Update 5.21 introduces new ratings guidelines for depictions of weapons, which now require a minimum tag of 'T(V)'. This seems a reasonable adjustment to bring violent topics in line with other rated subjects, but I'm questioning the dividing line between 'Teen' (depiction) and 'Mature' (use). Certainly weapons used with intent to harm match existing guidelines for violent acts, but in contexts that are not explicitly violent (target shooting in archery, _x-gun salutes) a 'Mature' grade feels extreme. I'm wondering if the new policy may warrant amendment.

Do you mean in a general, sporting use (target shooting, fencing, etc.) VS in use to commit violence (war, crime, etc.)? If so, that's definitely a distinction I should make in the rules. I hadn't thought of that aspect.

This is bullshit.

I'll elaborate on what I mean.

So artists like myself and @rollee often depict characters wielding weapons in menacing and formidable ways.

But now we have to be further restricted in a way that to my knowledge, no other art site, no other art site I've encountered would expect of us.

People like @Camazotz and @Sir-Meatch-Cleaver would potentially have to change their profile pictures... Again, cannot envision anywhere else they would be asked to do so.

Many of us already voluntarily put filters on art we upload that depict violence or combat in action... Because we know the rules.

Even though it would not be required on a great many sites if they are devoid of gore.

What is this thumb sucking early bed time eat your vegetables nonsense?

This pedantic, frightened micromanagement.

Teen filter?

If you have people here too young to qualify as a teen... That's a concern.

Most sites do no allow this, this site should not allow persons below a certain age to remain on this site to begin with.

Do you honestly just want the face of this site to be completely sterile, rounded, cartoons for toddlers?

This is not a good idea.

Aye, it struck me that slapping an 'M' on something like the Robin Hood archery tournament feels like overkill.

I'm in agreement with Zaar on this one.

My take is... For a lot of artists I know including him, weapons play an important part in their works. And I was just planning to get more creative with them too, building models and such of cool knives made of resin, etc. Kids below the age of three often play with toy guns, swords and other such things, why are we just slapping mature content filters on everything? Even if they're just depicted? It's not like everyone is unaware of what weapons can do in reality, but these are drawings...

It's getting into Hays Code territory.

Oooh yeah. Definitely.

First and foremost: this is nothing like the Hays Code. I did not ban anything.

What I did do is set up some guidelines. Why did I do that? Because I've been asked "How do I rate weapons?" so many times over the years I finally decided to codify it so that the answers were there in writing. If you feel this is a problem, or something that was in poor judgement, that's fine. Let me know. I will take what you have to say into account. You need not resort to cussing me out over it. Have I ever been anything but willing to listen and take into consideration what the members of this site have had to say?

If this is such a problem, give me a suggestion on a different way of handling it.

And as to your comments about kids on this site: No, we don't have young children on the site. However, we do have younger audiences and audiences who appreciate having forewarning on the content of uploads so they can choose whether or not to click on it. Yes, you can filter out things, but people don't always want to filter out an entire rating class just to bypass a couple of cases. The ratings aren't there to be based on audience ages, but to give the audience more information about an upload before engaging with it.

So, again, if you feel this was mishandled, give me a suggestion on a different way of handling it.

-- BK

Chiming in here.. yeah, if people are really bothered by weaponry, I feel that they should block those keywords; and, of course, those of us who draw guns, knives, swords, darts, baseball bats, brass knuckles, archery gear, traps, explosives, and fight scenes should commit to tagging our work as thoroughly as possible. One of my jobs is as an armed security guard. I carry a gun with me every day, and I'm always concealing more knives than you would expect. These are tools for my work, and I also get enjoyment from the safe, sane, and sober ways I use them in my down time. The sheltered social trends are making it so that I can't even talk about them, and I've pretty much stopped drawing them, which is personally disappointing. Discovering that we shared an interest in weaponry, torture devices, and grim history was once the main way I forged my friendships, but those days are long gone. In the FurAffinity Discord, for example, it's 110% okay to say "kill all cishets" but it's an insta-ban to discuss firearms in any context.

If I draw myself or a character simply holding a gun, a knife, or wearing armor, that doesn't equate to a depiction of violence, and it shouldn't require a warning (beyond the keywords that I would use). If I draw a character being rowdy, reckless, and dangerous, yes, definitely, I'll call that Teen or Mature without an argument.

Nanny rules suck. I can't say it any more clearly than that.

(Definitely not attackin' ya, BK. I know you're in a tight spot and need to make tough decisions.)

Ease up on the display of weapons.

Anywhere else, they have clear cut lines in regards whether blood is drawn, gore.

What has been proposed in the OP to my mind is a very slippery slope.

To my mind, this site is beginning to be very controlling as it is.

No one personally "Cussed you out", I said the concept was bullshit. You're older than me, you understand the use of the phrase in the usage of rejection of a concept and disbelief... Come on now sir.

Months ago I had to put the mature filter on a goblin brandishing a dagger to a Gremlin and a troll... Because moderation on this site is so controlling.

For what? Because some hypothetically super sensitive person could choose to take offense?

But clearly what is offensive here is very subjective.

Because some of us upload art depicting characters wielding weapons and brandishing them? Now we are further pushed behind the veil of censorship?

Recently I uploaded a fight scene where blood was drawn; I filtered it appropriately, according to your rules and voluntarily, without needing a moderator to prompt me to do so.

But now apparently that's not good enough. So now, those artists here who similarly like to create art with warriors, weapons, bloodless battle scenes and military equipment... Are under the microscope?

I am concerned that these changes to rules and the enforcement of them is snowballing into something overbearing, indelicate.

Since I've joined last year, more and more it seems as if we're having to compromise on our artistic integrity here.

We have to be ever thoughtful of how themes and details in our art will down the track be considered as inappropriate and taboo?

I don't know any other art site that has restrictions or classifications like the ones proposed above.

Well said.

@BadKarma if feel you've raised a very reasonable and solid point in your last post.

What is my well defined opinion on the extent before the filter goes on.

So you're right, I should just be clear and concise about that.

Blood/gore, obviously this exists under the filter. Don't think there's anyone here with an objection to that.

The clashing of blades, whether in the act of training (Eg fencing) amicable contest (Sport, duelling) and in open and hostile combat (The clashing of blades, blows thrown and making contact without drawing blood or revealing of innards. Whether they are blocked, dodged, received but sustaining no spilling of blood... It's harder for me to precisely define my view on the depiction of breaking joints or bones.) should be permitted without need of filter.

As for gun violence? Firearms, explosions, people potentially getting blown up?

Someone on fire?

Do we draw a distinction between someone on fire in a way harmful and detrimental to them?

What happens when I begin depicting Sargari prophets or someone starts drawing Ben 10 characters or lava golems?

Because all three of those things are constantly on fire, all the time and it is of no detriment to their health.

I hope this also clarifies why I keep talking about a slippery slope, why I began my participation of this discussion in such a vulgar, reactionary way.

The implications of this are frightening,and they can spiral out of control quickly.

All it takes is a little bit of loud, persistent and negative feedback from a tiny minority... And the vast majority may be negatively impacted and therefore alienated.

Ultimately we're going to have to create an idea of what is reasonable, what is reasonable to take offence to, what is reasonable to be debilitated in terror or trauma by.

Because a lot of people really don't like clowns. It runs deep, with many people.

When are we going to be discussing the implementation of a clown filter or classification?

@Zaar: You're right. You didn't cuss me out. My comment was hyperbolic, and I apologize for that. That being said, what restrictions have I put in place? What has been banned? What stifling is a rating guideline doing? These guides don't put anyone under the microscope; it's a clarification of how to handle rating on depiction of weapons use. I don't understand your claims to these things. Please explain these points.

Yes, people can choose to filter keywords. But that requires that people keyword the heck out of their artwork for content. The likelihood of most people doing that consistently is not very high.

And if you feel moderation is getting a little overbearing, bring it to my attention. Shoot me a message about it. The things that I've seen moderated have been keeping things within the established rating guidelines, mostly. If you feel that's overreach, then we need to have a conversation. If it's more than that, then we definitely need to have a conversation. Preferably not in a public forum.

-- BK

Aye, and as The Wiz said, it's a slippery slope. A crucifix is a terribly cruel device, designed to inflict a long, miserable bout of suffering followed by death. One could make the argument that religious art which includes a simple cross is equal to, or worse, than a scene with gallows or guillotine. If a hunting rifle is offensive for implying violence against animals, then every doodle that includes a hotdog or milkshake needs to go behind a maturity filter — dairy farm life is a far worse fate than a buckshot death, let me assure you.

Perhaps a few "controversial keywords" could be arranged on a list which, by default, new site members are automatically opted into blocking. The same way that people need to choose to see higher rated content, let them choose to uncheck that category. That way, as long as everyone can agree to use tags responsibly, then no one will see weapons unless they want to.

Yeh I actually wrote something back to yas above.

I edited into my reply to the other guy, so it may have not alerted you.

Another thing maybe worth bringing up;

We may come to a universally satisfactory consensus on this.

But soon, a few of us may have to cone together and discuss this topic again.

Because I wonder if the Internet will come down on photos and art in the cause for arachnaphobia or something like that.

Any such trend/movement inevitably would reach here.

Are we going to have an answer to that sooner or later.

I feel such gatherings, should be open to any member of the site, particularly if they are well known to be a sincere and active member... But done less publicly.

My reasoning for that recommendation; we want to avoid giving the trolls ideas for what to poke at... But also want to make it an accessible discussion for anyone from this site.

The idea being, we have time to prepare for what comes next.

Alright what if...

We just did away with all the art and literature.

We just posted pictures of peas and only had pea related discussions?

All our profile pictures would be peas.

Bk would be PK (Pea Karma)

I would be the Wizard of Peas.

Evie would be Peavie.

El Peavaldo.

Pea Sanders...

It's getting harder to do this with the names of other users, I need help with this.

Okay.

I've given things some good thought, and then I looked down at my screen and noticed A) I have a Boba Fett wallpaper up that shows him holding his rifle, and B) I realized I wouldn't have any issue with any of my kids having the same wallpaper on their computers.

Perhaps the T(V) rating for non-violent depictions of weapons is more than it needs to be. So, I have a proposal for an amendment to the guidelines:

For depictions of weapons being holstered/sheathed, held, brandished, or used in a non-violent fashion (target practice, archery, fencing, etc.), no rating is necessary beyond E. For depictions of weapons being obviously used in acts of violence whether or not the result of that violence is shown, requires an M(V) rating.

-- BK

I can get behind this.

I think the issue of broken bones and force upon joints outside of as stated (Training, practice and sport) is a tricky beginning to depictions of overt violence.

I want to advocate for particular artists here whom avidly do art of pugilism, martial arts and combat sports. But the reality also being that there are artists whom may upload this content as a one off or infrequently too.


I know El Thorvaldo has struggled a great deal with his political and historical commentaries and historical fiction too can be vulnerable to controversy. I don't see a reasonable person taking any justifiable offence to his content containing those themes, but the virtue of his art and literature being within that realm of interest, he can be unfairly censored on many platforms.


I mean to say, I believe we also need to be careful before we find ourselves aggressively pigeongoling subjects or content.

Like we've also brought up; we'll be having this discussion at some point about something else.

I think phobia's are going to be one of the next controversies to arise.

Depictions of martial arts in a sporting fashion, such as pugilism, martial arts, combat sports, competitions, etc. I would not deem to be overt violence. If the context is not one of attempting to do gross harm out of malice to one another, but rather a contest of strength/cunning/agility/endurance/what-have-you then I don't see a need to rate it above an E.

-- BK

I know were coming to beating a dead horse here.

But I'll drop this last one;

The depiction of unsheathed or brandished weapons in scenes of chase (Either to apprehend or chase away) or stalking/stealthily pursuing?

What classifies as an outright ambush in commission?

I would say depictions of the actual act of using the weapon in a violent fashion.
-- BK

Thank you for listening, I appreciate it.

Adjustments Made To Weapons Rating Clarification

For depictions of weapons being holstered/sheathed, held, brandished, or used in a non-violent fashion (target practice, archery, fencing, etc.), no rating is necessary beyond E. For depictions of weapons being obviously used in acts of violence whether or not the result of that violence is shown, requires an M(V) rating.

In which instances might a T(V) rating be appropriate? Is there a distinction between the possible intentions (aggression, self defense, hunting)? If a character is merely wiping blood off of a blade, with no mention of what occured, how should that be rated?

I knew I shoulda held off on retagging until this was clarified. XD

Based on my rule of thumb for incidental violence in general, I figure it's the safety net for ambiguous intent: a soldier firing out-of-frame but that doesn't appear to be in active battle, blades leveled at the camera, "cool" posing down-the-barrel, cartoon explosions, &c. If 'E' is 'clearly not violent' and 'M' is 'active fight', then 'T' should cover the gradients in between.

Blood has been 'T(V)' at minimum for as long as I've known the site, i.e. November last year, so absent additional context that's presumably the baseline.