b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 7696148 (Thread)

# NSFW
Hello new person. Please read our FAQ. Cheers.
(I helped save b3ta! Pope Yoda is OLD, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 16:27, archived)
#
in my humble opinion it's borderline nsfw, although it clearly has a boys dangly bits on it, it couldn't be misconstrued as porn.
i would however link it, if it were my image.
and i'm guessing as i type this more people will ask for it to be linked or just deleted.
therefore majority rules.
(I helped save b3ta! god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 16:32, archived)
# it's also not funny
and poorly executed
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 16:33, archived)
# on that
i wholeheartedly agree.

says he.
(I helped save b3ta! god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 16:37, archived)
# But
This applies to pretty much any compo entry, shirley?
(I helped save b3ta! shrinking man Been away a while, time I ventured back, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 16:43, archived)
# How can an erect penis be construed as anything but pron?
It IS porn.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 16:41, archived)
# NSFW doesnt specify porn
in fact its not even a proper guideline, i mainly consider anything NSFW if it has a pic of anything that I would have sexual harassment charges filed against me for having on my screen as a co-worker passes. Its "Not Safe For Work", not "Porn In A Pic" that was being commented on
(I helped save b3ta! Pope Yoda is OLD, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 16:55, archived)
# i stand very much corrected.
and was clearly wrong in my understanding of the nsfw guidelines, in my defence, i did say i'd link it if it were mine.
interestingly it would appear our illustrious leader has let it it pass, without using his power as ubermod.
where do we stand on magenta cocks, bad language, and images mocking religion and such being nsfw.
(I helped save b3ta! god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 17:06, archived)
# I decided for myself recently that no real genitals or tits, nor obvious porn origins for the main pic was a decent rule of thumb
but I have seen stuff that breaks my own rules get by without any excitement on the boards plenty of times purely 'cos it was very heterosexual, and I got toasted for one that had neither genitals nor porn site origins but had very gay refs (2 guys naked in a very 'up the chuff' position taken from a safe sex flyer in a 'How Gay Are You' test pisstake) so it's still bloody hard to call at times, but it does seem gay/for-the-ladies oriented stuff is considered disproportionally more dodgy than het/for-the-boys stuff by the majority, but that's got obvious reasons.

I do think it might be helpful to get clearer guidelines in place.
(I helped save b3ta! ..wil, Thu 11 Oct 2007, 17:27, archived)