Quote - > Quote - So let's see here (this might be somewhat tangential)...

The original nudity/violence filters completely removed images containting such from the gallery view for people who had those filters enabled.  When the site switched over, the nude/violent images were no longer removed from display, they just had their thumbnail replaced with a "content advisory" thumb, since many of the thumbnails contained the nudity/violence in them.  They also added visible disclaimer tags for nudity below images (they already existed for violence).

Now, nudity and violence are banned from thumbnails.  We are also banned from using the "content advisory" thumb ourselves, because the administration wants us to provide an "accurate depiction" of the image therein.  So...if there is no longer any nudity or violence in the thumbnails, and the filters no longer remove the nudity/violence containing images from the gallery views...and we, the artists, cannot use the "content advisory" thumb ourselves b/c of the previous accuracy restrition...what is the purpose of the auto "content advisory" thumbnail in the first place?  Are we assuming that one disclaimer tag is not enough for people who don't want to see nudity/violence and that they need two?  Whether or not an image contains violence or nudity, it will not be shown to users on the thumbnail.

P.S. Stacey, I'm sorry that you're disappointed by my view on what will be coming down the road relating to PR doublespeak, but I can only speak from my own past experiences.  I don't believe you have any duplicity in stating that you have no plans to eradicate nudity altogether from the site, but I don't believe that any of you are willing to go out onto the limb to proclaim that it will never happen.

 

Okay the filter is for members/visitors that do not want to see ANY nudity at all. Meaning they see that "Content Advisory" icon so they have no desire or want to see ANY nudity and they can easily avoid this by turning their filter on so that any images tagged will have that icon. That is what the nudity filter does now  and the only time it should be used is system generated based on the filter being on

The reasons for the non nude thumbnails is not for members that don't want to see nudity at all. There were several factors involved in coming to this decision so you have to look at them all not just say "well if members dont' want to see nudity, then turn the filter on".. Its not just about that, I've said that numerous times but everyone continues to just zero in thinking that is the only issue here. Its not.   The newsletter, the professional look of the site as a whole, the consistency between the areas, the Today's top page, etc all were factors.  Over 90% of the membership here have their filters turned off so can you imagine how horrible the galleries would look if everyone used the "censored" type thumbs saying "Nudity Inside" or "Content Advisory" (when I turn my nudity filter on and see how it looks with all the Content Advisory icons since there are so many images containing artistic nudity/violence it looks horrible)?  If members are creative with their thumbs giving some indication of your artistic abilities in a thumbnail then the chances of someone clicking to view your image are greater (and yes this can successfully be accomplished without showing the nudity, I see it everyday) but if you have a Content Advisory generic icon or a 'Nudity Inside" text, I can almost guarantee that the views will decrease because there is no indication of your ability as an artist.

As for the 'banning of nudity' on the site, as I stated we have never discussed this and I dont' see that ever happening because we understand the beauty of artistic nudity.  I can't see into the distant future any more than anyone else so that is why I say what I know to be the exact truth and that its not been discussed, we have NO plans for changing allowing nudity in any way so what more to you want me to say? Its not "PR" talk, its the simple truth.  I can say on a personal opinion level if you ask me to give my personal thoughts on whether this could ever happen since I am on the admin team and know how everyone on staff feels, I would say No I don't ever see a banning of artistic nudity on this site. I can 100% say that this new thumbnail rule is definitely not a first step in banning nudity on the site, there are no underlying ulterior motives to move toward a non nude site with the implementation of this new policy. 

I'm sure no matter what I say or how I say it, someone will twist my words, pull words out of the context of the whole discussion, etc and make something there that isn't. 

 

Why didn't someone just explain this before? This actually makes sense. BUT when you (meaning the staff no matter who said it) just keeps regurgitating the words:

"A thumbnail is supposed to be an accurate representation of the image you've posted. We aren't going to allow "censored" words, blots or blurs." 

it just gets infuriating because you are looking for a strait answer but you keep getting a broken record. I was not even in the conversation and I could see how irritated people were getting  because of those words being tossed at them like it was supposed to shut them up and satisfy them.