and here we have an example of how not to use common sense
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
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.
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
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 rulesTenshichan wrote:
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.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.
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)Ephemeral wrote:
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?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
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.
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.
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?
Personal bias. You know very well what kinds of people the community majorly consists of right?Joe Castle wrote:
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 rulesTenshichan wrote:
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.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.
do you know what an estimation/survey is? that in general can speak a lot, but hey its your own opinion right?Ascendance wrote:
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.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.
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.
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 topicAscendance 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.
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!
Talking about anime tiddies, technically this falls in this age category, if nothing else such as genitals or entirely naked bust are explicitly shown.PEGI 12 wrote:
Video games that show violence of a slightly more graphic nature towards fantasy characters or non-realistic violence towards human-like characters would fall in this age category. Sexual innuendo or sexual posturing can be present, while any bad language in this category must be mild. Gambling as it is normally carried out in real life in casinos or gambling halls can also be present (e.g. card games that in real life would be played for money).
I think what Eph is trying to say is that defining where a warning is needed is just a proxy to the issue this thread is trying to address.Astreachan wrote:
beside trolls, if someone is offensed by the video, we put a warningEphemeral wrote:
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?
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"
If they are going to handle this situation as fairly as possible, they MUST stick to this category and accept they have made a mistake when resolving the situation that triggered this proposal.Cherry Blossom wrote:
I think this goes beyond all of us here, i mean nsfw stuff is pretty subjective to everyone based on their own culture, without talking about cults and religions.
Imo we should set our standards same as standards from games such as "Pan european game information" also known as "PEGI"Talking about anime tiddies, technically this falls in this age category, if nothing else such as genitals or entirely naked bust are explicitly shown.PEGI 12 wrote:
Video games that show violence of a slightly more graphic nature towards fantasy characters or non-realistic violence towards human-like characters would fall in this age category. Sexual innuendo or sexual posturing can be present, while any bad language in this category must be mild. Gambling as it is normally carried out in real life in casinos or gambling halls can also be present (e.g. card games that in real life would be played for money).
Starting to set standards/labels from something which already exists and applied in thousands of games is probably something i would do instead.
K4L1 wrote:
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
Ashton wrote:
Someone who has abused their power as a BN certainly deserves the restriction.
^Stefan wrote:
Are we that incapable to take care for that without having such a hilarious state? It has wprked so far somewhat well (because seriously, just ignore the crybabies complaining about every single crap) and move on. We're not having these 'unfortunate happenings' everyday. Or just at all, and we most likely won't have them again.
To put definitions of what is acceptable, and when it's not anymore is near impossible and treated case by case. Rules will make the situation worse by default and won't solve anything. It'll only limit people by their availability and cause more likely these "explosions" we recently had.
Even if it means to have these girls with oversized breasts because people most likely use them for their maps lacking of attention and interests, it's still better than to draw a line that cannot be (really) exceeded in certain cases.
He abused his power as a BN by popping multiple maps for reasons that were not exactly correct. This was done purely out of spite and was the primary reason for his removal from the BNG as well as his subsequent restriction. Please don't spread misinformation with lines like "the only reason they restricted him was because he didn't change a bg that isn't even nsfw."MinNin wrote:
he doesn't deserve a restriction imo. the only reason they restricted him was because he didn't change a bg that isn't even nsfw. sure, it is sexualized in a way, but it's not nsfw. lots of maps done this and got ranked, and no one cared about the "nsfw" bg. and how did he abuse his power as a bn? he was just trying to defend himself by saying that there's nothing wrong with the bg. net0 getting restricted is basically the osu staff saying, "if there's too much anime tiddies, then you're gonna be fucked up for life.."Ashton wrote:
Someone who has abused their power as a BN certainly deserves the restriction.
and #savenet0
Are you talking about the osu!staff?clayton wrote:
this whole thing is being blown out of proportion due to the immature reactions/handling of people involved with Net0's map. as long as GMT/QAT are present in moderating beatmap content, and mappers are compliant, none of this is an issue
abraker wrote:
I think what Eph is trying to say is that defining where a warning is needed is just a proxy to the issue this thread is trying to address.Astreachan wrote:
Ephemeral wrote:
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"