Forums / Maintenance / Suggest Ideas

Current situation: "Joke" NSFW tags are apparently not allowed, despite local rules on "Meta content" allowing such posts in most cases, and verbally stated as such on guidelines. I speak of posts like this:

(originally tagged as NSFW)

Proposal: Allow these in moderation when relevant (for example, the same image above could technically be posted anywhere anytime and still be a "meta joke", but that would be an abuse of the system and loophole exploitation).

Justification: These do not harm the site's functionality in any meaningful way if done well, unlike NC posts of any nature, so moderation should not be needed by default. Force them to be uploaded to the KYM gallery if necessary, or to be related to an actual meme since it would then count as meme documentation, the site's main purpose.

Back-up: Every content-aggregation site has meta jokes that use site functionality as part of the joke, often even including NSFW tags of their own. While it is true that KYM is not structured like most of these sites, this one aspect is still part of it, as shown by users' positive reception about these, specially when attached to a meme.

Summary: Joke NSFW tags are, overall, a net positive feature on KYM, and should therefore be allowed under proper circumstances, not fully disallowed.

Ned I want to say I'm glad that you are looking to build positive dialogue and take our comments on board.

I understand that people want to have fun with the site. I do too. I also have to do what I believe is best for the site.

My understanding is that this position generally came from the staff, so if they're in favour, I don't mind us rethinking this. But it needs to have the support of the people who built and maintain the site so it doesn't cause problems or ineffectual tagging issues.

My line of thought is that if Staff was OK with inserting a KYM in-joke on the Deadpool entry by having it (seemingly, but not really) tagged as deadpooled, then joke NSFW tags for relevant images is not a bigger stretch than that, difference being that the former is done by Staff, whereas the latter is done by users, which is why the proposal is softer moderation, not 0 moderation since people would then abuse the loophole, as I have already seen happening on Reddit for their own NSFW tag system.

That, and on a more "personal opinion" side, I feel like there is simply no point in enforcing strict moderation to what is essentially a non-issue, and it seems most people on the site agree with this. It fully makes sense for actual NSFW images for obvious reasons, but not for joke ones. Hell, even goddamn Google has programmed jokes on their main site like having the main page actually do a barrel roll if you type "Do a barrel roll" on the search tab. Surely we have a better sense of humor than Google..? I really hope so, anyway.

If uploaded to the KYM gallery I have 0% issue with them. It's a joke about KYM, in KYM's gallery, using KYM's assets. Reading Egla's post, I think this one can run the same for admins, since that entire gallery is jokes and meta. Although it leaves me curious how other sites handle it, like does Danbooru let NC tags be applied to images that aren't NC but reference to a NC tag?

On other galleries can at the very least be suggested to the admits, can't hurt to try and see who are in favour. The admins and mods are most strict on entries when it comes to functionality. The issue with a lot of these things is that we never talked over specific examples for a long time, so some things that are still up might actually not be ok without anyone realizing it. Ergo running by existing examples can sometimes backfire, as nobody is omnipresent and things will naturally slip under the radar; sometimes you're just forced to look at it as a case-by-case situation.

My line of thought is that if Staff was OK with inserting a KYM in-joke on the Deadpool entry by having it (seemingly, but not really) tagged as deadpooled

This is one of those examples: I don't recall a specific reply on the scripted deadpool that doesn't affect the confirmed status, only that an actual deadpool isn't fine. I assume it's fine, same for entries like I Watch It For The Plot with the edited NSFW notice, but we never 100% discussed these cases.

Well, I know that Reddit allows joke NSFW to be a thing, as demonstrated:

(original reddit post)

Although, of course, I know that the retort I will get here is that KYM =/= reddit, which is why I did not include this specific example on the first post.

It seems FunnyJunk has a similar thing, in which they have a "spoiler" tag for comments that puts the comment behind an eye icon that you have to click to see the comment, but more often than anything, it is used for humorous effect, and nobody minds or cares there.

Well, I know that Reddit allows joke NSFW to be a thing, as demonstrated:

Although, of course, I know that the retort I will get here is that KYM =/= reddit, which is why I did not include this specific example on the first post.

Reddit is actually more an oddball on those things since a lot of subreddits apply their own style of moderation that runs with the subreddit's topic. For example r/Pyongyang bans and deletes everything that doesn't glorify best leader or shitposts, something that would definitely not fly on KYM.

Nedhitis wrote:

despite local rules on “Meta content” allowing such posts in most cases, and verbally stated as such on guidelines.

Okay can you point to the part that this is stated. I helped to write those rules (granted this was a few years ago) this isn't ringing a bell. It wasn't something that we made one specific rule against because it was something that fly in the face of common sense and not something we felt needed an explanation to add to the already massive rule list because of how common sense this was.

Nedhitis wrote:

Allow these in moderation when relevant… if done well

The problem is that these issues start to build. What one user considers "relevant" another might not. There have been images that technically broke the current NC rules in the past, but were clearly intended for humor so we let them stay. Other users later justified uploading non-humor intended porn because "if this is allowed, then this should be fine."

Cringeworthy gallery is good example of what happens when users start to stretch what they think is and is not relevant too far. On the other hand, of course, this has nowhere near the same potential for misuse so yeah.

Nedhitis wrote:

as shown by users’ positive reception about these,

This has the fingerprints of the cringeworthy gallery written all over it. Images that had literally nothing to do with the gallery's purpose, just KYM users' circlejerk photoshops of another image already in the gallery, easily got over a hundred upvotes. I'm not saying you can never factor in user reaction to things, but they can often be in direct conflict with the reason a site exists. Look at all the people who complain about Trump and "things I don't like" memes on the site, regardless of how notable they actually are online.

Nedhitis wrote:

My line of thought is that if Staff was OK with inserting a KYM in-joke on the Deadpool entry by having it (seemingly, but not really) tagged as deadpooled

This was a mod thing not a staff thing. As this subject had been brought up we asked Don:

The short answer is that if you want some kind of meta-discourse in your media uploads, do it in the KnowYourMeme gallery.

The phrases that really stick out here are in moderation and when done well. If KYM users could, consistently, and without moderator intervention, obey site policy well, there would be no need for moderation "by default" at all. No galleries would ever be locked, and every upload would be perfect. As much as we'd all love it, this is just not happening. Certain rules, as anti-fun as they may seem, are enforced to keep some semblance of order in KYM galleries.

The biggest distinction here is that while KYM aggregates content, it isn't necessarily for sharing it. KYM galleries are primarily for the documentation of their respective entries – an unexpected Dio Brando made solely for KYM may be a passable example of the meme's usage, but does nothing to document the Jojo meme. Images like these are using memes and exploitables as commentary for KYM, not the other way around. Content like this, if it "needs" to be uploaded, belongs in our own galler, which you seem to understand this well enough.

You're drawing a lot of comparisons to other sites that seem to have more of a "sense of humor", like Google's fun features, but these sites are fundamentally different from ours. If you want an example of a site whose model KYM emulates well, try Wikipedia, whose policy is to keep all their silly shit in one clearly-marked page. You know, like we do.

Wait, hold on, I actually have an easy "graphic" example to explain myself better.

So, context:

The first image was originally uploaded with a NSFW tag, with the joke being that it would trick viewers into thinking it was a MLP lewd image, but it was not. The second one is the now well-known Gru's Plan meme, and it is self-explanatory.

So, my idea/suggestion is that the former type of images would need moderation, while the latter would not, the reason being that the former is not a meme of any kind and could easily be done for everything with anything, thus making it both irrelevant and exploitable in an intrusive manner, whereas the latter is an actual meme, the meta joke exists outside of KYM, is relevant for documentation AND, let us be honest, it does not get posted all that often here, so users cannot abuse it even if they wanted to, and moderation should be easy thanks to that.

So… yes, that is what I meant, which I admit was hard to get the point across with just words.

@Nedhitis both of those are examples of bait and switch, which is a meme. They are both jokes in being tagged NSFW despite being SFW. Sure one makes a bigger deal about making fun of the fact that it is a bait and switch than the other, but that doesn't change the fact they are both still Safe For Work images (though this does make me wonder if "self aware" bait and switches might need their own entry under bait and switch… could end up solving everyone's problems…)

Nedhitis wrote:

users cannot abuse it even if they wanted to

You would be surprised with how how far users will go to abuse the rules.

My problem with this is that @Jacob, as soon as being informed that there were other memes which used KYM's format to create a joke, immediately deleted the NSFW tag.

Now there is no joke, and the entry is sad. It also happened to be uploaded by another mod, @My name Jef .
I don't see why this uploading format cannot be allowed. This creates a new, interesting joke based on the format of the website it appears on, whereas without it, the joke doesn't exist. Should we disallow it just because a few might abuse it?
Does it take to that much extra time to check whether the meme is making a self-referential joke, and then decide whether or not it would be funny, as opposed to checking it for pornography or excessive violence?

@Nedhitis both of those are examples of bait and switch, which is a meme. They are both jokes in being tagged NSFW despite being SFW. Sure one makes a bigger deal about making fun of the fact that it is a bait and switch than the other, but that doesn’t change the fact they are both still Safe For Work images

I think that is a curious example tho. When you face that "NSFW" isn't a KYM exclusive term, any of those images becomes bait-and-switch and not meta. Would those require a different approach than the casual meta images?

Also, from what I read on those screencaps you posted and the surrounding convo, Don's approach on the entries was basically that while he disliked it he doesn't wish to be "that guy" so he doesn't argue it and let it pass (as long as we're mild on it I can assume). His reply to the NSFW tag was a similar "I don't like it", so imo there's wiggle room.

I would not be opposed to the idea of an actual new entry for these things, really. Like, we make entries for less important internet media like some popular artists, so this meta joke being present on most sites in some way could very well merit its own entry, or an update to the Bait and Switch entry like what the Gijinka entry got after its resurgence from Earth-chan's popularity.

I just wanted to post a funny meme, not launch a controversy.

It has not reached "controversy" status yet. Not until it reaches the point where discussions about actual NSFW images is. For the time being, it is closer to a discussion about a topic that only now we realized has not been talked much until today desipte being an old topic.

If the staff's position on joke NSFW tags is the same as for example the edited NSFW headers in entries, it's a "I don't like it personally but I'm a minority so I let it slip". In that case I just ran it through a mod vote: So far it's still more than 75% of the mods in favour of allowing it (but I still lack some votes so who knows).

Basically, it appears this could've all been avoided, but if staff suddenly corrects us and says "these things are no longer allowed" we're gonna do a 180 and you're fucked.

SavageAltruis wrote:

I just wanted to post a funny meme, not launch a controversy.

Read above. If it ends up fine anyways, I'll remove the NSFW tag myself, so please stop this back and forth until then.

I mean, if it comes down to Staff and that includes Don, we are talking about the same person who genuinely once admitted to me in a comment reply that KYM-tan is an official meme, not just a meta mascot for the site. Also, they are the same people who would rather frontpage a porn artist's entry instead of pretending they do not exist, despite NSFW rules.

I am pretty sure they would be flexible enough about this much less serious topic, given that context.

When it's for the sake of research, there's always leeway and you'll be suprised on what we can allow (never try this out tho without our approval). I uploaded Dragon Dildos and a guy whose leg got blown off, but only because the entry required that.

If a porn artist has memes about him, we are no longer in a position to be Christian. Also, KYM-tan technically is a meme because she checks the boxes on spread and evolution. Honestly, we could kick her entry out of the deadpool if it actually looked like one.

But those entries are exactly what we exist for. Jokes using the site's assets is a different topic.

@Mr. Strange, Inc.

And I thanked users for pointing this out and corrected what I saw to be a rule violation. As I had pointed out about one of the images, a moderator had initially removed the NSFW tag, and the uploader had gone back nearly a year later to re add it. That is not something that is going to be immediately noticeable to most mods.I don't know why you seem to act like it would be.

"Now there is no joke, and the entry is sad"

The entry does not have emotion… ? I don't know how else to respond to this.

"This creates a new, interesting joke based on the format of the website it appears on,"

While I realize that this isn't a one to one comparison, it feels like complaining about how the definition of the word "opposite" in the dictionary was changed to it's actual definition from the definition of the word "same". Sure, it's kind of funny, but it undermines the purpose of having a dictionary. There is no reason why if this is allowed that any image that could be seen as a bait and switch could be uploaded to the site in any gallery (well, provided it's based on same source material) with a NSFW tag.

Here is another reason why KYM-tan might qualify as an "actual" meme tbh.

I talked to a few of the mods on discord and why they did agree that in these instances they though the NSFW tag was fine. When I explained about the problem this sort of precedence would set, which was one of the big reasons I was against it to begin with, they were a little less gun hoe about it. I don't think I changed any of their minds fully, but I don't think the ones I talked to sounded ready to commit it as a permanent rule and being okay indefinitely no matter what happens. For me, saying that something is okay, and then having something change and having to go back and say is not okay because reasons is worse than just a yes or no. Of course all "worst case scenario" situations I suggested would likely fall under the "spirit of the rule not letter of the rule" bit, but the threshold for if that happens isn't really well defined.

@SavageAltruis

I absolutely hate being seen as the bad guy in this situation. I know that the vast majority of people involved with this are not "screw mods, I'mma do what I want" but legitimately just trying to be funny. This is the big reason why I avoided handing out any sort of warnings/ suspensions that would go on user's records.

As RM has said, these sorts of things are far from limited to just KYM, and could merit their own entry. I think this might be the best solution for all parties involved to be quite honest.

This is why you use Maintenance instead of silly slander on a memesite image gallery.

Since I've brought it up twice in this thread and only Nedhitis has mentioned saying they were in favor in thread: are there objections to making a seperate entry and gallery about this phenomenon where is would be allowed but barred on other sections of the site? There are other galleries that already exist with their own specific rules that would otherwise not be allowed elsewhere (in addition to the NSFW/NC memes, I was specfically thinking of filename threads where the title of the upload is the only thing that would make it related to something else. These are fine in that gallery but otherwise would just allow anything in any gallery in you titled it in a certain way.)

The mods I've asked about seemed to think it was a good idea (though this wasn't many) and it would certainly eliminate any issues of was it tagged accidentally or the joke isn't obvious, and I think the Admins might prefer it in case they decide on having a hard rule on it one way or another as they would all only be in one place.

As both RandomMan and Nedhitis said, this is a joke that goes further than KYM, so it would actually be a valid entry. This is also much easier to explain to people who expect the galleries to treat it's subject matter seriously.

Not certain on the name it would go by (nsfw-baiting? Fake NSFW labeling?) and it's not going to be very easy to find where it started.

I agree on the following conditions:

• This gallery, like many that exist solely for KYM in-jokes, remain unconfirmed in perpetuity. There is no feasible way to make an entry for "every other website's meta jokes", and would serve no other purpose than for users to be clever and funny with KYM's system.
• It never touches my maintenance board again

@Jacob

Since I’ve brought it up twice in this thread and only Nedhitis has mentioned saying they were in favor in thread: are there objections to making a seperate entry and gallery about this phenomenon where is would be allowed but barred on other sections of the site? There are other galleries that already exist with their own specific rules that would otherwise not be allowed elsewhere (in addition to the NSFW/NC memes, I was specfically thinking of filename threads where the title of the upload is the only thing that would make it related to something else. These are fine in that gallery but otherwise would just allow anything in any gallery in you titled it in a certain way.)

It's a valid meme so an entry has my support regardless, let's get that out of the way first. Doe's idea of a cheeto-like entry doesn't have my support in the slightest.

If an image applies to more galleries, we allow to upload it to more galleries. Even certain images uploaded to the filename threads entry could also fit elsewhere. I don't think it's necessary to make a potential NSFW bait-and-switch entry a dump gallery (unless it becomes a large issue). I accept those images in other galleries since the amount of times I saw it happen so far can't be more than a few dozen.

I won't compare this issue to NC entries – different rule, different exceptions.

@RandomMan

No one has an issue with them being in other galleries it's having them being marked as NSFW when they clearly aren't that's the issue. I'm fine with allowing it in a designated area where we are okay with slightly different rules and allowing it being marked as NSFW when it's not . If they also want to post the image elsewhere and correctly not listing it as NSFW because it isn't, then I also have absolutely no objections. I was not proposing that it could be uploaded anywhere where relevant with a NSFW tag despite it clearly being safe for work.

The filename threads meme is the only gallery that we allow purely file name style images that do not literally explain the relevancy within the image itself. If a comic of say Gary Larson's the Far Side is uploaded to the Splatoon gallery with the caption claiming that its a Splatoon screen shot, that's fine. The same image without the caption literally within the image is just a random Far Side cartoon that was made nearly two decades before Splatoon existed and thus does nothing to show documentation of it.

I'd say that the spoiler joke shouldn't be allowed…but only as a joke.

That is:

• We shouldn't allow spoiler tags to be used unless the content is actually NSFW
  • And we shouldn't allow NSFW spoiler jokes in a related entry even if it actually is otherwise related to the entry…
• …because it should belong to a Bait-and-Switch NSFW gallery.

The worst case scenario is, admittedly, probably somewhat likely where uploaders abuse the joke especially someone who's just trying to get attention less than trying to contribute to the gallery. Yeah, I get that it's just a joke.

I'm just saying that it gets in the way of the primary goal of the site: to document and catalog.

If at any point it is a abused, we'd have to come up with a way to consistently moderate something we previously allowed and anyone coming to the site to view a gallery would have to deal with how many ever of those jokes we uploaded. If they're here to see NSFW stuff in a gallery, and half end up being jokes, that's going to get old by the third pic they find like that.

It's a site about memes, but it does document and catalogs those memes. I don't think the joke really adds much to the site (it's not a novel or unique joke), abuse of it does detract from the site's purpose, and it's hard to check if it is abused.

And uploaders know previous (and current) uploaders who will intentionally push boundaries and test rules for the sake of pushing boundaries and testing rules.
 
I think all the desire for the joke does is provide evidence that it needs its own gallery. Yeah, the joke is ruined there, and even if you spoilered the jokes in its own gallery, everyone knows what would be behind it killing the joke.

Again, I just don't think "for the lulz" trumps what the are meant to do: they supplement the entries, first and foremost.

No one has an issue with them being in other galleries it’s having them being marked as NSFW when they clearly aren’t that’s the issue.

That's what I meant, the images in other galleries joke tagged as NSFW; I assumed so much was clear.

This is an interesting thread and I'm glad I read it.

The concept is fine, but would it be actually be worth it add that function? I know I don't have the proper knowledge of the "inner workings" of KYM, just curious.

I have to really agree w/ Verbose about the "for the lulz" concept being trumped.

Also, I'm glad there are "in-jokes" on this site and really is interesting to see that they can actually be potentially (with the right spread) confirmed.

This idea OP brought up really is "technically" a bait and switch. I mean I have no true stance whether or not this would cause an issue by possibly encouraging them to create a ton of these "fake" NSFW tags/labels. I love the creativity at the least.

*I'm just giving another user outside perspective on this, cause I'm a nobody ;) and want to add my opinon

Before I throw my hat into the ring, mods, from what I understand you don't want to jokes to be labeled as NSFW because not only is it a bait and switch but it adds nothing to the meme it's using as a base, yes?

After seeing this image by Jacob:

A new question has popped into my mid: mods, what do you want the relationship between you and the users to be? I've been on the internet for many years and most time/10 when something is under moderation (image board, forum, or chat room) users will complain or joke that the mods aren't good, they aren't fun, or both. I completely understand that rules need to be enforced to maintain order (I've seen no moderation and boy – it was chaotic but fun – like watching a nuke go off) I see too often mods enforcing rule(s) in a way that conflicts the users' interest.

Were all big kids, we can sort this issue out.
Okay, so this issue is nothing more than using tags as jokes, my question (of many) is where do we – where should we draw the line?

So this image:

Is it baiting? Yes! But it uses It was me, Dio! which is a bait and switch by nature, the joke of the meme is that it is a bait and switch, with that said if the point of that joke is to be a bait and switch and you remove the bait what's the point? I'm reading that it does not add anything to (in this case) "It was me, Dio!" entry, my question is: how could it not? The image uses meme format well. In this case of "It was me, Dio!" where should the line be drawn while maintaining the meme format?

@MrCoolesta

The specific logic used in moving that image opens up a whole new tangent that, while I would love to go into, would requires a few word document pages to fully explain. This explanation is often seemingly contradictory with no real hard rules and I expect in total only one and a half people on this site would actually actually be interested in reading (with one of those users being myself).

The short version for only that image: When a new entry is made, general protocol is to move relevant images to the new gallery. Again, the "relevancy" is subjective and difficult to explain in full, but the "It was me, Dio!" gallery already has over 200 images. While more would certainly be good, the NSFW baiting gallery has much much less. It would be more useful in the gallery with fewer images. Second, as it had become a target of "see this image was marked as NSFW and mods seemed fine with it back then" [even if the edit history shows otherwise] it was likely going to be retagged NSFW again. Moving to the gallery where this is explicitly allowed so users can still have a SFW image be listed as NSFW would allow both parties to be fine with the NSFW label.

"you remove the bait what’s the point?"

The point is to show an example of a "fake NSFW" bait and switch meme. This helps to document to the meme and show it isn't just something made up by the people who wrote the article. Documenting the memes is the entire focus of the site.

As for "what do you want the relationship between you and the users to be?" this goes off into a different less related tangent altogether. The image I made was meant to be over the top. While the jokes in there are not all complete lies it's meant to be in good humor and in a way that the people being made fun of can laugh at as well.

What we don't want is images that are borderline bullying. We get that "the mods" are a general term that is technically applicable to nearly all sites. Especially as any one who is seen as "running" the site is generally going to have a higher profile and thus target to any changes that the userbase has strong opinions on (good or bad). This, along with other issues with non-mods is starting to get to a point though, where we have considered changing what sot of images we would allow in the KYM entry itself. (Before you ask, this was talked about before the joke NSFW tag issue, though mostly just mentioned in passing).

I've actually suggested that the recent images stay because if users see them being taken down it will just think that "mods are scared about users telling the truth" or something else even dumber and further cause issues. Still, if this was being done to any other users (save for those who were banned) this would absolutely not be allowed as it clearly violates the Be Friendly Rule. It is the antithesis of a healthy constructive talks and criticisms, instead just promotes a mob mentality of "users vs mods." Posts explaining the reasoning behind decisions are met with downvotes, posts that just function as saying "you suck" get upvoted. Everyone involved would be much better served in the end by having civil discussions about why there is disagreement and if some form of common ground can be reached.

Also, this should be obvious, but if a user does something wrong but has a record of suggesting good ideas (even if they are ones mods disagree about) we are much more likely to assume it was an honest mistake and let them off with a warning or even just a PM. The same cannot be said of users who go out of there way to start drama and./or promote site drama.

>The specific logic used in moving that image opens up a whole new tangent that, while I would love to go into, would requires a few word document pages to fully explain. This explanation is often seemingly contradictory with no real hard rules and I expect in total only one and a half people on this site would actually be interested in reading (with one of those users being myself).
If you could summarize that tangent what would it be? I’m all ears, honesty.

>The short version for only that image: When a new entry is made, general protocol is to move relevant images to the new gallery. Again, the “relevancy” is subjective and difficult to explain in full, but the “It was me, Dio!” gallery already has over 200 images. While more would certainly be good, the NSFW baiting gallery has much less. It would be more useful in the gallery with fewer images. Second, as it had become a target of “see this image was marked as NSFW and mods seemed fine with it back then” [even if the edit history shows otherwise] it was likely going to be retagged NSFW again.
>general protocol is to move relevant images to the new gallery. Again, the “relevancy” is subjective

That is a problem, mods and users have different opinions on where (in this case NSFW tags) should apply to and which gallery it belongs in as evident by what pwef has made (currently sitting at 23 updoots:

And what SavageAltruis had made (currently sitting at 41 updoots):

“Why am I using upvotes?”
Well, I use it to gauge whether people like something or not, that’s how I use it and it seems that’s how other people us it. In this case Jacob, seeing how you’re getting downvoted (sometimes buried) that tells me that people did not like your decision and neither do I. Tell me, how relevant do you feel the NSFW Dio image be compared to other “It was me, Dio!” images given the nature of the meme? Also, I want to say that I personally feel that having a NSFW Baiting entry to bend the rules to allow SFW images to be tagged as NSFW feels like a nonsolution and redundant considering there is already a “Bait and Switch” entry, but I digress.
When I see this:

Or this:

I go, “Yeah, that does deserve to be in “Bait and Switch”!”
If I were to see:

Without knowing the existence of “It was me, Dio!” I would say, “Yeah, this too deserves to be in “Bait and Switch”!”
But knowing that “It was me, Dio” exist on KYM and seeing images like this:

And this:

My opinion is different, image 1 follows the same format as image 2 & 3, thus putting image 1 in another gallery feels like a nonsolution because like I said it does follow the same format as image 2 & 3, image 2 & 3 don’t use tags like image 1 but they do subvert expectation not the extreme like image 1 but they still do in some form.

>The point is to show an example of a “fake NSFW” bait and switch meme. This helps to document to the meme and show it isn’t just something made up by the people who wrote the article. Documenting the memes is the entire focus of the site.
>Documenting the memes is the entire focus of the site.
True that is the purpose of this site but what about the user? I personally not only view this a site that documents memes but also to discuss memes with other users and have fun – fun, that’s an important word, when I look at this image by Nedhitis (sits at 93 updoots):

It tells me something, 93 users did not like that you removed the NSFW tag, you removed what was the build up to a joke, from their point of view you ruined what made the image fun. This is a site dedicated to documenting memes, memes are fun, memes are funny a site dedicated to memes must be a fun right? But if the mods are ruining the fun what’s the point to stick around? Like SavageAltruis said they just want to post memes and have fun. Rules are important, but should the rules be enforced at the cost of user experience?

>As for “what do you want the relationship between you and the users to be?” this goes off into a different less related tangent altogether. The image I made was meant to be over the top. While the jokes in there are not all complete lies it’s meant to be in good humor and in a way that the people being made fun of can laugh at as well.

True it was made for shits and giggles, but all jokes have truths to them, honestly, I can apply this to many other sites moderated and users of that site will agree with it, like you said some jokes aren’t complete lies which is a problem, memeing about an issue doesn’t change the fact there is an issue.

>What we don’t want is images that are borderline bullying. We get that “the mods” are a general term that is technically applicable to nearly all sites. Especially as anyone who is seen as “running” the site is generally going to have a higher profile and thus target to any changes that the userbase has strong opinions on (good or bad). This, along with other issues with non-mods is starting to get to a point though, where we have considered changing what sort of images we would allow in the KYM entry itself. (Before you ask, this was talked about before the joke NSFW tag issue, though mostly just mentioned in passing).
Debating what should or shouldn’t be allowed? Are you able to give us a hint on what you guys are talking about?
>I’ve actually suggested that the recent images stay because if users see them being taken down it will just think that “mods are scared about users telling the truth” or something else even dumber and further cause issues. Still, if this was being done to any other users (save for those who were banned) this would absolutely not be allowed as it clearly violates the Be Friendly Rule. It is the antithesis of a healthy constructive talks and criticisms, instead just promotes a mob mentality of “users vs mods.” Posts explaining the reasoning behind decisions are met with downvotes, posts that just function as saying “you suck” get upvoted. Everyone involved would be much better served in the end by having civil discussions about why there is disagreement and if some form of common ground can be reached.

This is why I asked, “what do you want the relationship between you and the users to be?” (I would also like to hear other mod response to this question). Here’s my response to that question: users should respect the mods, if a mod does a thing the user should understand and agree with whatever the mod has done, if they don’t, then there’s a problem, I go through life using this quote, “And remember: respect is everything!” – GTA 2 Announcer. Like you said there are issues with users as evident by pwef, SavageAltruis, and Nedhitis along with the people who upvoted their images and downvoted people who disagree or the mods. If people aren’t happy with decision(s)the mod(s) made than it wasn’t the right decision(s).
Basically, what I’m saying is that users and mods are obviously not seeing eye to eye and that’s not a good thing, if this problem continues there will only be a bad outcome. If what you said Jacob is anything to go by it is that we’re reaching that point. You the mods must see eye to eye with the users. I’m not justifying our negative behavior but our behavior is something to take into consideration.

Asking for a civil discussion is asking too much sadly (especially now), you and I know that people use emotion over logic, there are times I use pure emotion over logic when making a decision and you do too, it’s just who we are really.

Is debating about mods' and users' relationship irrelevant to the original discussion? Yes, but I think it's important to talk about especially in this discussion.

MrCoolesta wrote:

"“Why am I using upvotes?”
Well, I use it to gauge whether people like something or not, that’s how I use it and it seems that’s how other people us it. In this case Jacob, seeing how you’re getting downvoted (sometimes buried) that tells me that people did not like your decision and neither do I.

As I previously stated above:

"I’m not saying you can never factor in user reaction to things, but they can often be in direct conflict with the reason a site exists. Look at all the people who complain about Trump and “things I don’t like” memes on the site, regardless of how notable they actually are online."

I really don't care if those images get 500 upvotes or my comments get 500 downvotes if nobody is actually trying to have a civil discussion about trying to come to a solution that tries to make compromises for both sides. The fact that I've tried to respond to every user post in this thread should show that I am interested in trying to balance both the site being seen as a serous source of information and listing to user wishes. While the NSFW baiting entry is about a valid subject, personally if it was only up to me, I would also have every SFW image in that gallery listed correctly

However, because I'm more interested in trying to make some form of compromise and try to resolve this as opposed to just "I'm right and you're wrong" and because there was already precedence by having another gallery allow images that would break rules in other galleries (Filename threads) I felt that the new entry would be the best solution between the two schools of thought. Importantly, while some mods seemed to be fine with NSFW tagged images in other galleries, the ones I asked said their opinions could easily change if a user decided to abuse it too much (of which this level is of course arbitrary, and one user could ruin it for everyone). Instead of risking future backlash over mods saying "well, we said it was cool, but now it's not sorry guys" This solution means that this version would never have to be amended. It would be impossible for one user (or even an entire team of users with the explicit purpose of trying to "ruin it") to force a rule change by doing what we had previously said was okay.

While I do agree on this being a "bit redundant" when we already have an entry for bait and switch, as Nedhitis has already said "we make entries for less important internet media". As the ability to flag media as NSFW has expanded on internet sites, jokes correlated to it have also expanded. If it was not for the insistence of many users to allow for images to still have a NSFW tag despite clearly not being Safe For Work I would normally say that this would be fine as a sub section of bait and switch.

The Dio image… I'm confused? What are you asking exactly? There are millions of ways to combine and recombine memes. There's currently no way to include a single copy of one image in multiple galleries (trust me, we all want that, but it's a codeing issue that would basically require to build the site from scratch.) It's clearly showing an image that is NSFW baiting, which would be relevant to that gallery. Even without a NSFW tag that should be extremely obvious. I mean, I get that sometime to "understand" a meme example you need knowledge of other memes, but that's true for around 95% of all images on the site. Am I missing something in particular here?

MrCoolesta wrote:

This is a site dedicated to documenting memes, memes are fun, memes are funny a site dedicated to memes must be a fun right?

Like I said fingerprints of cringeworthy all over this. A site dedicated to documenting must be dedicated to documenting. We went through this with cringeworthy, we went through this with ruined/enhanced childhood. We tried to let the users common sense regulate itself, and it failed, forcing us to lock those galleries. I'm trying to prevent it from happening here before it becomes a problem while also still leaving room for users to have their fun.

I am not saying you cannot have fun on the site. But there are hundreds of other sites where you can share memes. This is one of the only ones (and generally considered the most well known and reputable one) that is explicitly dedicated to documentation of internet phenomena. As such documentation and being seen as a good source of information take precedence over being fun if they are forced to be at odds. The Admins are generally in agreement with this as well. My solution was to try ans sidestep these two from being at odds to begin with.

MrCoolesta wrote:

True it was made for shits and giggles, but all jokes have truths to them

Let me try to be less subtle as to what I'm saying. If you are just making a image that's meant to poke fun at something that you know the target would find a little humorous even in their worst mood, that's fine. Most of the images that I was referring to are not this. They are promoting circle jerks to make one side look like malicious villains or incompetent idiots with the ultimate goal of trying to stir up drama when the other side is explicitly trying to work with the offended party despite the fact that it is within our power to just say "it's our way, and if you argue you'll be banned". None of the mods act like this, but if you are more focused on stirring shit up when we are trying to get to actually get a solution that both sides can live with, you not helping and actively hurting the goal you claim to want. As for the "debating on stuff that should and shouldn't be allowed" this is a tangent of a tahngent of a tangent, so if something results I'll make a thread specifically about it.

MrCoolesta wrote:

What do you want the relationship between you and the users to be?

I really don't want to get into too many tangents of tangents, but if you insist.

Users are free to have whatever opinions they want. If they disagree with decisions of people higher than them, that is perfectly fine. Most mods know I have had a fair share of disagreements with the Admins. Why they disagree is more important. Most of my disagreements with the admins are because sometimes it feels like I know more about certain parts of the site than they do (and in multiple situations, I have been correct). I try to lay the groundwork for new entries by uploading a bunch of images that document the meme in other related galleries, only to have all that ignored when the new entry is finally made. Granted this is an issue that is not nearly as bad as it has been. And you know why that is? It wasn't because I made a bunch of passive aggressive image uploads that tried to stir drama of users against the admins. It was because I honestly tried to talk to them and explained why this was a good idea and would help the site perform it's ultimate purpose better than the alternative.

Basically, if you agree or disagree, that's fine. It really doesn't matter. What matters is you understand, or at least try to understand why people think the way they do. Do you actually work towards what your goal is of creating a solution that can work, or do you just rant and rave and ignore and insult those who are actively doing something that they don't agree with so that a resolution can actually happen. What I'm seeing from those images and only a handful of non-mods responding to the thread is people concerned with the former and not caring for the latter.

>I really don’t care if those images get 500 upvotes or my comments get 500 downvotes if nobody is actually trying to have a civil discussion about trying to come to a solution that tries to make compromises for both sides. The fact that I’ve tried to respond to every user post in this thread should show that I am interested in trying to balance both the site being seen as a serous source of information and listing to user wishes. While the NSFW baiting entry is about a valid subject, personally if it was only up to me, I would also have every SFW image in that gallery listed correctly

I’m not saying you should care about the number of upvotes or downvotes but I used them as examples to say, “Hey, a lot of people like this – they support the message this image has.”

I cannot argue against your view on how you sort NSFW images, honestly that how I imagined how some mods moderate images, but that maybe, to you what images can you think of that would be labeled as “maybe”?

>However, because I’m more interested in trying to make some form of compromise and try to resolve this as opposed to just “I’m right and you’re wrong” and because there was already precedence by having another gallery allow images that would break rules in other galleries (Filename threads) I felt that the new entry would be the best solution between the two schools of thought. Importantly, while some mods seemed to be fine with NSFW tagged images in other galleries, the ones I asked said their opinions could easily change if a user decided to abuse it too much (of which this level is of course arbitrary, and one user could ruin it for everyone). Instead of risking future backlash over mods saying “well, we said it was cool, but now it’s not sorry guys” This solution means that this version would never have to be amended. It would be impossible for one user (or even an entire team of users with the explicit purpose of trying to “ruin it”) to force a rule change by doing what we had previously said was okay.

I get what you mean, preventing people from spamming SFW images tagged as NSFW and probably preventing innocent users from getting some banned, seeing how people are reacting the plan seems more like a “In theory it should work, in practice it doesn’t.” Now I’m not saying the idea is bad – not at all but I will say the way you’ve handled this situation was not okay. First off, I remember that when users point out that other older images used NSFW tag as a bait you changed it and said “Hey, guys I fixed it!” To the user there was no problem to them you fixed a nonissue which is nonsense. Secondly, how you and other mods reacted to people’s outrage was also not good either, RandomMan, calling people spoiled brats for being mad helps no one and it boggles my mind that you that saying that was a good idea. Jacob, you already made changes to images people didn’t liked being passive aggressive – redirecting people to the forums to discuss this topic helps no one, when people were trying to talk to you about this and you say, “Go to the forums.” It’s like you weren’t trying to listen at all that is not how you create a discussion. Insulting your opponent does not lead to a discussion, it leads to argument or worst name calling. Instead of being passive aggressive you could have the conversation with them right then and there, compile whatever they say later you could upload an image saying, “Hey, we hear you.” With a list of complaints “We can talk more about this in the forums.” Providing a link to the forums so people may flood it with their ideas.

>I am not saying you cannot have fun on the site. But there are hundreds of other sites where you can share memes. This is one of the only ones (and generally considered the most well known and reputable one) that is explicitly dedicated to documentation of internet phenomena. As such documentation and being seen as a good source of information take precedence over being fun if they are forced to be at odds. The Admins are generally in agreement with this as well. My solution was to try ans sidestep these two from being at odds to begin with.

Are you saying people should go elsewhere to have fun and discuss memes? So, the admins and users have different view points of this site? One wants documentation and fun while the other wants pure documentation? They will clash, that’s inevitable proof: this backlash.

>“there are hundreds of other sites where you can share memes”
Reading that makes me feel some type of way.

>Let me try to be less subtle as to what I’m saying. If you are just making a image that’s meant to poke fun at something that you know the target would find a little humorous even in their worst mood, that’s fine. Most of the images that I was referring to are not this. They are promoting circle jerks to make one side look like malicious villains or incompetent idiots with the ultimate goal of trying to stir up drama when the other side is explicitly trying to work with the offended party despite the fact that it is within our power to just say “it’s our way, and if you argue you’ll be banned”. None of the mods act like this, but if you are more focused on stirring shit up when we are trying to get to actually get a solution that both sides can live with, you not helping and actively hurting the goal you claim to want. As for the “debating on stuff that should and shouldn’t be allowed” this is a tangent of a tahngent of a tangent, so if something results I’ll make a thread specifically about it.

That’s because we’re just going back and forth, really I wanted to get some things off my chest.

>I really don’t want to get into too many tangents of tangents, but if you insist.

Oh, I do, I really really do, in addition to what I said earlier for I’ve been wondering how mods view users, also, I’m taking American Government there’s some psychology thrown in there and it is really interesting; I’m drawing some parallels from government to this site – mainly if you make a decision that made people mad then it wasn’t the right decision.

>Users are free to have whatever opinions they want. If they disagree with decisions of people higher than them, that is perfectly fine. Most mods know I have had a fair share of disagreements with the Admins. Why they disagree is more important. Most of my disagreements with the admins are because sometimes it feels like I know more about certain parts of the site than they do (and in multiple situations, I have been correct). I try to lay the groundwork for new entries by uploading a bunch of images that document the meme in other related galleries, only to have all that ignored when the new entry is finally made. Granted this is an issue that is not nearly as bad as it has been. And you know why that is? It wasn’t because I made a bunch of passive aggressive image uploads that tried to stir drama of users against the admins. It was because I honestly tried to talk to them and explained why this was a good idea and would help the site perform it’s ultimate purpose better than the alternative.

Ah, that’s the answer I’m looking for.

>Basically, if you agree or disagree, that’s fine. It really doesn’t matter. What matters is you understand, or at least try to understand why people think the way they do. Do you actually work towards what your goal is of creating a solution that can work, or do you just rant and rave and ignore and insult those who are actively doing something that they don’t agree with so that a resolution can actually happen. What I’m seeing from those images and only a handful of non-mods responding to the thread is people concerned with the former and not caring for the latter.

I see.

So back on topic, since you’re the only mod responding can you do me a favor and ask the mods to respond to this:
When it comes to bait and switches like “Gru’s Plan”, “It’s was me, Dio!” and “Object Labeling” is it okay to make a copy of the original image and place it in amore relevant entry like “Bait and Switch” or “NSFW Baiting”?
If not when using NSFW tag on images that are SFW what should be the exception?
If it is being debated if an image is questionable what would the criteria be to properly sort images, not only for bait and switch but for other images that would be in a grey area?
Or maybe have a unique tag that lets mod and users know that what they’re about to see is labeled as NSFW but the image is actually SFW so it can still be in its original gallery.

Unrelated but could you also ask them, “What do you want the relationship between you and the users to be?” if you can’t or won’t ask them this is fine.

MrCoolesta wrote:

to you what images can you think of that would be labeled as “maybe”?

What some people consider NSFW others might not. I know there was a recent disagreement among mods over a fanart gif of two girls kissing. Some felt it was SFW, and would feel the same if it was to guys or a guy and girl kissing. It's just kissing. Others felt because of the "yuriness" of the image it would be something that if your boss saw you looking at it at work, they would think that you actually looking at porn. In a similar manner, naked characters are generally not allowed, but if the nudity is at a level that would pass in a kids show (like a screenshot of a butt joke in spongebob) if it needs a NSFW label is sort of subjective.

MrCoolesta wrote:

when users point out that other older images used NSFW tag as a bait you changed it

I got the impression that people were giving a valid complaint about an apparent double standard. Would you consider it more appropriate to leave the double standard up after it was pointed out? Wouldn't that just look like I was picking on that one instance despite it seeming to suggest that we had allowed it in the past?

MrCoolesta wrote:

Insulting your opponent does not lead to a discussion, it leads to argument or worst name calling.

I agree which is why I made sure not to do this. Despite this, several users made comments that ordinarily would end up with warnings, and one users started to down-vote anything I posted on the site, even if it had no relation to the issue whatsoever.

If you want to complain about Random Man's behavior that is fine but I made explicitly sure that the closest I ever came to "name calling" was pointing out some users seemed more inclined to stir up drama than working towards a solution.

There is always room for moderation improvement, and I'm not going to pretend that being between three different cities, working 8 to 6 several days, and being on the road at least 9 hours this past week has helped any. But the reaction I've seen is something I would expect if we had started banning people just because they talked back to the mods, not for changing a checkmark in the metadata of three images to be accurate.

MrCoolesta wrote:

later you could upload an image saying, “Hey, we hear you.”

Posting images in the galleries has never used to discuss policy. The only time I've know it to be used for anything close to this was to get more users to fill out a survey in the forums. Users have already done great deal to bring attention to this issue as is. Me uploading an image like this would almost certainly be downvoted and It would also been seen as furthering the idea that posting images promoting site drama is something that we encourage. We were already considering if we should be more specific what we should and should not allow in the KYM gallery and this issue brings forth new evidence that changing this might be something we should consider.

MrCoolesta wrote:

“Go to the forums.” It’s like you weren’t trying to listen at all that is not how you create a discussion

Forums are defined as a place of discussion. They have a significantly larger character limit, editable, searchable in the site's database search engine, are much easier to see if new posts are present, does not allow for the entire conversation to be removed if one user deletes their comment, and do not allow for shitposting to derail the actual conversation. I think that is significant enough justification as to why the forum are a far superior place to actually discuss policy. I don't understand how using comments section of a random image would ever be seen as better place to talk about policy. I am more than willing to answer any questions users want here. It easily allows for other users and mods to see what the conversations about policy were, to understand the mindset in case they want to know why it was decided the way it was.

MrCoolesta wrote:

One wants documentation and fun while the other wants pure documentation? They will clash, that’s inevitable proof: this backlash

This is a false binary when it is in fact a gradient. If you think I'm bad, you should have seen the mods (who have long since left) that felt uploading any OC of any kind (relevant or not) would be violating the documentation purpose of the site. They also thought that all images pertaining to site injokes should be purged, even from their own joke galleries. This was long before the Photoshop contests to which they would have likely objected to. Most people who help to run the site are fine with fun. It's only when the actual reason the site exist seems to take backseat to fun that issues arise.

You also act as if this is only a building future problem when it is an old problem which the site has almost always has. Years ago, with Cringeworthy, Reaction Faces, and Ruined/Enhanced Childhood, there were people who justified posting stuff that was objectively had absolutely nothing to do with the entry by pointing to the upvotes. There were also clashes over "fun shitposting" in the forums which is why were created Riff Raff. What was proposed in this thread balances the "fun" aspect with the fundamental reason the site exists. I still don't "love" it because it is "lying" about the content of the image. But compared with the alternatives of having them everywhere and not being able to do anything if we get flooded because we explicitly said it isn't against rules, or actually having to suspend/ban people because they tried to be funny and were otherwise good users they just disagreed with the mods about this one issue, I consider the middle option is much better.

MrCoolesta wrote:

drawing some parallels from government… if you make a decision that made people mad then it wasn’t the right decision.

There are, though, different opinions within government about this. Almost inevitably, something that some people agree with others will disagree with and vice versa. I consider the reasoning behind things much more important than the way people feel. The way I see the arguments boil down to being "in principle it challenges the purpose of the site" and "being unable to prevent future abuses" vs "because it's funny" and "what could possibly go wrong?"

As for the last part, I'm not 100% of the questions you are asking for the other mods, so I'm just double checking.

The first one appears to basically be "would the images in question be fine in both the NSFW-baiting gallery and the other meme it represents." I would say yes, though if an edit war starts to break out over them, I'm not going to prevent users from receiving warnings. Mods currently do not have a way to lock image edits. Though admins do have a way, it appears to be automated and connected to being frontpagged. I can ask other mods about it but I do not think their answers will deviate significantly from this.

Second question appears to be saying "When is it okay for a SFW image to be marked as NSFW" correct?

Obviously if you are unsure and you're just doing it to be safe that's fine as long as if a mod removes the NSFW label you don't immediately re-add it without asking. Also, none of the mods have issue with this happening in the NSFW baiting entry as the reason it's okay there should be immediately obvious to anyone who reads the entry, and it's a compromise between the schools of thought.

But as for the fundamental question that started all this, as I've stated before, the mods seem split. Most of the one's I've asked seem to at least agree with the points I've made, and seem to think the NSFW-bating entry is the best compromise.

Third question seems to just be a general question of "When it's borderline of needing NSFW label what happens." It can vary sometimes all mods on discord agree it needs NSFW tag, or that they all agree it does not. Because this is grey area and it is not trying to abuse rules, we try not to send warnings over this.

We do have a the NSFW Guidelines though there is a much greater emphasis of what is and is not allowed on the site, as opposed to what does and does not need NSFW label, as that is a much larger point of conflict. It's impossible to predict every image that people will try to upload so it's impossible to say in advance what images will definitely need NSFW tag and which ones definitely will not. As long as people aren't abusing the letter of the law or undoing mod edits without contacting mods it's not something that I could easily see becoming an issue. Things we consider are like "how detailed is it?" A picture of a girl in a bikini that's MS paint doodle quality is rated differently than one that's very detailed. "What's the focus?" If the image has someone in somewhat revealing clothing in the background it's likely fine without. If the focus is a just a butt, then it probably needs it. There are huge swaths of gradients in between these, so unfortunately a lot of this is going to be a "I'll know it when I see it" no matter how long we make the rules list.

If these are the questions you are trying to ask, I can see if I can get other mods to respond. However, many of them don't seem to have strong opinions either way, and would rather just have the issue resolved.

MrCoolesta wrote:

maybe have a unique tag that lets mod and users know that what they’re about to see is labeled as NSFW but the image is actually SFW so it can still be in its original gallery.

Any new feature is going to require the admins (namely James) to do a lot of work to create new code to the way the site functions. As I have already posted, Don at least would prefer to not use joke tags at all if it was up to him. While not all the admins agree on everything, Don is the closest we have to a community manager and a "public voice" of the administration. You would be asking them to put a lot of work into creating a new feature they don't seem to want that would change how the site functions for the sake of a joke despite it only being applicable to less than ten images on the site right now. Between this and say, just banning those images outright, It's not difficult to see what would be easier (no one is suggesting we do this, I'm just using it to show that this is much easier to say than to actually do).

Secondarily, this still leaves the other problems. People who come to this site as a reputable source of information see SFW images marked NSFW would get a bad impression that it's not serious site. While the specific NSFW images that started all this are inarguable in being NSFW baiting, I cannot see an objective way to easily explain why those images would be "okay" but something like this would not be.

Finally like I've said multiple times, if we get flooded with NSFW baiting images, what do we do? We would have just said that those images are okay. Wouldn't we be breaking the rules if we did anything to remove or change them even if users complained?

Limiting NSFW baiting images to their own gallery if they want to incorrectly have a NSFW label makes it extremely unlikely we will need to revisit this rule in the future. It makes it obvious to anyone who sees the site as a practical reference that while some humor is allowed, it doesn't take priority over what the sites stated purpose is supposed to be.

It's been nearly 3 weeks since the entry. The idea for a seperate entry was ok, but the fact that there were still just 2 KYM-bait images in that gallery just shows how miniscule this issue really was. Also the entry was still as it was after creation.

I've moved the Dio and Gru images back to their original galleries and made them keep the NSFW-tag as was intended before the creation of the entry. I left the entry itself alone, so not deadpooled; you can decide its fate.

I simply chose to reset the images back to the previous decision as your seperate entry idea showed no progress. If it becomes a more widespread problem on the site (as I stated before on this issue) and/or the entry develops itself to a point that it shows clear examples and spread online, we can reevaluate your seperate entry idea.