Attached Link: TOS

Just took a fast look .. and I think it's just right g. Now you all can take a break and wonder over to the Tavern for a well deserved drink.. I'll even buy ;-)

Oh and err Spike? you can have your head back now ;-).

:)

"young humanoid characters" Is this a naked fairy ban?

Nope. It is NOT designed to prevent the posting of fey/fairy images....

"No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context." You forgot the rest of your quote.

I didn't forget. I didn't feel I needed to post the entire quote, since I was only asking about a specific part of it. The rest of it goes without saying...it's there in the TOS if anyone wants to read it. I was just curious. I personally don't post fairy images anyway; in fact, I rarely post nudes at all...I think I might have ONE here. Not trying to start a flame war. Just curious. Nothing further to add on the subject.

I know, I'm just clarifying in case someone reads the thread, and not hte update.

Love it, thanks Spike!

Please define provocative. I'd like to know very clearly if an image I have is provocative or not, and that word leaves a lot open. Not trying to be a prick, just wanting to be sure of the rule. Paul

I think "provacative" will be subjective to each viewer and if something is questionable, the admins and mods would review it together. But y'know, if you have an image with a character that might be considered provacative, if she doesn't look like a kid, it wouldn't be an issue anyway. :)

What kind of definiton do you want? Anything we say to define will be argued, and more definition piled on- that's exactly what we are trying to avoid. Most mature adults know what is and isn't good for a juvenille figure. Most also know the difference between, say, a fairy looking cute and a borderline image with pointy ears, by someone using that to slide by. If anyone sees anything that needs looked at, it will be discussed between the artist and all the staff. That's the best we can do to keep from making a thousand rules to be ultraspecific.

Ok... How's this: Is a dead child provocative? In what conditions might it be considered so? Is showing a young prostitute provocative if she's not engaged in sex or anything erotic or seductive? Is drug use provocative? The word provocative implies "creating provocation." So what I'm asking is for a general idea of what the mods and admins view in this way. You don't need to be defensive, Micheleh, particularly not with me, I would think. Not everyone is out to bash you folks. Paul

I'm not defensive, I'm just trying to tell you that I can't give you what you want. Some things will have to be decided as we go along. As for the dead child, it would likely fall under modrator dicsretion as unsuitable. A young prostitute would be a no no, because the very idea of a prostitute is to represent sex for sale. Drug abuse could be either illustrative of a point, or unnessecary, depending on how it's done. I am answering as best as I can, but I don't like having to answer an open ended question a certain way by guessing. I have told you. The way it's written is how it will be, borderline cases to be decided individually. Period.

Fair enough. This concludes my broadcast day. Paul

Heheheheheh. Around here a Magic Pink Pony surrounded with daisies and rainbows is provocative enough to cause a crap storm. ;) What if a child prostitute was dressed as a schoolgirl standing on a corner?

Guess. ;]

Thanks TOS Team people. I think this one is quite fair.

One of the definitions of "art" is that is should evoke a response. Not sure if you consider evocative the same as provocative- it's still a rather highly subjective interpretation. And how would you know it was a prostitute or someone waiting on the school bus? Perhaps such humanoids should wear a large scarlet letter "A" on their tunic... (stands for "Artistic") just so there will be no doubt as to the intent of the artist(s)? We are currently drafting a reasonable and logically worded guideline for this very subject at Thorne's Faerie Friends Forum The troubles you have had here will prove invaluable in assisting us in determining what to do and what not to do. I do not mean this in a facetious or sarcasatic way, only that you may feel free to borrow from us (with proper credit, of course :)) once we have completed this project. There is currently a thread dealing with the subject, and we welcome everyone's input. Thorne

"Specifically: I would like to be tolerant and lenient in the depiction of some mild nudity in apparently younger characters, be they faeries, cherubs, cupids, or even the New Years Baby showing his hiny." and- "No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context." Same thing, different words. I am sure that in both cases, borderline images will be worked out by talking to the artist, and they and the staff reaching a decision. One says "erotic, secuctive, provocative", which is open to interpretaiton. One says "some mild nudity", which is open to interpretation.

yeah true... we's working on it. :o) (is "hiny" a real word? lol)

Although I am thinking to include the word "Nudity" or "Nude" because if it ain't nude and there is no actual sex involved, then it ain't porno, no matter what some dirty mind wants to interpret it as. For example, do a search for "No Nudes" on Google.com and see what you find...There is stuff that even I find distasteful from a strictly artistic POV... yet it is perfectly legal and no nudity is involved.

hehehe, checked out Merriam Webster's as this is a word our family has always used too! One entry found for heinie. Main Entry: heinie Pronunciation: 'hI-nE Function: noun Etymology: alteration of 2hinder Date: 1940 slang : BUTTOCKS

aha! It IS a real word!!! I guess it is also slang for Heineken beer... and I'm not EVEN gonna elaborate further...

Actaully, to show what a nerd I really am... ;] It comes from "hinny", which is "The hybrid offspring of a male horse and a female donkey." So it is a kind of ass (donkey). I'll go take off my bow tie, now.

OK, I'll guess it's a no-no. So if I pose a child prostitute in a girl scout uniform on the corner, she'll only be deleted if she's there to sell her cookies. ;)

administrators: for all of your efforts, thank you. i post this message because of other threads (in other fora) in recent days that argue the intent and meaning of the TOS in terms of "appropriateness" and as "food for thought" for anyone reading this message. from the u.s. supreme court and justice douglas in 1966 upon the reversal of the finding by the massachusetts supreme court that "fanny hill" (1749) was obscene and to be banned from that state's libraries. (the "censor" is NOT the administration of this on-line community in my thinking.) "... The (u.s.)Constitution forbids abridgment of 'freedom of speech, or of the press.' Censorship is the most notorious form of abridgment. It substitutes majority rule where minority tastes or viewpoints were to be tolerated.... Every time an obscenity case is to be argued here, my office is flooded with letters and postal cards urging me [383 U.S. 413, 428] to protect the community or the Nation by striking down the publication... The drives are incessant and the pressures are great. Happily we do not bow to them. I mention them only to emphasize the lack of popular understanding of our constitutional system. Publications and utterances were made immune from majoritarian control by the First Amendment, applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth. No exceptions were made, not even for obscenity. The Court's contrary conclusion in Roth, where obscenity was found to be "outside" the First Amendment, is without justification.... ... The censor is always quick to justify his function in terms that are protective of society. But the First Amendment, written in terms that are absolute, deprives the States of any power to pass on the value, the propriety, or the morality of a particular expression.... (here, cases are cited) Perhaps the most frequently assigned justification for censorship is the belief that erotica produce antisocial sexual conduct. But that relationship has yet to be proven.... Indeed, if one were to make judgments on the [383 U.S. 413, 432] basis of speculation, one might guess that literature of the most pornographic sort would, in many cases, provide a substitute - not a stimulus - for antisocial sexual conduct. See Murphy, The Value of Pornography, 10 Wayne L. Rev. 655, 661 and n. 19 (1964). As I read the First Amendment, judges cannot gear the literary diet of an entire nation to whatever tepid stuff is incapable of triggering the most demented mind. The First Amendment demands more than a horrible example or two of the perpetrator of a crime of sexual violence, in whose pocket is found a pornographic book, before it allows the Nation to be saddled with a regime of censorship. 11 [383 U.S. 413, 433]...." i have found the u.s. supreme court to be most eloquent on issues such as the ones being discussed in this thread and others. this is an american website; it follows american custom and practice. i thought it'd be helpful to cite the eloquent comments from this institution - whether this case specifically deals with literature or not - as assistance in working through the real-world issues that are being debated here. thank you.

No, THANK YOU spook for posting this here. Despite disagreements with rulings on occasion, I hold the U.S. Suppreme Court in total AWE. The wisdom that is shown in the judgegments they hand down, or even in the opposing opinions at times, is incredible, and always makes me think that there really is hope for us after all.

Thank you again for posting this!

Thorne