🔞 The "Should Facepunch Allow NSFW Material?" discussion arena.

[Big D Duchovny]

Well, I care? Most normal people would care what other people think of them. There are pretty good reasons why people don't browse their favourite furry-loli-diaper-vore fetish site on the bus, and it's not because people "shouldn't be looking over your shoulder". It's because you'd be a total weirdo if you did.

[SEKCobra]

NSFW content made FP what it is today and is part of our legacy. Hell, who doesn't remember the creation of "Sexy Lamarr", a staple in sexposes today.

[Big D Duchovny]

Yeah sure whatever, I don't know why you feel the need to see an underage girl suggestively sucking on an ice cream every time Facepunch User Foxer blesses a thread with one of his posts, though. How about you keep whatever's been making Facepunch great in the appropriate threads, and then those of us who don't need loli tits next to our discussion of the latest sanctions on Russia can get our wishes fulfilled as well.

Live and let live.

[Bordey]

Porn/nsfw material is allright in their own sections (threads, possibly hidden in a NSFW subforum) but I don't think it belongs in avatars or backgrounds, any sort of fetish material/porn shouldn't be visible to people who don't wanna look for it. Underage people use this site too.

[Protocol7]

I just can't understand why someone would want to plaster borderline or softcore pornography all over their posts. It makes me think those people are weird, like whenever you see someone with porno as their phone wallpaper.

[Pascall]

We're still figuring out what our stances on NSFW backgrounds/avatars are but it's stalled mostly because we don't have the ability to change them right now.

[SEKCobra]

I wasn't commenting on that specific picture mate, no need to be so defensive about it.

[Big D Duchovny]

Yeah I'm sorry that I completely overreacted by writing a so-called "response" on a forum. I'll try to make sure to get less out of control next time.

[Zethin]

tbf as far as I know that's bannable even under the "Hottest Illustrated Girls" rules, not sure how that's been allowed so far. Lack of an (effective) reporting system does make it hard to single out users like that though.

[DaWhatTheFox]

Keep the porn to Discord

[galsjel]

Here's a solution:

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/183177/9cc05e29-69d5-4a0f-85e4-ee44267cf550/image.png

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/183177/7785439f-8f8e-4a35-b80d-0b72cf61cd7a/image.png

[LZTYBRN]

the way that's phrased makes it seem like it's a joke tho

people would not check it on purpose

[galsjel]

well in garry's "update 5" thread, he said nsfw backgrounds shouldn't exist so.

[LZTYBRN]

i agree, however it's still up to the mods to enforce it

[Barnek]

If you give people an arbitrary option to hide or tag own profiles as NSFW it is not going to be used. Chances are such images are used to show off to others with the same interest.
Letting aside all this NSFW thing, if you set a background just to end up conditioned by yourself, then said feature losses part of its purpose.

[Janeway]

Are shirtless dudes NSFW. 🤔 I think mines pretty tasteful tbh.

[AtomicSans]

Just tell people that they have 7 days to change it, and refusing results in a ban.

[Trafficman]

Ban until they can grind enough coins to change background

Welcome to the FP debtor's prison

[The Adjudicator]

We will change your bad background for you.

From anime gore fetish background to classical art

https://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/classic-art-fast-food-1-468x312.jpg

[Bordey]

What if Garry would enable a system that allows mods to remove backgrounds and avatars from people? Then people wouldn't be forced to spend coins immediately, unless they want a new background (that wouldn't break rules anymore)

[ardosos]

There should be a default "background of shame" that naughty people get, something similar to the man picking nose and dog but default avatars of yore. People who have nsfw backgrounds get theirs changed by a mod into this default one, and then if they want they can spend coins to change it again like normal.

This requires mods to have the ability to change people's backgrounds but I assume that's on the list of planned features somewhere down the road.

[chunkymonkey]

I get what you're getting at but at least to me that's simply borderline. There is nothing explicit in those images imo, they're borderline.

If people think you're on a "weird porn forum" over images like that maybe they're a bit stupid.

That said, I do agree with you that explicitly NSFW work avatars and backgrounds shouldn't be allowed.

[chunkymonkey]

Nothing explicit is showing, IE no nudity.

[Cuon Alpinus]

shit fuck
don't make me use my shekels

[chunkymonkey]

Maybe my standards are not as absurdly high as other peoples.

[chunkymonkey]

I wish I worked at a job were my employer let me fuck around on the internet in general while on company time and would only get mad in NSFW stuff was viewed.

[Trafficman]

"I can't even get off unless someone's either covered in more fur than a fully grown Albanian man, or is a '10,000' year old vampire that looks like she's 7, you guys are a bunch of prudes smh" - seemingly half this forum

[chunkymonkey]

Wow, it's almost like you're comically boiling this whole debate down to a lame strawman and being completely disingenuous!

[The Adjudicator]

For avatars/backgrounds I get tired of thinking about this bc it gets kinda hair splitting. hear me out.

The foundation of 'no nsfw', for this forum especially, will always be (if you ignore the lapse we're having on newpunch atm) no nudity, nothing sexually explicit, nothing illegal, context matters, and nothing nasty/shockimages. + Good 'ol commonsense w/ mod discretion. Hoping I did not miss anything there.

When someone says, "well I want nothing that'll get me into trouble at work/home" we cannot guarantee this ever.

[Bordey]

Absurdly high standards? What? One of those pictures literally was a fetish sex doll, and another one is an underage girl depicted in a very explicit manner