Since we've agreed that putting NSFW behind spoiler tags is OK on /a/, can we maybe introduce a new tag for it so we don't have to call them "spoilers?" Like a unique spoilered image that says "NSFW" or "LEWD" or something. Pic related is just an idea.
I just don't see the reason why we'd conflate "spoilers" and "NSFW" when they're two different things. And especially since some people like to avoid spoilers wherever possible.
Just re-enable subject field on replies, no need to add complexity to an imageboard.
>>488689
NSFW content shouldn't be allowed on blue boards with very few exceptions (album covers, movie screenshots), period.
I don't get why you /a/utists need special tretment.
>>488716
Yeah, there's multiple designated anime porn boards, allowing porn on /a/ just distracts from discussion.
>>488718
>This has already been decided.
By who exactly? Because if's been decided by random posters that means literally nothing.
>>488721
/a/ has enough restraint to keep it from ruining the board.
>>488741
>not knowing something that happened few months ago
Dumb /q/poster
>>488753
>>488721
yes, this is the case. /a/ doesn't devolve into /b/ style porn dumps whenever something nsfw gets posted.
>>488741
>random posters
Sure, yes, it's the standard "autists with no up time spam their wants on the board until everyone else accepts it, including the mods" story. It's a classic, always gets laughs.
>>488756
Anon i hate to tell you this but the mods don't make the rules. So when they say something is allowed and the rules page says otherwise they're wrong.
>>488760
Anon you're embarrassing yourself. Hiro made a post in /qa/ saying until further notice, spoilered soft pornography on /a/ would be officially tolerated. But they're watching to make sure this doesn't get abused.
Rules page hasn't been updated to reflect it but the admin literally making a thread about it kind of overrules that.
>>488767
The rules page is what you follow. Not a random mod and not the person who can barely speak engrish.
>>488760
>>488767
My mistake, it was on /a/ and it was a sticky.
http://desustorage.org/a/thread/132521198/#132521198
Right now it's being treated as "as long as spoiler tags are used and you're not trying to shitpost or derail a thread, moderators tolerate it."
>>488774
Oh sorry I thought you were being serious. Nevermind.
>>488689
No, what we have right now is perfect. A NSFW tag would only encourage people to actually dump porn.
>>488767
>spoilered soft pornography
Fuck off. Porn and shit wasn't allowed, what was allowed was OFFICIAL nsfw content. If you want to post people being dicked, like always, it has to be official image for a non-h series. Stop trying to mess what is perfect and has the perfect balance. You are only going to wake up the stupid wannabe mod rulefag /q/tards.
>>488753
>/a/ has enough restraint to keep it from ruining the board.
/a/utists have completely ruined the board since 2008.
They have no fucking restraint. Half the threads at any given time are lewd image dumps as it is.
If a pic contains sex, but no nipples/reproductory organs are shown, basically just two bodies hugging, is it fine or it's not allowed?
>>489121
^this
of course, since when did people calling other people autists become so prevalent?
Things that are nsfw are not allowed to be posted, or you will receive a 3 day ban, no exceptions. How is this so hard to understand?
>>489268
what do you think anon? If neither person is nude, and you aren't obviously boxing out the "lewd" parts, then you are fine. Otherwise it is nsfw.
>>489275
Like this
>>489283
Nude should be a no.
I'd give a pic but atm somehow all of my bans were just lifted so I'm posting on the downlow atm.
>>488689
no
