On the NSFW category

Vriska

There are a zillion other places online where people can go look at porn if they want to anyway.

Misery

What Ozzy said.

Obā-san

And you can have a multi-person PM discussion if you want to, and you can share NSFW stuff there.

Irene

The point is that it's a shiny new section with reasonable restrictions. It does not hurt anyone whatsoever.

Avatars are just as useful as a restricted porn section. People do not need them any more than they need porn.

That's what you got a username for.

I have yet to see any issues as long as it's restricted.

Obā-san

Creating a new, unnecessary section which divides users proooobably isn't the best idea.

And keep in mind that 1/3 of the admins couldn't even post there.

Misery

Avatars...useless? What the hell?

Irene

Section was already created. It's not viewable at the moment, and only by Admins. That point is invalid.

It doesn't divide people. It just means the topics are shown to them only. Just use "All Discussions".

It's not like you want to talk to them about porn or see the images anyway. If they want to, why is it wrong for them to do it here when it's a legitimate option.

^ They're just as useless. No, seriously, they do not do anything special here. It's just... an image that looks cool. That's it. Nothing more.

Obā-san

Yes, the admins can view it. But it is not currently in use because it's elimination is being considered.

How does dividing things not divide things?

If they want to, why is it wrong for them to do it here when it's a legitimate option.

Because it would adversely affect the nature of this site with no discernible benefit.

Irene

It doesn't hurt the site whatsoever.

Don't like, Don't read is in full effect here. And unlike a lot of other stuff, it's beyond easy.

It doesn't really divide the users at all. People are not honestly going to much stick to those sections anymore that they would stick to any particular area. That's just a fallacy. There is no way to tell where people will go unless we try it out first.

Part of the reason it's not in use is because a password system is required to set up, and that takes time to figure out. There's also the factor it can't be available for underage people. The deleted part is only if the other options fail.

Obā-san

I can see no benefit from this, and quite a few ways it can go wrong.

I'm done here, I've said my piece.

Irene

If an underaged person actually got in by lying, they're the ones who get in trouble. Most likely being banned. They should know better.

Once again, an unproven fallacy as well. You're assuming it'll go wrong. Let's work with facts here. Not hypotheticals that have no proof.

Unknown

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Misery

^

Obā-san

fallacy

I'm not assuming, I'm performing a cost benefit analysis.

Benefits: None. NSFW conversations with as many people as you wish are already possible through PMs, so there is no need to make an extraneous space to do so. (*I am involved in several such discussions*)

Costs: Possible alienation of users, it's a hassle to set up, also things unforseen (*Remote*).

So, even though the costs are minute, there are no benefits to cancel them out.

Irene

People do lie about their ages. If found out, yeah, they're going to get in trouble.

And how is it not their fault for lying? They broke the rules, did they not?

And it's a fallacy because it is. It's not factual, and it's not proven.

^ It's still a hypothetical. Not a fact. Likewise, tons of PM's take up just as much space as topics.

Removing the hypotheticals, the only thing that actually has factual weight is the hassle to set up. Has the Mods/Admins complained it's too hard to set up? If not, then that's not a problem either. I don't take "could be bad in the future" as "Yeah, might as well not bother." If a problem happens, and then, we can shut it down. Till then, nothing is hurt.

Unknown

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".^[1] By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g.argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

Not factual =/= a fallacy. See? Now you've made a fool of yourself.

Learn what words mean before you use them.

Obā-san

^ ^ Irene is recalling the experiences that got her banned from TVT.

Irene

Okay, I used it wrong. My bad.

Doesn't change my entire point.

You cannot foresee the future. You have not submitted proof that it'll go bad either.

Obā-san

 It's still a hypothetical. Not a fact. Likewise, tons of PM's take up just as much space as topics.

Yes, but it is a hypothetical stacked up against something that doesn't exist.

The hypothetical danger of the system outweighs it's nonexistent benefits.

Irene

Those are nonexistent dangers as well.

That's the problem with a hypothetical. It does not actually exist.

And it gives people another place to talk. That's the benefit. That's wrong to have now?

Princess Alice

The mods are talking it over now.

If the consensus is that an NSFW category is neither needed nor wanted, as seems to be the case from this thread, we're certainly willing to reconsider.

Obā-san

They already have a place to discuss that topic.

And a hypothetical (*It's the wrong word, it should be potential, my bad*), doesn't exist, but it could.

You could have a heart attack and die in the future. Will you? I don't know.

Doesn't mean it can't happen.

^ Thank you very much.

Irene

They already have a place to discuss that topic.

That's not here. They cannot discuss that with the same people as here.

And a hypothetical (*It's the wrong word, it should be potential, my bad*), doesn't exist, but it could.

Having potential does not mean it'll get explored.

You could have a heart attack and die in the future. Will you? I don't know.

Avoid the strawmans please. They're not even comparable besides "negative" effects. Worst that could happen is that the offender gets banned.

Doesn't mean it can't happen.

Doesn't mean it will. That point will forever stay neutral.

The whole potential thing is pure maybe and not factual effect to take into consideration.

Obā-san

Yes, it is here. The PM system can handle discussions between multiple users.

Anyways, this argument is irrelevant.

Misery

^ That is true.

Obā-san

strawmans

WHAT????

Irene

A Heart Attack is nothing similar to having a Restricted Porn Section(and that it could possibly go wrong).

You only used that example to prove your point, which was way too extreme and unrelated. Strawman.

And being on a PM system makes it easier for harassment, which is kind of the same issue as you're giving.

So once again, let's remove the paranoia completely.

Misery

PM system easier for harassment? No, it isn't. You can also be easily harassed in the forums.

Obā-san

^ You can report PMs, so it's no easier with them

Firstly, the plural is strawmen.

Secondly, it'd be a strawman if I used the analogy to refute your argument.

BUT I was using it to show you that you were flawed in your dismissal of possible future situations because it is possible that they won't happen.

And they are similar in this use, they are both things that could happen in the future, but might not. That is all that was meant with the analogy.

Please, know what words mean and think before you post, you are making a fool of yourself in front of everyone.

As so not to continue that, I will leave this discussion now.

Unknown

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Misery

^ Yes.

Irene

There is no need to be rude about this, Naney. Or any of you. My bad on the accusation.

And it was an analogy anyway. You compared it to a Heart Attack. That's an analogy.

I did not say it couldn't happen either.

I said it should not be taken into consideration unless it's beyond extreme. You did not give anything that could go bad beyond "It could go bad." There were pretty much 0 examples. Thus, even if the point could be taken into consideration, there was no way to see the point of any use.

Obā-san

I am not being rude.

Misery

Stop calling people rude, Irene.

Imipolex G

I call a time out.

Irene

you are making a fool of yourself in front of everyone.

That was necessary? No, no it wasn't.

But let's move on.

Obā-san

Necessary? No.

But, if I hadn't pointed it out and continued arguing you would have continued as well.

Perhaps my pointing it out could help you save face before you go too far or make you rethink...

Ah, never mind.

Irene

You could've pointed it out much easier. For example...

"Actually, could you check your definitions first?"

We don't need the vitrol at all.

There is no reason not to be polite about it.

I apologize for making a mistake. I don't need to attacked for it, though.

Obā-san

It's not simply...

(*Sigh*)

Ok, here's the thing: Lots of us very much do not want an NSFW section and have said as such. Even if we don't read it, it would make us uncomfortable.

Your (*and only your*) simply going LOLDON'TLIKEDON'TREAD is not only disrespectful of our feelings, it makes you appear completely oblivious.

Justice4243

BOTS HAVE STARTED TO ENTER THE OLD SITE AND POST WITH IMPUDENCE! They know...

Also, I object to the idea that the NSFW is or was ever going to be a "porn section". I think criteria regarding 18+ material warrants discussion and probably steps to keep it off the main site as to avoid any legal troubles involving our younger members. 

However, there is still plenty that's legal for them to view that already DOES get posted that's maybe not something you want up on your PC at work or school. I think having a section to keep this stuff to is a good idea and would also solve some issues with people who just don't want to see it. 

I don't see how something like that would divide the fora.  

So, as opposed to just dropping the idea entirely, I'm suggesting we reevaluate the purpose of the sub-forum.  

lee4hmz

One of the issues with that, as at least one person has pointed out, is that there's really no good way to hide NSFW threads if you're reading All Discussions unless you use Greasemonkey. I wouldn't like resorting to that myself, and putting all the non-NSFW categories under General might not be a good idea.

Justice4243

They're still marked with the category they're in, though. 

It still seems better than me to be able to mark the threads somehow then continue they way we have been except now there's no vague Vanilla ruling over our head about how decent our content needs to be.

Though, we could make a rule about adding a "(NSFW)" suffix to thread titles, which would work just as well from my perspective.

Maybe we should just add that to the rules? 

Tre

...Oops.

Sorry for starting all that, just an idea.

Salix Babylonika

Uh, can we not go all stereo-OTC up in this thread here?

Causes blood pressure levels to rise.

I am neither for nor against a NSFW section. I don't really have an opinion on it.

If the reaction is going to be what was just demonstrated, obviously it's a horrible idea. But I trust the people here to be slightly more mature than that.

Icalasari

Wait wait wait

Wait



WAIT



...There are currently NSFW PM "threads" and I wasn't invited!?

Irene

...None that I know of, Crmirnauc.

...I need a nickname for you. I don't have any, although one could evolve into it. XD

Unknown

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Icalasari

Squid: I could use permission

Irene: My username splits up into Cr, Mir, and Nauc, so any of those?

Unknown

The user and all related content has been deleted.