We want your feedback.

• Hazeri wrote on 2012-09-10 11:39

  Quote from Charmer;949386:

  If you're referring to this, that was taken care of. We gave you all 3 options to block specific signatures and signatures in general. Like Murasaki herself said before, this is a 16+ site, and by being here you have to accept the fact that you are going to see some risque things.

  
  
  You're missing my point. I have nothing against risque things, and the I don't spend much time looking at signatures.
  The thing is, if risque sigs have been an issue in the past, why fan the flames? Aren't mods supposed to set the example?
  
  How can you as Mod X, ask user Y to remove his offensive signature when you as a mod, are doing the same.
• Cannibal wrote on 2012-09-10 12:27
  Where have you read that we've forced someone to remove their signature, though? I may be missing something, and if I am I honestly and sincerely apologize, but since I've been on staff, I don't remember but one instance where we asked someone to remove their signature, and it was because it contained full nudity.
  
  I understand your point, but it doesn't all fall together. If we had asked someone to remove a signature similar in taste to Murasaki's, then yeah, it would be a big problem. But, as far as I know, the only big problem we've had with signatures was regarding the thread I posted previously, and we never asked that member to change their signature because it wasn't against the rules, and we approved of it.
  
  I really do understand your concern with it, so don't take me as being rude or bitchy or anything. Sometimes I come off that way unintentionally. I'm just trying to get the entirety of what your saying. Does that make sense?
• Milk wrote on 2012-09-10 16:41
  I feel like warnings that are given out last for way to long.
  
  I got a minor warning for rude behavior back on 04/06/12 and it has yet to expire.
  I don't even remember what the warning was for, nor will it expire anytime soon. :3
• Valkyrio wrote on 2012-09-10 18:12

  Quote from Mythical Detective Loki;949086:

  Okay :(
  
  In all seriousness though. It seems a lot like there are favorites here. I understand that favoritism is frowned upon, but sometimes I still see a mod playing favorites. Not giving out names.

  
  
  I'll be honest.
  
  I joined just over a year ago, and before that I lurked for a while. But in Mabination, there are certain things that just seem set in stone. The favoritism is part of that. I've seen suggestions that made sense, only to be ignored - with irrational responses by the people in power/friends of the people in power. Complaining about any of these seems to be mostly useless. There's also troll posts/useless posts that should have been deleted, and posts that are encouraged which add absolutely nothing to the discussion/knowledge base of Mabinogi. I mean, I've seen how diligently the spam rule is enforced - and yet when someone makes a topic which is obviously trash (and I mean obviously, like some of the posts in the general discussions forum that apply only to that person and no one else or are basically just their own fantasies) instead of being labeled spam, deleted, and an infraction given out, it's just left there to fester.
  
  Thing is, that's just how Mabination is, and I don't think that's going to change. People are cliquey, people are flippant, people are sarcastic and others are irrational. From an outsider's perspective, this is how I see most of Mabination's regular, central users. It's less of a community and more like a big inside joke. The level of immaturity hurts sometimes. It's also the reason why 99% of my posts are in the Questions & Help forum, because I just can't stand seeing some people's posts, even just in the general discussion forum.
  
  Some of my opinion is colored by my dislike of some of Mabination's members, but most of it really isn't about any one person. The entire community just seems broken. And I don't think that there's anything you can really do to fix it. Despite this, there are a few people who are amazing at giving out information, and that's why I stay.
• Ithiliel wrote on 2012-09-10 18:50
  Guys, if you notice favoritism please tell us. We can't fix the issue of favoritism if we have no idea we're doing it! We actually do want your feedback on our behaviors as mods as well, we're not just saying we do to look good.
• Murasaki wrote on 2012-09-10 20:15

  Quote from Hazeri;949396:

  You're missing my point. I have nothing against risque things, and the I don't spend much time looking at signatures.
  The thing is, if risque sigs have been an issue in the past, why fan the flames? Aren't mods supposed to set the example?
  
  How can you as Mod X, ask user Y to remove his offensive signature when you as a mod, are doing the same.

  
  
  Whose signature was removed? If we're talking about potentially NSFW content, we only gave users the option of hiding the signatures they didn't like,we didn't force that user to remove their own signature. If the user chose to remove their signature themselves because they were annoyed by people not liking it, that was their own choice. I actually got messaged a few times about a specific signature, and despite my dislike for that signature, defended it because it wasn't against the rules. I didn't like the signature, no, but I wasn't going to go out of my way to remove it just because people didn't like it.
  
  Signatures have their own limitations, like length, width, and actual file size, but apart from that are expected to follow the same content that would be allowed on the rest of the forums. For the most part, people can post what they want. Just no nudity that..actually shows the important parts, or uncropped porn, because really, I've seen some icons and signatures that look like they came straight out of a hentai image and would have gotten the user infracted if the image had been posted whole.
  
  Since downright porn and full front nudity are the only things we will remove ourselves, I don't see where the conflict is coming from.
  
  I don't see how I wasn't mindful either. My signature shows less than a lingerie catalog. I feel like if I added a bikini string it would suddenly be okay, but why? Her leg is already covering what needs to be covered. I cropped it pretty carefully, making sure I didn't even show the bottom of her beasts, or her butt. I don't know what people think but if it's something like this I'll always consider how it may affect others.
  
  

  Quote from Milk;949457:

  I feel like warnings that are given out last for way to long.
  
  I got a minor warning for rude behavior back on 04/06/12 and it has yet to expire.
  I don't even remember what the warning was for, nor will it expire anytime soon. :3

  
  
  The important thing about warnings is that they don't actually contribute to you getting banned, because they don't have any actual infraction points. Their expiration really shouldn't affect anything, because it's not like it's going to contribute to you getting banned. We can see expired warnings anyway. They just help us remember what kind of behavior issues users may have. The easy solution to avoiding getting warnings and infractions is to make sure you understand the rules and keep to them. Thing of the long expiration times as incentive to not do it again. If you want to appeal something you deserve isn't right, then talk to a staff member about it, but be sure that you have a good defense for yourself, because just asking isn't good enough.
  
  On another note: If you can't see the post your infraction links to (since you should be able to see your own warnings/infractions), you can always ask a staff member. We can see deleted posts that may have gotten removed due to them breaking the rules.
• Valkyrio wrote on 2012-09-10 20:39

  Quote from Murasaki;949506:

  My signature shows less than a lingerie catalog. I feel like if I added a bikini string it would suddenly be okay, but why? Her leg is already covering what needs to be covered. I cropped it pretty carefully, making sure I didn't even show the bottom of her beasts, or her butt. I don't know what people think but if it's something like this I'll always consider how it may affect others.

  
  
  I'm not that person, but I'll explain why I felt the need to bring your sigi up.
  
  It's because of how suggestive it is. It doesn't matter if there's no full frontal, and it doesn't matter if there's no other explicit content. But you cropped your picture so that it's focused right on her pubic area. Cropped as it is, it looks less like a piece of art and more like smut. You could argue that a lingerie catalog would show more (since the breasts are apparent), however, a lingerie catalog is often made with the intent of showing women what they would look like wearing lingerie.
  
  Your sigi, on the other hand, has no context. The average user will assume it's smut, and to everyone who doesn't know you're an artist, it will be nothing but a suggestive piece of pornography. That's ultimately what it comes down to. Something can be suggestive without being explicit. Also, to be fair, some people may consider the mons pubis explicit - and there are very few catalogs of lingerie (certainly none that are freely given out) where you would be able to see that much of a woman's pubic region. If you added a bikini, it could be a woman in the beach. Naked like that, it's a woman post/mid/pre-coitus (to most people.)
  
  Add to that the hand (is she caressing herself? is she posing? Why are her legs positioned that way?) and your picture becomes open to many, many different interpretations, most of them having nothing to do with the fact that it's just a piece of art you're proud of.
  
  Also, don't forget that the term "pornography" is somewhat relative. Porn is something that sexually stimulates someone - and to many men, your signature is sexually stimulating. Like it or not, for those men it is "downright porn." You put this picture on the internet, if someone hasn't done so already, someone will end up "stimulating themselves" to your art.
  
  I didn't want to bring any of this up simply because you've already gotten it approved, and like I said in my previous post, there are some things which you simply can do nothing about.
  
  P.S. Also, even if it you did it because you're an artist, you're basically linking to porn by linking to your tumblr. Personally, I think your original sketch is actually a beautiful piece of art, but it is sexual content and that's something you simply can't deny or rationalize away. Sorry for bringing that up as well, but it's part of another issue that I had with Mabination (I don't think it's okay for people to be linking to sexually explicit content.)
  
  P.P.S Sorry if it seems that I'm criticizing you or your art - I'm really not. But nudity in art brings up many, many touchy subjects and issues, particularly when you have to factor in who your audience is, on top of the sociocultural issues.
• Juno wrote on 2012-09-10 20:57

  Quote from Milk;949457:

  I feel like warnings that are given out last for way to long.
  
  I got a minor warning for rude behavior back on 04/06/12 and it has yet to expire.
  I don't even remember what the warning was for, nor will it expire anytime soon. :3

  
  
  It was for this, and it sticks around for a long time to make sure the warning is taken to heart. You should be able to check the reason for yourself in your profile though...otherwise it's not working so well D:
• Murasaki wrote on 2012-09-10 21:00
  On the topic of my tumblr: THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME. I'm not being sarcastic. There's another place where I linked and specifically said not all the content is SFW, but forgot to change the signature accordingly. Eep.
  
  Maybe to someone it is porn, and the image is at least meant to be considered sexy, but I did want to avoid putting the hands anywhere..."particular", let's just say. Porn is arguable. Some would call nudity porn on the virtue of it being nudity, and I understand that. I don't agree, but I do understand it. It may be because I am an artist, but I do consider the actual intent when deciding if something is porn or not. Just because something sexually stimulates someone doesn't mean it's what it was meant for, though I'd rather not go too far into that. It could get potentially creepy, into places I'd really rather not think about.
  
  That being said, I do appreciate people's feedback, and I'm not going to be upset just because some people have issues with my signature. It's not going to change until I finish a few things I'm working on so if it's causing anyone trouble please refer to the thread linked in the first page. If the rules on content/signatures happen to change and they no longer favor my signature, I will, of course, change it.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-09-11 00:51

  Quote from Valkyrio;949515:

  I'm not that person, but I'll explain why I felt the need to bring your sigi up.
  
  It's because of how suggestive it is. It doesn't matter if there's no full frontal, and it doesn't matter if there's no other explicit content. But you cropped your picture so that it's focused right on her pubic area. Cropped as it is, it looks less like a piece of art and more like smut. You could argue that a lingerie catalog would show more (since the breasts are apparent), however, a lingerie catalog is often made with the intent of showing women what they would look like wearing lingerie.
  
  Your sigi, on the other hand, has no context. The average user will assume it's smut, and to everyone who doesn't know you're an artist, it will be nothing but a suggestive piece of pornography. That's ultimately what it comes down to. Something can be suggestive without being explicit. Also, to be fair, some people may consider the mons pubis explicit - and there are very few catalogs of lingerie (certainly none that are freely given out) where you would be able to see that much of a woman's pubic region. If you added a bikini, it could be a woman in the beach. Naked like that, it's a woman post/mid/pre-coitus (to most people.)
  
  Add to that the hand (is she caressing herself? is she posing? Why are her legs positioned that way?) and your picture becomes open to many, many different interpretations, most of them having nothing to do with the fact that it's just a piece of art you're proud of.
  
  Also, don't forget that the term "pornography" is somewhat relative. Porn is something that sexually stimulates someone - and to many men, your signature is sexually stimulating. Like it or not, for those men it is "downright porn." You put this picture on the internet, if someone hasn't done so already, someone will end up "stimulating themselves" to your art.
  
  I didn't want to bring any of this up simply because you've already gotten it approved, and like I said in my previous post, there are some things which you simply can do nothing about.
  
  P.S. Also, even if it you did it because you're an artist, you're basically linking to porn by linking to your tumblr. Personally, I think your original sketch is actually a beautiful piece of art, but it is sexual content and that's something you simply can't deny or rationalize away. Sorry for bringing that up as well, but it's part of another issue that I had with Mabination (I don't think it's okay for people to be linking to sexually explicit content.)
  
  P.P.S Sorry if it seems that I'm criticizing you or your art - I'm really not. But nudity in art brings up many, many touchy subjects and issues, particularly when you have to factor in who your audience is, on top of the sociocultural issues.

  
  
  The issue about something being considered porn (or just fap material) because someone might find it sexually stimulating is actually kind of an iffy argument. For instance; I used to know a chick who used to find pictures of men in suits sexually stimulating. And there was technically nothing sexual about the pictures at all. So while I do get where you're coming from since it is a picture of a naked woman, saying that anything that may be sexually stimulating = porn is still pretty eh. Like Murasaki said; all of her bits are covered and I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the intent of the picture wasn't really sexual, so while it can easily be considered mature because of the fact that she's nude, I have a real hard time considering it anything but artistic nudity (which again, still isn't really showing anything). And I'm usually pretty picky on what's artistic nudity and what's just porn/fap material.
• Valkyrio wrote on 2012-09-11 01:19

  Quote from Cynic;949586:

  The issue about something being considered porn (or just fap material) because someone might find it sexually stimulating is actually kind of an iffy argument. For instance; I used to know a chick who used to find pictures of men in suits sexually stimulating. And there was technically nothing sexual about the pictures at all. So while I do get where you're coming from since it is a picture of a naked woman, saying that anything that may be sexually stimulating = porn is still pretty eh. Like Murasaki said; all of her bits are covered and I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the intent of the picture wasn't really sexual, so while it can easily be considered mature because of the fact that she's nude, I have a real hard time considering it anything but artistic nudity (which again, still isn't really showing anything). And I'm usually pretty picky on what's artistic nudity and what's just porn/fap material.

  
  
  Okay, all I have to say is, if people in the past were banned because of this: http://mabination.com/usr/grp/socialgroupicon_133_1326073008.gif
  
  I don't see how a woman's mon pubis is any more acceptable.
  
  We're starting to derail the thread though. :/
• Kollin wrote on 2012-09-11 01:20
  It seems you people have forgotten the Gary the Butt incident. An innocent picture of a cartoon butt (drawn to resemble a specific Nationer's butt) that had a mustache and eyes that was far more "safe" than something like Elena's signature. I think there was a ban or two, a good bit of infractions, and threads deleted. All over a cartoon butt. Elena's sig shows a LOT more skin and very suggestive areas, which is where Valk is coming from on her sig being quite NSFW. People were flipping their fucking shit over a cartoon butt, but nothing is really said about Elena's sig. Personally, I don't care about either. Elena is a good artist, so I like her drawing even though I dislike the female body. Gary the Butt was just a humorous thing that people took far too seriously, but that is because people on this site really can't take a fucking joke sometimes.
• Murasaki wrote on 2012-09-11 01:31
  I don't think it was the issue of the butt itself, if I remember correctly. The real issue was how obnoxious some of that group were behaving. They were disrupting other users then being rude when being told they were being disruptive. There was also the instance of someone posting the actual picture of said butt, without the person's permission, as far as I know. It's not the cartoon butts we have issues with, because I had a butt I drew myself as a signature. It was the way people were acting. There's trying to be funny, and then there's being very exclusive and obnoxious towards other people. Even I was getting sick of it, even though I'm usually good with the crowd in Bean Rua and the stuff they do. Sometimes, and I know people hate to admit it, things can get really obnoxious, distasteful, and hurtful.
  
  Another thing to consider is: Was that incident before or after the staff was changed? Because a lot of changes came with that. We talked over the rules and revised them, saw what the community had to say, and revised the rules again. Inconsistencies in what was done may be due to the fact that entirely different people may have dealt with certain things. I can't quite remember when that butt image was everywhere though, so it may really have been something that happened with the current staff.
• Taycat wrote on 2012-09-11 01:33

  Quote from Kollin;949592:

  It seems you people have forgotten the Gary the Butt incident. An innocent picture of a cartoon butt (drawn to resemble a specific Nationer's butt) that had a mustache and eyes that was far more "safe" than something like Elena's signature. I think there was a ban or two, a good bit of infractions, and threads deleted. All over a cartoon butt. Elena's sig shows a LOT more skin and very suggestive areas, which is where Valk is coming from on her sig being quite NSFW. People were flipping their fucking shit over a cartoon butt, but nothing is really said about Elena's sig. Personally, I don't care about either. Elena is a good artist, so I like her drawing even though I dislike the female body. Gary the Butt was just a humorous thing that people took far too seriously, but that is because people on this site really can't take a fucking joke sometimes.

  
  
  Basically this.
  I mean, heck, I used a pic of two girls squishing their boobs together and nothing was showing and still got infracted for it ._.
• Kueh wrote on 2012-09-11 01:53
  My big issue is the rules of bean rua.
  
  Rules are handled on a case-by-case basis, which makes me sometimes have to wonder, "If I post this, will I get an infraction."
  
  Like a certain someone receiving certain penal action for spamming excessively where the "do not spam" rule doesn't apply, where other people break other minor rules, such as necro posting, and don't get infractions. (I don't want to hear, "But you don't know that we penalize people" because I'm the one necro posting.)