? https://osu.ppy.sh/s/44666 (I mean, there is a lot of violence in the video of this mapset but the user prevent people with the picture of the mapset and in the description)

Or maybe adding a warning that we can put like the epilepsy warning in the map options? People can't put something in a BG because we can see it on the website or IG without playing the map but can put it in the SB or in the video, and mappers will put the option "add warning for gore content in SB/video" or "add warning for soft sexual content in SB/video" or "add warning for NSFW/vulgarity lyrics in the song" (of course, I don't talk about 18+ sexual content) and player can put in their game options "parental control" or "disable SB/video with 15+/gore content" that will automaticly disable SB/video with those contents when played (can have same thing for epileptic) Th


a warning is not currently on the cards, else it'd be the most elegant solution to this kind of thing. even if we did have a warning, we'd still need some guide to help direct what exactly qualified for the warning, get what i mean?
Joe Castle
802 posts
Joined September 2014
Joe Castle

Tenshichan wrote:

Joe Castle wrote:

https://twitter.com/JoeCastleVen/status/1088591814653812743

remember i made some polls regarding why the bg rule seems ambiguous and what can be actually considered +18/lewd?

the community has spoken, and we dont agree about these rules youre trying to implement.
There is no real reason why you would ever need a BG like this for your map other than for clickbait. Just pick a normal background which isn't sexually suggestive, jeez. This is a rhythm game, not a dating sim.
its not my fault that you think the bg is sexually suggestive, youre the one making the thoughts/comment about it being like that when most of people doesnt consider it sexually suggestive neither is breaking the rules
Mordred
532 posts
Joined October 2015
Mordred

Ephemeral wrote:

Mordred wrote:

I see no reason to add all of these rules, using common sense to determine if something is fine or not should be more than good enough


"is it sexually suggestive? does it promote drugs / illegal shit / racism / etc." ---> bg is not fine

any bg this doesn't apply to is fine 9/10 times, adding all these rules is just gonna make things more complicated than they have to be
what do you define as sexually suggestive? using net0's background as an example, some people find it suggestive, some people don't. who's right and who's wrong here?

otherwise yes, i agree with you, adding these rules complicates things and restricts more than it opens up. i see no other way of having this kind of regulation enforced even remotely fairly without these rules though, and that appears to be a big issue that i've seen voiced.
I think the way we handle things currently is fine, from what I've seen it looks like backgrounds such as that one are discussed between qat / gmt internally and if they are deemed not appropriate they get disqualified. Imo this would just have to be done more often than not (not that it'd be necessary often anyways, looking at the qualified section as of right now, all the bgs in there seem fine)
Last edited by Mordred , edited 1 time in total.
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,225 posts
Joined July 2013
Ascendance

Joe Castle wrote:

https://twitter.com/JoeCastleVen/status/1088591814653812743

remember i made some polls regarding why the bg rule seems ambiguous and what can be actually considered +18/lewd?

the community has spoken, and we dont agree about these rules youre trying to implement.


Dude... the community does not consist of 312 people. Stop plugging your twitter everywhere and treating some random poll like it's the be-all-end-all of discussion. Even if we took that metric, the poll was incredibly close. You aren't the speaker of the community, so don't act like one. Leave your own opinion and be done with it.

E: Common sense is fine, but you also have people like <redacted BN name> who flip out when "common sense" does not match what they feel is correct. Concrete rules would be helpful, but either way is fine by me.
Last edited by Ascendance , edited 1 time in total.
Astreachan
453 posts
Joined July 2013
Astreachan

Ephemeral wrote:

Astreachan wrote:

why not doing something like this? https://osu.ppy.sh/s/44666 (I mean, there is a lot of violence in the video of this mapset but the user prevent people with the picture of the mapset and in the description)

Or maybe adding a warning that we can put like the epilepsy warning in the map options? People can't put something in a BG because we can see it on the website or IG without playing the map but can put it in the SB or in the video, and mappers will put the option "add warning for gore content in SB/video" or "add warning for soft sexual content in SB/video" or "add warning for NSFW/vulgarity lyrics in the song" (of course, I don't talk about 18+ sexual content) and player can put in their game options "parental control" or "disable SB/video with 15+/gore content" that will automaticly disable SB/video with those contents when played (can have same thing for epileptic) Th


a warning is not currently on the cards, else it'd be the most elegant solution to this kind of thing. even if we did have a warning, we'd still need some guide to help direct what exactly qualified for the warning, get what i mean?


beside trolls, if someone is offensed by the video, we put a warning

being offensed by something can depend of people, some people can be offensed by a swimsuit unleass some people will just say to them "don't go to a swimming pool, bro" so at least, discuting about "put a warning or not" than "making them forbidden or not"
Tenshichan
595 posts
Joined September 2011
Tenshichan

Joe Castle wrote:

Tenshichan wrote:

Joe Castle wrote:

https://twitter.com/JoeCastleVen/status/1088591814653812743

remember i made some polls regarding why the bg rule seems ambiguous and what can be actually considered +18/lewd?

the community has spoken, and we dont agree about these rules youre trying to implement.
There is no real reason why you would ever need a BG like this for your map other than for clickbait. Just pick a normal background which isn't sexually suggestive, jeez. This is a rhythm game, not a dating sim.
its not my fault that you think the bg is sexually suggestive, youre the one making the thoughts/comment about it being like that when most of people doesnt consider it sexually suggestive neither is breaking the rules
Personal bias. You know very well what kinds of people the community majorly consists of right?
Anyway, still no valid reason to include a bg like that.
Joe Castle
802 posts
Joined September 2014
Joe Castle

Ascendance wrote:

Joe Castle wrote:

https://twitter.com/JoeCastleVen/status/1088591814653812743

remember i made some polls regarding why the bg rule seems ambiguous and what can be actually considered +18/lewd?

the community has spoken, and we dont agree about these rules youre trying to implement.
Dude... the community does not consist of 312 people. Stop plugging your twitter everywhere and treating some random poll like it's the be-all-end-all of discussion. Even if we took that metric, the poll was incredibly close. You aren't the speaker of the community, so don't act like one. Leave your own opinion and be done with it.

E: Common sense is fine, but you also have people like <redacted BN name> who flip out when "common sense" does not match what they feel is correct. Concrete rules would be helpful, but either way is fine by me.
do you know what an estimation/survey is? that in general can speak a lot, but hey its your own opinion right? ;)
Last edited by Joe Castle , edited 1 time in total.
Ascendance
Elite Mapper
4,225 posts
Joined July 2013
Ascendance
An estimation or a survey is exactly what it is. Just an estimation. You cannot be sure an entire populous would agree to such a change, and especially considering that the vote was close, you cannot 100% affirm that this is the community direction. If you used the survey to support your own opinion, that's one thing, but this line ("the community has spoken, and we dont agree about these rules youre trying to implement.") was not necessary and is incorrect.
Joe Castle
802 posts
Joined September 2014
Joe Castle

Ascendance wrote:

An estimation or a survey is exactly what it is. Just an estimation. You cannot be sure an entire populous would agree to such a change, and especially considering that the vote was close, you cannot 100% affirm that this is the community direction. If you used the survey to support your own opinion, that's one thing, but this line ("the community has spoken, and we dont agree about these rules youre trying to implement.") was not necessary and is incorrect.
if those are your thoughts about it, thats great, but its your own opinion, not everybody has the same thoughts regarding how the bg rules on this proposal are basically restricting quite a lot when the bg in question isnt even +18 (and taking in consideration the current results of the poll, 60% is quite a mayority, btw no poll isnt necessary). If that was the case, a second round can be made to confirm those opinions [like the loved section polls for example] or actually make an official survey regarding this topic
Monstrata
Elite Mapper: Aspirant
4,642 posts
Joined May 2013
Monstrata
I propose the formation of the TATATAT. (The Anime Tiddies And Thighs Appreciation Team). It will be comprised of an odd-number of community members, ideally 11, who will vote on whether a map's background is "NSFW". Because visual content is very subjective, decisions arrived by vote would be better than one person imposing their values over another. A vote of at least 4/11 would be enough for a background to be considered too licentious for osu!
Nao Tomori
Nomination Assessment Team
3,089 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
the The Anime Tiddies And Thighs Appreciation Team

what is the point of having an odd number if not using a majority system? make it 12 and 1/3 in that case lol. but i actually think that's a pretty good idea since it's basically what Eph proposed without having to deal with the GMT over and over
-semi
23 posts
Joined November 2014
-semi

Monstrata wrote:

I propose the formation of the TATATAT. (The Anime Tiddies And Thighs Appreciation Team). It will be comprised of an odd-number of community members, ideally 11, who will vote on whether a map's background is "NSFW". Because visual content is very subjective, decisions arrived by vote would be better than one person imposing their values over another. A vote of at least 4/11 would be enough for a background to be considered too licentious for osu!


Why can't monstrata be peppy?
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 51