Common sense, where are you? :eyes:
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"
Then how do you suppose you would objectively argue the suitability of the points you proposed? You need to provide examples (within reason of current rules and what was allowed) that violate the proposed points and state why you believe or do not believe the examples are appropriate for this community, and hence validating or invalidating the rule. Otherwise any statement that challenges anything you proposed will devolve into a subjective circlejerk, with one person believing one thing is appropriate and the other person believing otherwise and no means to argue other than what they believe. In one way or another if you want this to proceed constructively you need some sort of framework on how to approach this.Ephemeral wrote:
the Miller test is good, but we still run into the issue of determining what does and doesn't satisfy its particular components. proving 'patent offense' without explicit examples and lengthy catalogues of legal precedent is difficult - it may work for the US supreme court, but it isn't going to for us.
hence, the listed rules/guidelines. what I am interested in foremost from this topic is discussion regarding whether:
- the suitability of the points listed in the draft re: appropriateness in visual content
- broad discussion whether these guidelines/rules are even needed at all, and if not, how we can approach the topic of consistency in these content rulings
Depictions of excessive violence towards humans, human-like characters or animalsSo how does the bg in this map fit in this? It portrays bleeding out with symbolic graphical depictions of recent death (shot to the head)
- Example: imagery that portrays gore, mutilation, severe maiming, wounding or graphical depictions of recent death with an obvious cause present (etc: hanging, asphyxiation, exasanguination/bleeding out)
Imagery of mild to moderate violence without excessive gore or bloodshed
- Good example: Two characters from a boxing anime actively fighting one another with bruises, swelling, and some blood present
- Unacceptable example: A sword fighter removing a limb from an opponent's body with much blood present
Explicit or highly suggestive sexual posturing in any capacityhttps://osu.ppy.sh/s/27122 - Literally the example
- Example: a character in a state of near or partial undress lying atop a bed or another surface with obvious sexual intent/anticipation
Depictions of any sexual content involving or targeted at minors, or fantasy characters of uncertain/dubious agehttps://osu.ppy.sh/s/19628 - portrayal from an anime character in the 'loli' style
- Example: Any form of overt sexual posturing, innuendo or portrayal from an anime character in the 'loli' style, regardless of their established narrative age
Depictions of swimsuit or 'scant' dress/undress so long as such imagery is not highly excessive or in violation of the posturing & innuendo rules listed above
- Good example: A particularly busty anime character enjoying some time on a dock with her seagull companion
- 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
Depiction of obviously artistic nudity within the context of a given work or domainSo would this then allow the bg schoolboy previously used in his map Legend of Genesis?
- Good example: Pairing classic Salvador Dali art containing mild nudity to a work cited to be inspired by said piece, or that otherwise houses an obvious, discernible reference to it
- Bad example: Using a nude model or figure with a work that has no obvious link to the piece, such as on an unrelated anime opening or ending theme
https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/891356/discussion/-/generalAll#/743638abraker wrote:
Depiction of obviously artistic nudity within the context of a given work or domainSo would this then allow the bg schoolboy previously used in his map Legend of Genesis?
- Good example: Pairing classic Salvador Dali art containing mild nudity to a work cited to be inspired by said piece, or that otherwise houses an obvious, discernible reference to it
- Bad example: Using a nude model or figure with a work that has no obvious link to the piece, such as on an unrelated anime opening or ending theme
Still wouldn't be allowedKuron-kun wrote:
3) The background has almost no obvious or immediate reference to anything on the song outside of the ''Genesis" mention on the title, which most people wouldn't even notice or draw any conclusions other than that.
Wait the RC has something stated regarding the bg being relevant to the map/music? Because this sounds like something that can be abused to force mappers to change bg to something more relevant even in sfw maps.Kuron-kun wrote:
3) The background has almost no obvious or immediate reference to anything on the song outside of the ''Genesis" mention on the title, which most people wouldn't even notice or draw any conclusions other than that.
We don't need to 100% objectively determine the guidelines. If we did find a way to objectively determine the Visual Content rules/guidelines, then wouldn't they just become "rules?" I'd much rather the guidelines proposed remain "guidelines" and not rules. Subjectivity to a degree is not necessarily a bad thing.abraker wrote:
I believe common sense is not an excuse as it's subjective and a hand wave in general, and we need to objectively decide why something should be allowed or not allowed.
I am not fond of subjective means because, as seen with a lot of highlighted cases in mapping now a days, there is quite a number of disputes over guideline claims because of subjectivity. It makes things far less efficient when they can be straightforward. The more guidelines there are the larger the arsenal becomes for people who want to disrupt the ranking flow of certain beatmaps. I see guidelines as self serving guiding statements for those who would like assistance and guidance, but instead they are more commonly used offensively by modders against mappers as a means to argue that the maps are not suitable for rank.Penguin wrote:
We don't need to 100% objectively determine the guidelines. If we did find a way to objectively determine the Visual Content rules/guidelines, then wouldn't they just become "rules?" I'd much rather the guidelines proposed remain "guidelines" and not rules. Subjectivity to a degree is not necessarily a bad thing.
"In situations whether the appropriateness of a given piece of visual content is unclear, the mapper must submit a formal request to any Beatmap Nominator for further appraisal, who will then refer the issue to the Global Moderation Team to decide based on a supermajority (>70%) consensus."
I think that this is a great idea, but it probably needs a little bit of refining. Monstrata's proposal for the "TATATAT" sounds a little silly, but something similar to that could work.