Both show about the same amount of skin. This example (that is safe for work) is sexualized to a larger degree so I feel its a bit of a wash.
The difference I saw is that Norman is not nice looking and I feel that it being reported and the other one not is potentially problematic. I have no issues with it being marked nsfw (but I do lean towards it being fine in a workplace).
Well, have you heard about that judge who said that “there’s no way to define what porn is, but that you know it when you see it”?
I think the above can be applied to these cases.
In my opinion, the Norman photo implies nudity. Your photo doesn’t. So the Norman photo feels more like NSFW than your photo. Yours is not necessarily safe for work, though. Having said that, I’m okay with other people having a different opinion.
And in the end, if the admins or moderators have a set of rules to keep things consistent within the community, abide by them and move on. Don’t like them? Go to a different community.
Ummmm, This was an attempt to define consistent rules within the community. I made the call that it was not NSFW, and used this picture (that is not mine but was at the time posted on the community without complaint) to try and determine what the line is. How is it you think mods and admins work out a set of rules if not by working out a set of rules?
Yea, I’d like to give you a straighter answer but I think it’s gonna be very subjective.
Norman is implied to be nude, centaur is wearing something, but honestly idk.
Thing is, I don’t feel strongly about either of those myself and would probably go off reports for either…
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean any of this as drama, criticism, or punishment or anything.
This is a nice community overall and y’all are doing a fine job of it, really, I mean it.
I also have a hard time giving you an actual well defined line, because I don’t personally have an issue with most NSFW stuff. I also don’t browse lemmy at work, because that’s just dumb as bricks.
/All is downright full of actual porn, and your browser downloads the unblurred thumbnails which is then only blurred locally by your browser through css. If your company is snooping your traffic they’d see the unblurred thumbnails anyway…
Browsing at work is sketchy af, whether it’s tagged or not.
My opinion on NSFW…
I don’t think anyone should get in trouble at work because of the amount of skin shown, but because they’re fucking around on lemmy instead of working to begin with?
Anyway
To be perfectly honest, tagging Norman is probably on the overzealous side…
I just think the tag shouldn’t be much of an inconvenience.
For what it’s worth, I certainly wouldn’t remove either, even though removal is more “silent” as in there’d be no interaction.
Again, I like y’all and hope there’s no hard feelings.
A full frontal nude can be art. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily safe for work. And things can get veeery specific and veeeery specific with art.
Do I mind nudity in art? Nope. Do I mind an artsy piece in which people are bathing in poop? Damn right I mind. I’d rather not see that. So, if a community allows it, I’ll just move on to a different one.
Hey there, tbh, I personally don’t really mind this one.
It’s not really about me though, but we’ve had a few reports about this specific one and I figured not everyone has the same “fence”.
I didn’t think it warranted removal on these grounds, which is why I reached out for tagging instead.
The tag itself shouldn’t be a big a deal and isn’t meant as criticism of your work.
This one’s probably on the fence.
Please edit and tag as NSFW.
Just a quick question, is this image below NSFW?
Trying to judge where the line on this is always tricky so I figure we could use some other examples/points of data.
Eh, it’s a good question, I don’t know that there’s an actual well defined line tbh.
The other one implies nudity, this one’s wearing something.
Myself, I don’t really care that much, but I’ve had a few reports on OP’s cow-dude.
Didn’t wanna remove it, which is why I just asked for tagging it.
Both show about the same amount of skin. This example (that is safe for work) is sexualized to a larger degree so I feel its a bit of a wash.
The difference I saw is that Norman is not nice looking and I feel that it being reported and the other one not is potentially problematic. I have no issues with it being marked nsfw (but I do lean towards it being fine in a workplace).
There’s also a fifth leg in the OP image.
That is clearly a leg and not a massive dong.
Well, have you heard about that judge who said that “there’s no way to define what porn is, but that you know it when you see it”?
I think the above can be applied to these cases.
In my opinion, the Norman photo implies nudity. Your photo doesn’t. So the Norman photo feels more like NSFW than your photo. Yours is not necessarily safe for work, though. Having said that, I’m okay with other people having a different opinion.
And in the end, if the admins or moderators have a set of rules to keep things consistent within the community, abide by them and move on. Don’t like them? Go to a different community.
Ummmm, This was an attempt to define consistent rules within the community. I made the call that it was not NSFW, and used this picture (that is not mine but was at the time posted on the community without complaint) to try and determine what the line is. How is it you think mods and admins work out a set of rules if not by working out a set of rules?
That’s an excellent point.
Yea, I’d like to give you a straighter answer but I think it’s gonna be very subjective.
Norman is implied to be nude, centaur is wearing something, but honestly idk.
Thing is, I don’t feel strongly about either of those myself and would probably go off reports for either…
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean any of this as drama, criticism, or punishment or anything.
This is a nice community overall and y’all are doing a fine job of it, really, I mean it.
I also have a hard time giving you an actual well defined line, because I don’t personally have an issue with most NSFW stuff. I also don’t browse lemmy at work, because that’s just dumb as bricks.
/All is downright full of actual porn, and your browser downloads the unblurred thumbnails which is then only blurred locally by your browser through css. If your company is snooping your traffic they’d see the unblurred thumbnails anyway…
Browsing at work is sketchy af, whether it’s tagged or not.
My opinion on NSFW…
I don’t think anyone should get in trouble at work because of the amount of skin shown, but because they’re fucking around on lemmy instead of working to begin with?
Anyway
To be perfectly honest, tagging Norman is probably on the overzealous side…
I just think the tag shouldn’t be much of an inconvenience.
For what it’s worth, I certainly wouldn’t remove either, even though removal is more “silent” as in there’d be no interaction.
Again, I like y’all and hope there’s no hard feelings.
Oh I get it, just trying to get a handle on where the line is when talking about something art related.
A full frontal nude can be art. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily safe for work. And things can get veeery specific and veeeery specific with art.
Do I mind nudity in art? Nope. Do I mind an artsy piece in which people are bathing in poop? Damn right I mind. I’d rather not see that. So, if a community allows it, I’ll just move on to a different one.
it is on the safe side of the fence though. do people work in mosques and churches now?
edited for nsfw :/
Hey there, tbh, I personally don’t really mind this one.
It’s not really about me though, but we’ve had a few reports about this specific one and I figured not everyone has the same “fence”.
I didn’t think it warranted removal on these grounds, which is why I reached out for tagging instead.
The tag itself shouldn’t be a big a deal and isn’t meant as criticism of your work.
Peace
Good take
Can you make the inverse one? Cow body, human head?
will try
Thanks!