Does a pic become SFW when you cover genitals/nipples?If yes, then does that make pic related SFW?As far as I understand, a pic is NSFW when you can't show it at work without getting fired. Therefore pic related is NSFW since it is depicting a sex act (in this case a porn actress is RPing as a minor while giving a blowjob). The fact that there's no frontal nudity doesn't make it automatically SFW.I'm bringing this up because after I ban requested this pic on /vp/ (a worksafe POKEMON board, which means that this pic was also completely off-topic), one mod approved my ban request.Then another mod came and reversed the ban, citing 'lack of nudity'. Well? How do yo then define it?
>>3018Honestly, I'd consider that censored nudity that, by definition, is against GR5. It's obvious to anyone looking just what's going on in the picture. That's the "enforce the rules as written" Janitor part of me.However, Mods are fully entitled and empowered to reverse Janitor decisions.
With this picture you can see her ass and that's she's clearly blowing a guy. Though there's no nudity, if you're boss saw this they would probably be upset if they were uptight. If someone is posting this on an SFW board, they're just pushing the limits of what can be allowed. Anyway, I can't think of a SFW board where this photo would be relevant.
>>3020>If someone is posting this on an SFW board, they're just pushing the limits of what can be allowed. Anyway, I can't think of a SFW board where this photo would be relevant.This.My guideline for NWS is "exposed genitalia." This is less than I would like, but I don't get to decide that. Sometimes it's hard to tell if an image has exposed genitalia or not (with some of the freaky not-human stuff) but then it's down to "is this porn?" If the answer to that is "no" but it was posted with the intent to derail the thread to be about dragon tits or something, I'd probably put that under off-topic or maybe just delete if it wasn't posted maliciously.Oh, and I always consider text worksafe. You can discuss your dragon titties or lizard cloacas or centaur anatomy or how many spiders will fit into a drow vagina (and reproductive tract) all you like, but posting porn of it is where I'd draw the line. Anatomical pictures and nude art would probably be OK and I might let it slide if I see it. Depends on the context of the thread.
>>3019>However, Mods are fully entitled and empowered to reverse Janitor decisions.That's true and I don't dispute it. However, do note that said mod also reversed another mods decision to approve the banThe problem here is the wildly different interpretation of what makes a pic NSFW. Which is why I started this thread.
>>3022Well, I'm not the one to really answer that. I'm actually from the camp that thinks moot should completely remove all porn boards entirely or host them on a completely different server./u/ could easily transition to a SFW board, for example. But, I figure that's an entirely different conversation.Personally, my gut tells me the OP pic is NSFW and, as a Janitor, I'd treat it as such if it showed up on /lgbt/ or /jp/ or /mlp/.
>>3022i realize /vp/ might be less tolerant of discussing nws stuff like /tg/, so take what i said above with some perspecrive. this is one of the times "board culture" would influence what to do. See also: /a/'s stance on nws.
I was told that "NSFW" means exposed genitalia and nipples; lewd pictures are allowed.
>>3018a picture like that i'd just delete. i usually save br'ing for more explicit stuff
>>3025I feel like if that's true, and lewd pictures aren't allowed, then boards wouldn't be truly "Work safe" they'd be more like /pol/ which has a no pornography rule.
The picture in the OP is clearly not worksafe and I wouldn't feel a qualm ban requesting it, although I would be more likely to just delete it. The global rule does not say anything about nudity or genitalia, and while those things might make good guidelines for when and when not to crack down, their absence does not mean the post/image is acceptable.Especially considering the mods make (or have made) allowances for nudity on /a/ if it's from an anime/manga and not pornographic, it would be incredibly stupid to use nudity as a reliable metric for the "safe for work-ness" of an image.The mods should sort out their own differing interpretations before instructing you on yours.
Well the rules basically define it as exposed tits dicks and all licks of the same vein. Personally, I'd define it at anything that is obviously intended to be sexually arousing, but then, what is sexually arousing? It'd be a completely subjective standard.The system we have now disallows most porn, but still can't expunge provocative images. I think this system is the most stable way to handle it.
>>3018I think I recognize that porno...
