Why do mods allow pornographic banners like ones of underaged boys urinating and a naked man fondling himself suggestively but constantly rage and ban people who post ecchi images on /a/ that don't contain any nipples/genitals/sexual activities?
>>363678
I'll never understand how someone could equate simple nakedness with pornography. Are you from the American Midwest or central or northern India? Or maybe some Arab nation. I don't know who else could be so puritanical.
>>363681
show your boss the banner and see how whether he thinks its worksafe or not.
>>363683
The word "4chan" isn't worksafe.
>>363683
Whoever browses 4chan at work is retarded and deserves to be fired.
>>363683
The only reason some boards are called "worksafe" is so they don't become porn dumps. It has nothing to do with making the boards suitable to browse while at work. Seriously, learn to read between the lines.
4chan, in the long run, isn't worksafe.
>>363689
but but my blue boards muh muh worksafe
Reminds me of how somebody complained about this banner back in 2013, saying it was "distasteful, and a disgrace to anybody who isn't on 4chan because of anime" and " when I'm browsing a worksafe board I don't want to feel like I'm here to jerk one off." And the banner actually ended up being deleted after being a part of the site for 10 years.
>>363721
that makes me moderately sad, i didn't know that.
>>363683
Wow anon, you'll never believe this. I just showed him and he gave me a promotion! I'm vice-president of the company now, thanks!
>>363678
I think that banner should be classified under humor. The .gif is originally from porn, but you have to see an image (or post) for all of what it is. Does the image in question appear to have the goal of sexually arousing the viewer? If it does, then objectively, it is porn. Does it not? Then it isn't porn. Though there is more to this than just banning pornography on many boards. If you posted many things even slightly sexually suggestive, or even nudity, on one of the more popular boards, you'd see the dumbest of comments and off topic replies stemming from it. As such, nudity of all kinds should be also be banned from blue boards. Even posting a girl in a bikini is enough to entice many low quality and off topic replies, so I personally discourage them at all times. Of course nothing much can really be done about it because many people on the internet have a very hard time showing even minimal levels of self control.
I do agree that the banner with the boys peeing is of poor taste, but not necessarily something that needs to be removed. Though, personally, I would like it to be removed.
>>363721
On the other hand, this banner can classify as pornography of the "softcore" variety. As such, it should not be allowed.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/pornography
And a more in-depth look at the meaning behind the word:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Pornography.aspx
"Pornography" does have a definition. And even the mods and janitors sometimes seem to have a hard time fully understanding it.
>>363993
>If you posted many things even slightly sexually suggestive, or even nudity, on one of the more popular boards, you'd see the dumbest of comments and off topic replies stemming from it. As such, nudity of all kinds should be also be banned from blue boards.
And most of those shitposts are obvious underage b8. Sorry anon, but your suggestion is a no go, as I'm not decreasing the amount of images I can use because a bunch of teenagers got upset dicks from seeing a nipple or a exposed fat thigh
The NSFW rule in the first place is only there to stop porn dumping and thats it. 4chan is a NSFW website
>I do agree that the banner with the boys peeing is of poor taste
I'm going to need a reason for this, faggot
>>363993
but mods dont apply that rule to posts
>>363721
Fuck, don't remind me
>>364216
so why do ecchi images that :
-dont show any nipples
-dont show genitals
-dont have any sexual activities
get you a ban for NSFW?
>>363683
>dodges the fucking question
Answer it, Punjab.
>>363678
Because the people who chose the banners are dumb.
>>364967
They don't. Stop browsing shitty boards like /v/
>>363678
Simple sub-board will been worksafe(without 100% warranty because of human factor) but 4chan itself can't.
Don't browse 4chan on your work, just do your work on your job.
>>363678
Because men are sexual deviants.
>>365068
So your boypussy belongs to the other gender?
>>363678
The term NSFW is, admittedly, misleading; blue boards are not actually meant to be safe for viewing in sensitive locations like on the job.
The actual intent is to prevent porn dumps, which don't lend themselves toward discussion. Certain boards exist for such things, e.g. /h/ and /hc/.
>>365268
>The term NSFW is, admittedly, misleading; blue boards are not actually meant to be safe for viewing in sensitive locations like on the job.
http://www.4chan.org/faq#worksafe
>>365754
That anon just said it was misleading, anon. Also, if you pay attention, when worksafe is brought up by moot and the mods, you'll notice they sometimes stuff it in quotation marks. This is because you aren't meant to take 'worksafe' fucking literally. 4chan is by default, not worksafe
>>365839
"The goal behind enforcing this rule is to keep the cleaner sections of the site accessible to those in restricted viewing situations."
I'm going to go by the official faq page (That can be changed by the admin whenever he sees fit.) before something said in a thread by an anonymous poster. If those that manage 4chan actually felt the way you claim they do about this this subject, then they would change the faq page description.
>>365839
Can you not read? It L I T E R A L L Y says that Worksafe means Worksafe
>>366711
>clings to the rules when things don't go their way
>"oh the rules don't matter" when convenient
fallen banner memorial
>>363683
>browsing 4chan
>at work
>fucking
>ever
If you get fired, you fucking deserve it
>>366719
How can 4chan be worksafe, when no one on 4chan has a job?
>>366719
Why was this removed?
>>366724
Ostensibly because it says dot net instead of dot org
>>366725
Makes sense.
>>366717
Stop being so fucking retarded and new. The faq is irrelevant and most of the websites rules aren't actually written, theres a reason lurk moar is one of the most common responses to newfaggotry. The worksafe shit has been mod and moot posted to be just to prevent porn dumps. Theres even fucking irc chat logs of people asking moot the fucking question and him saying exactly that. Stop being fucking retarded. No board on 4chan is worksafe, because the site isn't worksafe. Blueboards are blue, because if they were't, they'd be nothing but fucking porn
>>366719
Are you sure that was removed, I'm positive I saw it the other day?
>>366731
>The goal behind enforcing this rule is to keep the cleaner sections of the site accessible to those in restricted viewing situations.
>>366750
>the rules only apply when I agree with them
http://www.4chan.org/faq#worksafe
>>366964
>something that isnt the rule page is the rules because i say so
>moot saying thats how the rules work apparently means im saying thats how they work
>>367230
http://www.4chan.org/rules
Global rule #5, my sweet child.
And just because it takes the butter from your biscuits, I'll post it again:
http://www.4chan.org/faq#worksafe
>>367302
Again, work safe is in fucking quotations marks because its up to debate to the mods, because the boards aren't actually work safe. Good job ignoring the moot irc log as well, cunt
Fuck back off to reddit if you want your little 'safe space' if the sight of exposed thighs and nipples upset your little pindick so much
>>367322
http://www.4chan.org/faq#worksafe
You're a fun person.
>>367475
http://www.4chan.org/faq#shitposting
A bit of shitposting in my last two posts I suppose, but that doesn't make you right about this whole argument about the official definition of worksafe on 4chan.
>>367964
Oh shit it has a shitposting part, I completely forgot they added completely useless shit into the faq
No no, I'm still right, as you are trying to argue against what is considered common knowledge
>>363678
>but constantly rage and ban people who post ecchi images on /a/ that don't contain any nipples/genitals/sexual activities?
because the new /a/ mod is an autistic tumblr fag. This was on one of the IRC leak.
>this gets removed
>cropped rustle porn doesn't
>>363689
I browse it at work. But only on my phone and only at lunch or on the toilet.
better still are the onahole ads on burichan boards
>>368714
I'm glad that got removed. Kaname is a bad character.
![article-0-1498B194000005DC-451_634x422[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PCZ4zST.jpg "article-0-1498B194000005DC-451_634x422[1].jpg")
>>366720
>>363689
>4chan is the worst of the worst!
>we are rejected by society!
>hisss, I must go back to the sewer
What about the banner with embedded content when there is a rule against such thing
>>365018
but it happens on boards like /a/ too
>>366731
it's funny you keep insisting the rules and faq are wrong when you have nothing to back up that statement, and the mods consistently ban people based on the rules/faq and not your own personal definition.
still waiting for an explanation to the OP
>>373844
Because the entire of the site is nsfw and 18+. There isn't a need for a explanation
I can see why they don't do anything so often. Some people just aren't worth the effort.
