Regarding Yagho being banned.

[schmoops9]

@The Vampire Dante: Now I'm confused. I'm pretty sure I read the part where you said that if he appeals and the staff agrees, there's a chance he will be unbaned....

[TheVampireDante]

@The Vampire Dante: Now I'm confused. I'm pretty sure I read the part where you said that if he appeals and the staff agrees, there's a chance he will be unbaned....

 

I'm in the site chatroom at the moment, that was a mistake as I was replying to someone else on a different subject and I typed my reply text here by mistake (I'm moving between the two).

[sPINELESSjELLY]

@ DrGrimm: (sorry, not practical with the quoting mechanism)

 

If we're even talking about this it's because it was not a fully nude image to begin with. Many of us believed it was showing nothing inappropriate in the first place, after the self-censorship we all thought there was no problem at all.

 

@ The Vampire Dante:

 

- Ok, can't really comment on what was said in private, though I find it hard to figure the Yagho I know from the imageshare being so unreasonable.

 

- So the thing about boxouts is an unwritten rule, and a new one too - the possibility of not knowing about it is really high (I'm talking to other people right now, no one seems to have heard about it), shouldn't the person interested be warned about it first? Also, since we all saw the image, we are certainly not talking about "a "cheap" way of getting around the very rules on nudity", these were massive tiles blurring everything out.

 

- There's a space for sexually-explicit content, I'm pretty sure there's no imageshare section for masterfully crafted images inspired by classic religious iconography. Not trying to be polemical, just pointing out that views on this specific image are very divided.

[Lisnpuppy]

Actually this conversation really should even be going on here on an open forum. When you have an issue with something a moderator does then you should PM that person or Dark0ne.

 

Per the Terms of Service:

 

Nexus site staff

Nexus sites are owned and maintained by Robin Scott (member name "Dark0ne"). Robin is regarded as "the law" on Nexus sites and he has the final say on any action that might need to be taken regarding a breach of the terms of service for any Nexus site. What Robin says goes irrespective of whether there has been a breach of the terms of service or not.

 

Nexus sites and the forums are staffed by un-paid volunteers (known as "moderators" and "staff") who work hard to insure the smooth operation of Nexus sites and encourage a healthy community. The moderators and other admin on the site have been given specific privileges by Robin to keep the site clean of the bad articles listed in these terms and use their own personal judgement, that Robin trusts, to come to decisions.

 

These moderators have a right to carry out their task without harassment, insult or hassle. Members who believe that a member of staff is not conducting themselves properly should get in contact with Robin via the forums or email. Know that if Robin receives word of any members harassing or being rude to Nexus site staff then he will take every action possible to permanently remove them from his sites.

 

And from the Image Share Rules:

Uploading to the Image Share section

The image share section of Nexus Sites was designed to allow players to share their favourite or informative screenshots of the games they play with other users of the site. While an adult-only tag is available that should be used if the image would be rated anything higher than a PG-13 in US/UK media we do not want images of nude characters hosted in the Image Share section. "No nudity" includes boobs and genitalia as well as visible pubic hair in the genitalia area.

 

Yes, there's an adult-only content filter (that some have just taken to mean "nude content" filter) but adult-only content is more than just nudity. It's excessive gore, it's risque comic-strips, it's pictures of characters wearing the skimpiest outfits possible without breaking the rules. It's basically everything you wouldn't want to have your boss catching you looking through at work.

 

For a more detailed look at what is and isn't acceptable within the Image Share section please read Robin's thread on the subject.

 

Aside from no nudity, you should only upload images that would be acceptable in the file database. This, importantly, means that you should not upload pictures of mods you are using that would not be allowed in the file database such as mods using ported or copyrighted content. Whether or not you use these mods is your choice, but please do not upload pictures of these mods in action to the Image Share section of the sites.

 

As of the 12th of May 2010 a private "Supporter" only Image Share section is available for Supporter members of the site. This section may contain images of all types within the legal bounds of the internet. That is to say that nudity is permitted but any images that wouldn't be legally acceptable (such as pictures of naked children, bestiality, necrophilia, copyrighted content etc.) are still not allowed.

 

 

Also as you said you were not and are not privy to all the talks that went on in private. I would strongly encourage you to continue this conversation in private. It does neither yourself or the banned member much good to try to argue with the staff in the open forums.

 

Mea Culpa, Dante....

[TheVampireDante]

Lisn that was my doing. I left it here and open so that there would be a chance for people to understand what happened rather than throwing around any wild suspicions and rumours on the matter.

 

- So the thing about boxouts is an unwritten rule, and a new one too - the possibility of not knowing about it is really high (I'm talking to other people right now, no one seems to have heard about it), shouldn't the person interested be warned about it first? Also, since we all saw the image, we are certainly not talking about "a "cheap" way of getting around the very rules on nudity", these were massive tiles blurring everything out.

 

If it had just been the boxouts - he might have gotten off with strikes, but there was the original "nude" version as a thumbnail - that is not excusable. Neither is the fact he was told not to reupload it in any form, censored or not.

 

- There's a space for sexually-explicit content, I'm pretty sure there's no imageshare section for masterfully crafted images inspired by classic religious iconography. Not trying to be polemical, just pointing out that views on this specific image are very divided.

 

You keep trying to divide this as if it was about image quality and artistic merit - it's not. It's content. Pure and simple.

 

There was nudity in the image and it was removed. That is it. Nude images go in the supporters imageshare, regardless of what the image is portraying.

 

The supporters imageshare is not "sexually-explicit content" exclusive, if that is what you think, then you are sorely mistaken. If you are just going on what you see posted there from other people, then that is what they choose to use it for - doesn't mean everyone has to be limited to that view of it. If you have such a low view of the imageshare, then surely something like that image being there would have been a boost to the section?

The author of it stated he did not want it located in that section of the site - that means, that since that area is the only place such an image would be allowed - he does not get to post it here.

 

This is starting to turn into the very argument I said I was not going to allow. He reposted something he shouldn't have and has been banned for it - you've had your answer.

 

This topic is closed.