Forums / Maintenance / Announcements

If you haven't noticed yet, there's now an option to tag any photo you upload as NSFW. It gets replaced with these neat icon in the gallery view of the lovely KYM-Tan drawn by the even lovelier Jill!

We're coming up with a guideline of what images constitute NSFW at the moment and I will share that with you all as soon as we figure it out. However, I would like to stress this is not a get out of jail free card to post porn, gore or other graphic images. They are still not allowed on the site and will still be deleted/result in warnings and bans. If you want to upload something and are unsure if it's okay, please feel free to ask in IRC or PM me directly.

Nice to see it's now available to everyone, instead of mods only.

It was suggested and now it has been.

Thank you.

---

I'm sure some users' galleries will be full of these…

KYM-Tan's face when she finally becomes an official mascot:

She was fun to draw! Thanks to you guys for making such an adorable mascot.

Wow. I'm not a very big contributor when it comes to images, and I probably have no reason to upload NSFW ones anyway, but this seems like it was a very good idea. My thanks to James.

Also, I agree that there will be users whose galleries are full of these. Not naming names.

A long-needed and much-discussed feature, finally added and released to all. Well done.

GIVE USERS AN OPTION TO TURN THIS FEATURE OFF. Its bull that I have to click each thumbnail and open it in another window to see what it is. Bad move kym.

I'm just gonna say it, someone's gonna come along and draw some Rule 34 using what's showing of KYM-tan in the spoiler. It's an inevitable thing.

I'm glad we finally have this feature; it's been needed for awhile, since we need a reasonable way to document NSFW memes. Hopefully we can establish rules regarding what can be uploaded and what can't before people start to abuse this.

>Joe, Advance, and Dr Gregory Horse's fw

Thanks so much for this. I think people may abuse this, but really, any system put in place would likely get abused. I think this is likely the best possible middle ground, and I thank KYM for adding it.

I don't think it was a bad move, but I think this is a valid complaint. I think the progression went as such:
 

• On the one hand, we originally had a lot of generally offensive images that made people avoid the image galleries. People were actually leaving or refusing to view the galleries because of its content. With that in mind, we simply decided to deem explicit AND NSFW content unsuitable to upload.

• However, in order to allow images that aren't quite explicit but are still NSFW, James put together a NSFW marker so that images could be spoiled so that people wouldn't feel alienated.

• That, in itself presents a similar sort of problem, because you have to click on each marked NSFW image to see it.

I would say in hindsight that this has its own problems.

---

Even with that in mind, I cannot say that this particular problem is one that I'd plan for personally. KYM isn't a NSFW site on the whole, so I have no problem with erring towards creating an extra step to viewing NSFW images.

What you are saying is that it is too much trouble to click on an image to view it. In fact, you'd only have to click on the thumbnail to view the image, and click outside of the preview of the image (which will come up on the same page) in order to get back to viewing the gallery.

That would be annoying, because if you wanted to see if you liked that image, you'd have to click on every spoiler to see it. However, in terms of effort, this is very low. I personally cannot give much credence to an complaint that a person has to click in order to see NSFW content that shouldn't be very frequent in galleries (especially NSFW galleries) in the first place.
 
That's up to the administrators though. I would anticipate that you'd have to make a stronger argument or add an additional argument as to why the inconvenience of clicking to view each NSFW image (on the same page, mind you) on a site who's mission is to mainly document Internet phenomena outweighs the fact that we were alienating people who did not want to see.

Most image sites have such a spoiling system, so it's nothing new, (but I will grant that most images sites also have a system to customize accounts so that you don't have to see the spoilers if you don't want to.)
 
More simply, I cannot see KYM changing many techniques in order to make it easier for people to see NSFW content on here.

---

Ideally, I think we had a "View NSFW content" option on our profiles at one point. If that could control whether you saw the spoilers or not, then I'd say that would be ideal. But as it is, I don't think that is a priority given how much time it could potentially take to set that up.
 
tl;dr: I still think it's a valid complaint, but I think this current set-up would better for KYM than the previous two situations (i.e., not allowing NSFW content at all or allowing it to be seen so easily.)

You know you want to KLEEEEEEEEK EET

Of course, why not?

I am so glad KYM-Tan became a canon mascot for KYM. I remember the day she was sketched.
Oh how they grow up so fast.

Didn't we have a checkbox in our profile editor pages that allowed us to do that?

We should use it for exactly this.

I looked yesterday. We don't. It would be a good thing to have, though.

Perhaps the name "NSFW" spoiler is a bit misleading, because the rules about posting real nsfw content haven't changed as far as i know. I think there will be a rise of nsfw content, because some people won't understand this and will start complaining after warnings, as the spoiler has written NSFW on it. (Or maybe i am just a nitpicker)

And it seems that the spoiler doesn't work in the Most liked/commented etc. galleries…

I don't think it's nitpicking. However, there is already some chatter in the works as to what is NSFW, what is explicit, and what is safe.

I would hope that the rules follow those decisions and that those rules are communicated clearly to the people that upload the images, but for legitimate reasons (even if I don't think they outweigh the need for specificity,) it can be troublesome to make a hard line in what is allowed and what isn't allowed.

I would ask users who want specificity in the rules to say that they want that. I may vomit if I hear "moderator discretion" too many more times.

>mfw I see that this finally happened.

We need specificity in the rules. Just my opinion.

Still, it's never a good thing when "moderator discretion" is the order of the day.

Most mods agree that we need some more specifity in the rules regarding topics like NSFW, including the difference between SFW and NSFW articles (what we allow in NSFW entries can't always be allowed in SFW entries). The disagreement in mod discussion though is in how much detail we want to be present in these guidelines.

I want specific subjects that are or are not allowed, yet also leave room to breath. Swimsuits are allowed, suggestive poses aren't, suggestive looks are based on the content of the image, stuff like that (just blurring random subjects here), including a difference in threatment based on if the suggestive content was added to arouse the viewer or merely in jest. I want to keep things like moderator discretion and user discretion in place, because I believe people should be able to know themselves when something is or is not allowed. And if they aren't, then the consequenses are theirs.

Verbose wants very specific details within those subjects, so that moderators have something to fall back to when dealing with it (almost completely removing the "discretion" factor), threating humor just the same as suggestive content.

We're most likely both ends of the spectrum in these mod discussions, him being the most detailed and me the least.

I understand that users need to know where the limit is, but imo there will always be moments when these details fail you. Safe images risk being removed because they contain a specific subject within the details that isn't allowed. And of course users will get mad if they suddenly hear something isn't allowed they believed should be when the rules don't give much detail, but you can't please everyone with your moderating, and you never will, and nitpicking the details isn't going to fix that. If they aren't complaining about the moderation, they will complain about certain specific details in the rules being bullshit.

---

Verbose wrote:

I may vomit if I hear “moderator discretion” too many more times.

I'm sorry Verbose, but I read this as a sign of distrust. Because from what I read here, you don't think mods are capable to deal with NSFW in a calm and objective way. We reached these ranks for a reason, learn to trust us.

Quick question: I saw a different variant of the preview image (with red instead of a dark blue outline). Does this mean/ do anything? Not really concerned, but just curious.

From what I heard, 3 color variants were sent over: Blue, Red, and a mystery one I don't know of yet. Guess they're mixing them up now in the beginning to see what'll fit best (I vote blue due to KYM using blue as well).

Meanwhile Deadpool-Kun sits in the corner alone

If it makes any difference, I can tell you what I've been using as my criterion so far. While content that is simply not allowed on the site is pretty well-defined (although if we don't have a list of specific rules, it would be good), what goes in the space between SFW and "Whoops, we're going to have to delete that…" is harder to pin down.

So for me so far, I simply don't bother to pin it down. Instead when I pull up a picture I essentially ask myself, "Is this actually not safe for work?" What does this mean? Imagine working in a professional office of some sort, and you're on your break, so it's okay that you're browsing the Internet for a few minutes, but you always want to consider, "If this picture were showing on my screen when my boss walked up behind me, would I experience a moment of panic?"

Based on that, I think things like:

Well, I wouldn't call it porn, but it's obviously suggestive; NSFW.

Nobody would call this one porn, but…ah, no.

Wow, that's pretty hot, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to block it.

Maybe a lot of people would disagree with those decisions, but in the end, I don't think there's a way to define exactly what counts. It's like how you can't say "fuck" on the radio, but there's no rule against saying "futanari loli bukakke." (And that's not just because those are Japanese words; I decided to mark this one NSFW because of the text as a whole, but go figure, if you simply replaced the last 'U' in the picture with an asterisk, you could put that picture up on regular Network TV during prime time and break no rules whatsoever.)

You may have deduced that I have marked pictures for reasons other than sexual content; a large amount of blood or prominently-displayed text of an inappropriate nature also qualify a pic as NSFW in my mind. It hasn't come up, but images of a racist nature might warrant some discussion as well.

---

On another note, I notice that the pics aren't being censored for me. Is that because I'm a mod, or is it because the setting for the old check box is still in effect even though it doesn't show in your profile?

I’m sorry Verbose, but I read this as a sign of distrust. Because from what I read here, you don’t think mods are capable to deal with NSFW in a calm and objective way. We reached these ranks for a reason, learn to trust us.

---

Sorta, yes. It's not as if I don't trust moderators at all, but moderators have different opinions about everything. How does a user upload based upon different guidelines that he or she doesn't even know until he or she has broken them?

Moderators are generally calm and generally level-headed. We like to help out. We've shown ourselves to be responsible.

But none of those attributes prevents us from disagreeing about what we come to a conclusion about. Take the Drawing threads and their featuring for example. That's not a big deal; no one will be banned because of it. But mods feel differently about what should/can be featured. But when it comes to breaking the NSFW (set of) rules, a user could be banned in part because he didn't have enough clarity on what was OK.

For example, you have a user who's uploading images that are on the edge of NSFW and somewhat suggestive, you'll have to answer his question "What's NSFW and what's OK?"

>Moderator discretion

"…I don't know what that is."

You can address it as it comes up, but I think the more specific you are, the less likely that situation is to occur. As it would stand, I think that this is very likely to occur. I say that, because when I was sending PM's to users who uploaded such content, I had to answer that question several times.

---

I understand that users need to know where the limit is, but imo there will always be moments when these details fail you. Safe images risk being removed because they contain a specific subject within the details that isn’t allowed.

And yes, there will be moments where something appears that would normally make an image unsuitable, but it's actually fine. But how often is that going to occur, and what is the worst thing that would happen? We delete a funny image in the midst of dozens if not hundreds or thousands of others? I don't expect that to occur very often.

Besides, I'm perfectly OK with nixing one image (or a few images) that would break those rules. I don't think KYM is meant to house every single picture. If one gets deleted, then that's not a big deal. But if users don't know what they can upload, that is a big deal. Users get upset, but on the whole, they usually understand. I don't want them to fear uploading something, because they don't know what they can or cannot upload.

I see it as an issue of stray moments where you can't upload funny images versus a constant unknown of what is OK and what is not. One extreme can get you banned, and the other will not because you already know what the rules are.

---

The thing I dislike about moderator discretion isn't so much based on a lack of trust. It's more along the lines that whatever an individual says essentially goes until another powerful individual steps in. On the whole, we're level-headed, but you've seen reactions to some images from us, and that won't change. I'll still be really harsh on vomiting and borderline lolicon where others will may not even bother with vomit and would say that the characters in lolicon aren't real.

I think what's going to happen will be something in the middle though, and I'm OK with that as well. I think there will be more specificity than before, and there will be a clause for moderator discretion in instances where an image should stay or should be removed. As long as a user isn't punished for instances where an image is removed but it wasn't listed in the rules, then I'm OK with it.
 
I don't really fault the other side of the spectrum. It would be frustrating to upload a funny image that most people would subjectively say was OK and wasn't offensive, but somehow fell outside of allowed images.

@Verbose:

I think I understand a lot of what you're saying. What you're looking for is at least a base set of standards to work off of so we're all on the same page; moderators would always use personal discretion in any case, but having rules that are more concrete takes some pressure off of us and alleviates confusion for the users.

Part of why I gave some of the examples I did in my previous post was actually to hopefully get some discussion on what we all think is reasonable. While most people link "NSFW" with "porn", I think it means more than that, and besides, "porn" is one of those words that varies widely in meaning from one person to another. (Which brings up the importance of things like lolicon, as you suggest; arguably entire entries such as POMF =3 are nothing but child pornography, yet they're still an aspect of Internet meme culture so wat do?)

I think your point about things like vomit is also important, as there are items that may not break obvious rules, and yet may be better put behind one of those NSFW links. Maybe we can all agree that full frontal nudity is completely disallowed, while partial nudity and sexually suggestive content need only be flagged, but where do we draw the lines with bloody images to say X amount is NSFW, while Y amount we delete for being "gore"? And what about things that aren't gore, but are just plain gross?

Lastly for now, while there is a fairly standard set of criteria (drug use, sex, violence, and strong language) that tend to get used to determine acceptability of content in any medium, I wonder if--especially due to the controversial nature of much of our content--there may be other criteria we might consider, such as racially or culturally offensive content? Although a lot of that may be for a different discussion.

I signed up for an account on Know Your Meme after being in the shadows for 2+ years for the purpose of disabling this feature, much to my dismay it wasn't an option.

Then I saw this thread and someone had said what I had in mind in a nutshell. Thank you poolboyg88.

Here's the thing, I find this kind of censorship okay for those who want it. Some folks don't like to see questionable things of sexual or violent or gory, and if they absolutely must, they do like the warning. The problem is what is questionable to one person may be perfectly fine to another… and to make things more complicated, people like me usually browse Know Your Meme at home (not school or work) and have a higher amount of stamina when dealing with 'questionable stuff', so it's an extremely subjective topic.

The only thing that bothers me is stuff where people actually get killed for real (like Budd Dwyer's suicide, which I've seen floating around on the internet… ugh), aside that… I think people should have an ability to turn off the NSFW feature on an account-level.

So while I know I am new here account-wise, Know Your Meme has been one of my most visited sites and seeing this occur was both a blessing and a curse. I'll bring an olive branch that at least in these images you can still view them eventually, but I like to gloss over image thumbnails, and sometimes NSFW stuff (as long as it's not ultra-violent or law-breaking material) can help me see many examples of memes or trends or events in progress.

In short: A toggle option would be nice for those who have an account, for the issue of subjectivity on a per-person basis. My two cents.

Perfect, I am only two days late with my reply. God damn work.

Anyway, this was a fantastic idea as KYM inevitably gets NSFW content and this will be perfect. (Lets see how many random new accounts who upload massive amount of images actually use this).

I do agree with the fact that people will see this as an excuse to post NSFW stuff. Post NSFW in entries and forums only if they are relevant to research. Don't post irrelevant images just because you have the option to do so.

poolboyg88 wrote:

GIVE USERS AN OPTION TO TURN THIS FEATURE OFF. Its bull that I have to click each thumbnail and open it in another window to see what it is. Bad move kym.

Believe it or not, KYM is a SFW site. I understand your concern (some users aren't bothered by NSFW or can view em due to conditions, situation, blah blah).

This should always default to ON because most content posted should be SFW.

And yeah, KYM needs guidelines for what is SFW and what isn't. Because to some users women in bikinis that cover more than enough are already NSFW and to others, only when nothing is covered its considered NSFW.

I'm gonna jump back in here to talk about some points that have been brought up, as I've been meaning to.

• Toggle NSFW: I understand why people would want this. I also agree with implementing it. Personally, I would not turn it off, but it makes sense and a lot of sites do it (see DA for a prominent example). I understand if it takes James awhile to code it, I've dabbled in HTML and CSS, let alone what he's probably using, and I understand he's busy. Still, for a portion of the site, which I expect is moderately significant (you know who I'm talking about), an NSFW toggle would be appreciated.

• "Moderator Discretion:

Brucker wrote:

“If this picture were showing on my screen when my boss walked up behind me, would I experience a moment of panic?”

Sorry, man, but that's the exact definition of moderator discretion. We need a defined set of rules for NSFW content, so that mods (and users? I haven't submitted an image lately) don't fight each other over an NSFW tag. I see in the OP that rules are already being set. Mostly, suggestive material (as in the majority of clop-type material) and curses/swears (as Brucker said) should be blocked.

To be honest, Brucker had some good examples. What needs to be done is to set definite guidelines to those examples.

''NSFW an abbreviation of the phrase “not safe for work,” is an Internet slang term used to flag material containing pornography, profanity or other content that may not be deemed appropriate for viewing in public setting where others may be able to see the display on computer screen.''

So basically you give us the users of this site the ability to post porn but has to cut the dirty parts of it just so that people don't get there jimmies rustled? Double standard much?

"in public setting"

That's the keyword. Porn isn't safe even in a controlled enviroment like at home or with your friends. NSFW content can be shown in trusted enviroments like that, although it may change per individual.

Let's for example go to the top description on Urban Dictionary (even made word of the day once):

Used to describe Internet content generally inappropriate for the typical workplace, i.e., would not be acceptable in the presence of your boss and colleagues (as opposed to SFW, Safe For Work).

I don't see "porn" anywhere in that. The limitations in the typical workspace compared to the more trusted areas I mentioned before are of course wider, so you'll have to watch out even more there with what you show. It's this content that the spoilers are for.

Now let's look at the site rules:

No porn or gore. External links to sites containing such content or ads will be censored at the discretion of moderators.

Ergo, porn is still not allowed.

But I'm pretty certain the reason for this post is because you had some porn you uploaded removed. So I don't see this as a legit complaint, just butthurt.

Shout Outs to Cat-Monster
The person who created the KYM-Tan design we use today.

I have just done exactly the same thing, assuming I would get the ability to turn off the goofy NSFW censorship. I'm really amazed there isn't a toggle. When I browse a gallery, I'm way too lazy to be clicking a million times on stuff that may or may not be interesting. Maybe this was just a grab for people to make accounts? You know there had to be a spike in accounts as soon as this goofy thing went online. Y FOR U NO MAKE OPTION?

This feature pretty much killed KYM image galleries for me as thumbnails became pointless, I could as well browse them all one by one since there are tons of blocked images and I don't even know if I want to view it or not, since I don't even know what the image is about!

An option to turn it off from account settings should be added ASAP. Please make it happen guys, since as it is, this is the worst thing that happened to KYM for me.

WHAT IS THE MYSTERY COLOR?!?!