At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?
I saw in the Art Guidelines and the Content Submission rules that this is based on whether it looks like a minor, not necessarily their canon age, but the Movie Guidelines states "no grey areas".
It's based on the appearance. I've mentioned that many times. Don't contrast rules from one area to another and confuse yourself, or others.
At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?
My rule of thumb & it sits with the 'No Grey Areas' clause is quite simple, if they're not 18 then it's underage. I do a simple Google search on each individual Movie/Character for example, Pokemon Misty age. The result will be Misty is 12 years old. It DOES NOT matter if they put a disclaimer in their Author Comments saying, 'All characters depicted in this movie are 18+' that's just a pathetic attempt at getting around the 'No Grey Areas' clause & it's not an acceptable excuse. Also & this is where Exedor & I have differing opinions on the subject, the ageing up thing is in my opinion not acceptable, underage is underage & since it doesn't say anywhere in the Movie Guidelines that it's okay to submit underage content as long as you age the characters up, underage is underage. Think of this as an example, if you or I had a 12/13/14 year old daughter & she put on all her make-up & looked a million dollars & looked 20 years old (it happens, I've seen it many times) would you be happy if a 20/25 year old guy hit on her? Simple answer here is No you would not & if you say it wouldn't bother you, you're straight up lying. The only instance where submitters kind of get around this is when they're posting content where the characters look young but they're Fairies or whatever & Google search shows their age as over 1,000 years or whatever. I'll discuss this further with Tom. From the talks we've had so far he's suggested that cleaning up the site is long overdue & he's happy that I've taken the initiative to do what I can about it.
At 2/24/24 04:55 AM, Exedor wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?It's based on the appearance. I've mentioned that many times. Don't contrast rules from one area to another and confuse yourself, or others.
I saw in the Art Guidelines and the Content Submission rules that this is based on whether it looks like a minor, not necessarily their canon age, but the Movie Guidelines states "no grey areas".
At 2/24/24 06:47 AM, gamejunkie wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?
My rule of thumb & it sits with the 'No Grey Areas' clause is quite simple, if they're not 18 then it's underage. I do a simple Google search on each individual Movie/Character for example, Pokemon Misty age. The result will be Misty is 12 years old. It DOES NOT matter if they put a disclaimer in their Author Comments saying, 'All characters depicted in this movie are 18+' that's just a pathetic attempt at getting around the 'No Grey Areas' clause & it's not an acceptable excuse. Also & this is where Exedor & I have differing opinions on the subject, the ageing up thing is in my opinion not acceptable, underage is underage & since it doesn't say anywhere in the Movie Guidelines that it's okay to submit underage content as long as you age the characters up, underage is underage. Think of this as an example, if you or I had a 12/13/14 year old daughter & she put on all her make-up & looked a million dollars & looked 20 years old (it happens, I've seen it many times) would you be happy if a 20/25 year old guy hit on her? Simple answer here is No you would not & if you say it wouldn't bother you, you're straight up lying. The only instance where submitters kind of get around this is when they're posting content where the characters look young but they're Fairies or whatever & Google search shows their age as over 1,000 years or whatever. I'll discuss this further with Tom. From the talks we've had so far he's suggested that cleaning up the site is long overdue & he's happy that I've taken the initiative to do what I can about it.
Sexual content involving underage characters is prohibited, please don't look for grey areas.
I think that this rule will have to change after this discussion as the gray area might expand a lot based on these posts
I already see how this will potentially change the art portal rules as well
how we have been taught:
I believe that the argument here is on #5 and #6
Gamejunkie wants us to flag, Exedor wants us to nothing, Tom wants us to _____
The second and possibly more important question is: if the decision to change #5 and #6 is, to a flaggable item, how far back do we want to take this?
I am pretty sure that I speak for a lot of individuals with this, please let us know how you want us users to flag and we will go to war, I know that this has been a rather hot topic for a bunch of us
At 2/24/24 10:55 AM, tox wrote:@Tomfulp
@Gamejunkie
how we have been taught:
5. if the character is presented with the features of a 17 year old and is said to be 18: nothing, but argue about it
6. if the character is presented with the features of a 25 year old but their cannon age is 15: nothing, but ask about it
I believe that the argument here is on #5 and #6
Gamejunkie wants us to flag, Exedor wants us to nothing, Tom wants us to _____
Um, no, I've never said to do nothing.
The second and possibly more important question is: if the decision to change #5 and #6 is, to a flaggable item, how far back do we want to take this?
If you run across something, feel free to flag it, as always. But, don't go on a Seek Out and Destroy mission among the ancient NG content.
I am pretty sure that I speak for a lot of individuals with this, please let us know how you want us users to flag and we will go to war, I know that this has been a rather hot topic for a bunch of us
This is why I have been rebuffing a few of you. Why do you make things more difficult than they have to be and why are you splitting hairs? All these words and all these questions have been discussed and answered, and with easy directions.
If it looks like kid, it's a kid. If it doesn't looks like a kid, it's not. It doesn't matter what the author comments say.
At 10/9/23 01:11 AM, Exedor wrote:Newgrounds goes solely by the appearance of the character, not by any canon age or artist comments that they're 18+. If it looks like a kid, it's a kid. If it doesn't look like a kid, it's not.
I have never said to do nothing. I have said what I've said repeatedly, peeps. And as for the "grey areas," I've instructed you there as well: If in doubt, flag the item or feel free to message a mod about it.
How difficult is that? How needlessly difficult are some of you making it?
It's even clearly defined in the guidelines:
Those were cut & pasted directly from the guidelines. Are any of you confused by the either of above statements?
Here's the guidance, in simple terms:
Use your own judgement. Use discernment. Stop worrying about one wrong flag here and there, because we all get them. If you're consistently right, you'll recover. If you're consistently wrong, you'll lose rank, and that's an indicator that you need to revisit how you make your determinations.
If the character has boobs the size of a bus, don't tell yourself, "that must be a kid, Imma flag it!" and expect to gain whistle rank.
My guidance on:
The 17/18 issue is a number, so revert back to what was said about appearance. The issue is too close to argue about. In real life, you can get in trouble depending on which side of the magical 18 year birthday you find yourself on, but these are fictional images, peeps. If the character is 17 360/365 days old, suck it up, don't "argue" it.
The "grey areas" discussed in the guidelines are for authors trying to push the rules, not for you in regards to how you flag or vote.
We expect to repeat things for new users, but you've all been around here for a long while. We shouldn't be going over the same things over and over.
Stop making more work for yourselves. It ain't that difficult. :)
At 2/24/24 10:55 AM, tox wrote:At 2/24/24 04:55 AM, Exedor wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?It's based on the appearance. I've mentioned that many times. Don't contrast rules from one area to another and confuse yourself, or others.
I saw in the Art Guidelines and the Content Submission rules that this is based on whether it looks like a minor, not necessarily their canon age, but the Movie Guidelines states "no grey areas".At 2/24/24 06:47 AM, gamejunkie wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:
Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?
My rule of thumb & it sits with the 'No Grey Areas' clause is quite simple, if they're not 18 then it's underage. I do a simple Google search on each individual Movie/Character for example, Pokemon Misty age. The result will be Misty is 12 years old. It DOES NOT matter if they put a disclaimer in their Author Comments saying, 'All characters depicted in this movie are 18+' that's just a pathetic attempt at getting around the 'No Grey Areas' clause & it's not an acceptable excuse. Also & this is where Exedor & I have differing opinions on the subject, the ageing up thing is in my opinion not acceptable, underage is underage & since it doesn't say anywhere in the Movie Guidelines that it's okay to submit underage content as long as you age the characters up, underage is underage. Think of this as an example, if you or I had a 12/13/14 year old daughter & she put on all her make-up & looked a million dollars & looked 20 years old (it happens, I've seen it many times) would you be happy if a 20/25 year old guy hit on her? Simple answer here is No you would not & if you say it wouldn't bother you, you're straight up lying. The only instance where submitters kind of get around this is when they're posting content where the characters look young but they're Fairies or whatever & Google search shows their age as over 1,000 years or whatever. I'll discuss this further with Tom. From the talks we've had so far he's suggested that cleaning up the site is long overdue & he's happy that I've taken the initiative to do what I can about it.
@Tomfulp
@Exedor
@Gamejunkie
Sexual content involving underage characters is prohibited, please don't look for grey areas.
I think that this rule will have to change after this discussion as the gray area might expand a lot based on these posts
I already see how this will potentially change the art portal rules as well
how we have been taught:
I believe that the argument here is on #5 and #6
Gamejunkie wants us to flag, Exedor wants us to nothing, Tom wants us to _____
The second and possibly more important question is: if the decision to change #5 and #6 is, to a flaggable item, how far back do we want to take this?
I am pretty sure that I speak for a lot of individuals with this, please let us know how you want us users to flag and we will go to war, I know that this has been a rather hot topic for a bunch of us
We have traditionally allowed the aging up of characters, where if the art looks like an adult, we treat it as an adult. There is still a lot of grey area stuff where it's questionable if characters have been aged up enough and overall, I'm so sick of it at this point and I'm sick of artists who specialize in making lewds of characters who are known for being kids.
When you say "go to war", you're right because it's a massive topic to tackle, it's hard to specify where the line is unless you do things 100% based on canonical age.
This post by rtil is one to think about. RTIL was banned from DeviantArt because DA considered this art to be a 14 year old. To someone who isn't fixated on fictional character canonical ages, it does seem silly. But it's also what would happen if you have a black and white policy based on canonical ages.
NG has its own Overton Window that is shifting over time, where it seems like we wouldn't want to get as extreme as what happened in that DA example, but there is stuff that should be removed that might have gotten a pass in the past.
I'll note, this gradual slide goes both ways. When we opened the Portal in 2000, we had a rule that hardcore porn was not allowed. But people would make funny porn, or really well animated porn and the window gradually shifted. It got harder and harder to draw a line because we were making more and more exceptions, until we got to the point where we are now.
I would very much like to see artists simply stop lewding characters who are known for being kids, or at least not post that art on Newgrounds, although posting it anywhere will give you a reputation that will follow you. There are so many adult characters to lewd, or you could create your own OCs, so I don't feel like that's asking too much.
As far as going back and mass flagging everything possible, I'd say start with flagging a few items that are at the top of your list of what you think is the most blatant.
At 2/24/24 12:10 PM, TomFulp wrote:At 2/24/24 10:55 AM, tox wrote:At 2/24/24 04:55 AM, Exedor wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?It's based on the appearance. I've mentioned that many times. Don't contrast rules from one area to another and confuse yourself, or others.
I saw in the Art Guidelines and the Content Submission rules that this is based on whether it looks like a minor, not necessarily their canon age, but the Movie Guidelines states "no grey areas".At 2/24/24 06:47 AM, gamejunkie wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:
Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?
My rule of thumb & it sits with the 'No Grey Areas' clause is quite simple, if they're not 18 then it's underage. I do a simple Google search on each individual Movie/Character for example, Pokemon Misty age. The result will be Misty is 12 years old. It DOES NOT matter if they put a disclaimer in their Author Comments saying, 'All characters depicted in this movie are 18+' that's just a pathetic attempt at getting around the 'No Grey Areas' clause & it's not an acceptable excuse. Also & this is where Exedor & I have differing opinions on the subject, the ageing up thing is in my opinion not acceptable, underage is underage & since it doesn't say anywhere in the Movie Guidelines that it's okay to submit underage content as long as you age the characters up, underage is underage. Think of this as an example, if you or I had a 12/13/14 year old daughter & she put on all her make-up & looked a million dollars & looked 20 years old (it happens, I've seen it many times) would you be happy if a 20/25 year old guy hit on her? Simple answer here is No you would not & if you say it wouldn't bother you, you're straight up lying. The only instance where submitters kind of get around this is when they're posting content where the characters look young but they're Fairies or whatever & Google search shows their age as over 1,000 years or whatever. I'll discuss this further with Tom. From the talks we've had so far he's suggested that cleaning up the site is long overdue & he's happy that I've taken the initiative to do what I can about it.
@Tomfulp
@Exedor
@Gamejunkie
Sexual content involving underage characters is prohibited, please don't look for grey areas.
I think that this rule will have to change after this discussion as the gray area might expand a lot based on these posts
I already see how this will potentially change the art portal rules as well
how we have been taught:
I believe that the argument here is on #5 and #6
Gamejunkie wants us to flag, Exedor wants us to nothing, Tom wants us to _____
The second and possibly more important question is: if the decision to change #5 and #6 is, to a flaggable item, how far back do we want to take this?
I am pretty sure that I speak for a lot of individuals with this, please let us know how you want us users to flag and we will go to war, I know that this has been a rather hot topic for a bunch of us
We have traditionally allowed the aging up of characters, where if the art looks like an adult, we treat it as an adult. There is still a lot of grey area stuff where it's questionable if characters have been aged up enough and overall, I'm so sick of it at this point and I'm sick of artists who specialize in making lewds of characters who are known for being kids.
When you say "go to war", you're right because it's a massive topic to tackle, it's hard to specify where the line is unless you do things 100% based on canonical age.
This post by rtil is one to think about. RTIL was banned from DeviantArt because DA considered this art to be a 14 year old. To someone who isn't fixated on fictional character canonical ages, it does seem silly. But it's also what would happen if you have a black and white policy based on canonical ages.
NG has its own Overton Window that is shifting over time, where it seems like we wouldn't want to get as extreme as what happened in that DA example, but there is stuff that should be removed that might have gotten a pass in the past.
I'll note, this gradual slide goes both ways. When we opened the Portal in 2000, we had a rule that hardcore porn was not allowed. But people would make funny porn, or really well animated porn and the window gradually shifted. It got harder and harder to draw a line because we were making more and more exceptions, until we got to the point where we are now.
I would very much like to see artists simply stop lewding characters who are known for being kids, or at least not post that art on Newgrounds, although posting it anywhere will give you a reputation that will follow you. There are so many adult characters to lewd, or you could create your own OCs, so I don't feel like that's asking too much.
As far as going back and mass flagging everything possible, I'd say start with flagging a few items that are at the top of your list of what you think is the most blatant.
so then as it sits now:
Don't go into older stale items unless it was something that you thought needs to really be brought to attention
Bring out your hammers
At 2/24/24 12:30 PM, tox wrote:At 2/24/24 12:10 PM, TomFulp wrote:At 2/24/24 10:55 AM, tox wrote:At 2/24/24 04:55 AM, Exedor wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?It's based on the appearance. I've mentioned that many times. Don't contrast rules from one area to another and confuse yourself, or others.
I saw in the Art Guidelines and the Content Submission rules that this is based on whether it looks like a minor, not necessarily their canon age, but the Movie Guidelines states "no grey areas".At 2/24/24 06:47 AM, gamejunkie wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:
Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?
My rule of thumb & it sits with the 'No Grey Areas' clause is quite simple, if they're not 18 then it's underage. I do a simple Google search on each individual Movie/Character for example, Pokemon Misty age. The result will be Misty is 12 years old. It DOES NOT matter if they put a disclaimer in their Author Comments saying, 'All characters depicted in this movie are 18+' that's just a pathetic attempt at getting around the 'No Grey Areas' clause & it's not an acceptable excuse. Also & this is where Exedor & I have differing opinions on the subject, the ageing up thing is in my opinion not acceptable, underage is underage & since it doesn't say anywhere in the Movie Guidelines that it's okay to submit underage content as long as you age the characters up, underage is underage. Think of this as an example, if you or I had a 12/13/14 year old daughter & she put on all her make-up & looked a million dollars & looked 20 years old (it happens, I've seen it many times) would you be happy if a 20/25 year old guy hit on her? Simple answer here is No you would not & if you say it wouldn't bother you, you're straight up lying. The only instance where submitters kind of get around this is when they're posting content where the characters look young but they're Fairies or whatever & Google search shows their age as over 1,000 years or whatever. I'll discuss this further with Tom. From the talks we've had so far he's suggested that cleaning up the site is long overdue & he's happy that I've taken the initiative to do what I can about it.
@Tomfulp
@Exedor
@Gamejunkie
Sexual content involving underage characters is prohibited, please don't look for grey areas.
I think that this rule will have to change after this discussion as the gray area might expand a lot based on these posts
I already see how this will potentially change the art portal rules as well
how we have been taught:
I believe that the argument here is on #5 and #6
Gamejunkie wants us to flag, Exedor wants us to nothing, Tom wants us to _____
The second and possibly more important question is: if the decision to change #5 and #6 is, to a flaggable item, how far back do we want to take this?
I am pretty sure that I speak for a lot of individuals with this, please let us know how you want us users to flag and we will go to war, I know that this has been a rather hot topic for a bunch of us
We have traditionally allowed the aging up of characters, where if the art looks like an adult, we treat it as an adult. There is still a lot of grey area stuff where it's questionable if characters have been aged up enough and overall, I'm so sick of it at this point and I'm sick of artists who specialize in making lewds of characters who are known for being kids.
When you say "go to war", you're right because it's a massive topic to tackle, it's hard to specify where the line is unless you do things 100% based on canonical age.
This post by rtil is one to think about. RTIL was banned from DeviantArt because DA considered this art to be a 14 year old. To someone who isn't fixated on fictional character canonical ages, it does seem silly. But it's also what would happen if you have a black and white policy based on canonical ages.
NG has its own Overton Window that is shifting over time, where it seems like we wouldn't want to get as extreme as what happened in that DA example, but there is stuff that should be removed that might have gotten a pass in the past.
I'll note, this gradual slide goes both ways. When we opened the Portal in 2000, we had a rule that hardcore porn was not allowed. But people would make funny porn, or really well animated porn and the window gradually shifted. It got harder and harder to draw a line because we were making more and more exceptions, until we got to the point where we are now.
I would very much like to see artists simply stop lewding characters who are known for being kids, or at least not post that art on Newgrounds, although posting it anywhere will give you a reputation that will follow you. There are so many adult characters to lewd, or you could create your own OCs, so I don't feel like that's asking too much.
As far as going back and mass flagging everything possible, I'd say start with flagging a few items that are at the top of your list of what you think is the most blatant.
so then as it sits now:
Don't go into older stale items unless it was something that you thought needs to really be brought to attention
Bring out your hammers
if the character is presented with the features of a 25 year old and is said to be 25: nothing
if the character is presented with the features of a 25 year old and is said to be 15: flag
if the character is presented with the features of a 15 year old and is said to be 25: flag
if the character is presented with the features of a 18 year old and is said to be 18: nothing
if the character is presented with the features of a 17 year old and is said to be 18: flag
if the character is presented with the features of a 25 year old but their canon age is 15: flag
7- If the character is presented with the features of a 18 year old and the author says nothing about their age.
8- If the character is presented with the features of a 17 year old and the author says nothing about their age.
What about these ones? How do you tell?
Not everyone's going to be saying their characters' age in every single movie.
At 2/24/24 12:34 PM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:7- If the character is presented with the features of a 18 year old and the author says nothing about their age.
8- If the character is presented with the features of a 18 year old and the author says nothing about their age.
What about these ones? How do you tell?
The answer to your questions are: Fap away, and, if you get an erection. It it looks like an 18 and no age is given, it's legal and there are no issues.
Ooof! Headache or Aneurysm, I'm not sure. I'm going to continue what I've been doing regardless.
If you can't understand what Tom or Exedor wrote you should not be a member of the EGB.
At 2/24/24 12:44 PM, Exedor wrote:At 2/24/24 12:34 PM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:7- If the character is presented with the features of a 18 year old and the author says nothing about their age.The answer to your questions are: Fap away, and, if you get an erection. It it looks like an 18 and no age is given, it's legal and there are no issues.
8- If the character is presented with the features of a 18 year old and the author says nothing about their age.
What about these ones? How do you tell?
Not necessarily good advice for those with ED, or are pedos, or is EDP.
At 2/24/24 12:30 PM, tox wrote:Don't go into older stale items unless it was something that you thought needs to really be brought to attention
Bring out your hammers
If you happen to run across something that was submitted 10 years ago & let's say it's. 'Bart Simpson fucking Lisa Simpson', then YES, Flag it. Just don't go searching for it.
At 2/24/24 12:34 PM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:At 2/24/24 12:30 PM, tox wrote:At 2/24/24 12:10 PM, TomFulp wrote:At 2/24/24 10:55 AM, tox wrote:At 2/24/24 04:55 AM, Exedor wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?It's based on the appearance. I've mentioned that many times. Don't contrast rules from one area to another and confuse yourself, or others.
I saw in the Art Guidelines and the Content Submission rules that this is based on whether it looks like a minor, not necessarily their canon age, but the Movie Guidelines states "no grey areas".At 2/24/24 06:47 AM, gamejunkie wrote:At 2/24/24 04:00 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:
Does this include aging up the character (physically, based entirely on appearance)?
My rule of thumb & it sits with the 'No Grey Areas' clause is quite simple, if they're not 18 then it's underage. I do a simple Google search on each individual Movie/Character for example, Pokemon Misty age. The result will be Misty is 12 years old. It DOES NOT matter if they put a disclaimer in their Author Comments saying, 'All characters depicted in this movie are 18+' that's just a pathetic attempt at getting around the 'No Grey Areas' clause & it's not an acceptable excuse. Also & this is where Exedor & I have differing opinions on the subject, the ageing up thing is in my opinion not acceptable, underage is underage & since it doesn't say anywhere in the Movie Guidelines that it's okay to submit underage content as long as you age the characters up, underage is underage. Think of this as an example, if you or I had a 12/13/14 year old daughter & she put on all her make-up & looked a million dollars & looked 20 years old (it happens, I've seen it many times) would you be happy if a 20/25 year old guy hit on her? Simple answer here is No you would not & if you say it wouldn't bother you, you're straight up lying. The only instance where submitters kind of get around this is when they're posting content where the characters look young but they're Fairies or whatever & Google search shows their age as over 1,000 years or whatever. I'll discuss this further with Tom. From the talks we've had so far he's suggested that cleaning up the site is long overdue & he's happy that I've taken the initiative to do what I can about it.
@Tomfulp
@Exedor
@Gamejunkie
Sexual content involving underage characters is prohibited, please don't look for grey areas.
I think that this rule will have to change after this discussion as the gray area might expand a lot based on these posts
I already see how this will potentially change the art portal rules as well
how we have been taught:
I believe that the argument here is on #5 and #6
Gamejunkie wants us to flag, Exedor wants us to nothing, Tom wants us to _____
The second and possibly more important question is: if the decision to change #5 and #6 is, to a flaggable item, how far back do we want to take this?
I am pretty sure that I speak for a lot of individuals with this, please let us know how you want us users to flag and we will go to war, I know that this has been a rather hot topic for a bunch of us
We have traditionally allowed the aging up of characters, where if the art looks like an adult, we treat it as an adult. There is still a lot of grey area stuff where it's questionable if characters have been aged up enough and overall, I'm so sick of it at this point and I'm sick of artists who specialize in making lewds of characters who are known for being kids.
When you say "go to war", you're right because it's a massive topic to tackle, it's hard to specify where the line is unless you do things 100% based on canonical age.
This post by rtil is one to think about. RTIL was banned from DeviantArt because DA considered this art to be a 14 year old. To someone who isn't fixated on fictional character canonical ages, it does seem silly. But it's also what would happen if you have a black and white policy based on canonical ages.
NG has its own Overton Window that is shifting over time, where it seems like we wouldn't want to get as extreme as what happened in that DA example, but there is stuff that should be removed that might have gotten a pass in the past.
I'll note, this gradual slide goes both ways. When we opened the Portal in 2000, we had a rule that hardcore porn was not allowed. But people would make funny porn, or really well animated porn and the window gradually shifted. It got harder and harder to draw a line because we were making more and more exceptions, until we got to the point where we are now.
I would very much like to see artists simply stop lewding characters who are known for being kids, or at least not post that art on Newgrounds, although posting it anywhere will give you a reputation that will follow you. There are so many adult characters to lewd, or you could create your own OCs, so I don't feel like that's asking too much.
As far as going back and mass flagging everything possible, I'd say start with flagging a few items that are at the top of your list of what you think is the most blatant.
so then as it sits now:
Don't go into older stale items unless it was something that you thought needs to really be brought to attention
Bring out your hammers
7- If the character is presented with the features of a 18 year old and the author says nothing about their age.
8- If the character is presented with the features of a 17 year old and the author says nothing about their age.
What about these ones? How do you tell?
Not everyone's going to be saying their characters' age in every single movie.
I guess the best answer to those 2 points is:
how can you tell that the character is ....15,16,17,18,19,20...
Per Tom we are now doing canon age's and or if it makes you sick then flag it
it's a great scapegoat or retort for us/mods/admins being able to tell rule breakers to be original and stop trying to ride on the backs of other already created characters, "be original" instead of creating a gray area character
Per Exedor, we are no longer splitting hairs
Per GameJunkie we need to clean it up
At 2/24/24 12:47 PM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Not necessarily good advice for those with ED, or are pedos, or is EDP.
Why would ANY of these people give enough shit about flagging underage content in the first place.
At 2/24/24 01:47 PM, BickerySebastian wrote:At 2/24/24 12:47 PM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Not necessarily good advice for those with ED, or are pedos, or is EDP.Why would ANY of these people give enough shit about flagging underage content in the first place.
Good question.
he/they - pretty cool guy
No animation. Just a reminder, if this link disappears, that means it has been blammed, but if it turns into "Unpublished Submission", that means the mods took it down.
Might possibly be AI generated. Same face, and there's no animation except for visual effects on a song.
Still image. No animation
No animation
As indicated by the description, this is a modified version of someone else's work.
https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/919314 (NSFW)
Friday Night Fuckin modded gameplay footage
<EXPLICIT> https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/919485
Speedpaint
Stolen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScZyrCa3iU
AI-generated, using veed.io
he/they - pretty cool guy
At 2/25/24 05:28 PM, BlueMonday1984 wrote:https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/919467
Stolen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScZyrCa3iU
I was looking for that!
thanks bud
modified version of these animations
Big Idea Productions Logo (1997, Extended Version) by JYStudios
https://youtu.be/HcAgKEDA_bM?list=PL-30vG3zE6DfNAKhtoqawrGReINd5tU2X&t=4
https://youtu.be/XIbgfGkiX_s?list=PL-30vG3zE6DfNAKhtoqawrGReINd5tU2X
At 2/25/24 05:40 PM, tox wrote:modified version of these animations
Big Idea Productions Logo (1997, Extended Version) by JYStudios
https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/919503
https://youtu.be/HcAgKEDA_bM?list=PL-30vG3zE6DfNAKhtoqawrGReINd5tU2X&t=4
https://youtu.be/XIbgfGkiX_s?list=PL-30vG3zE6DfNAKhtoqawrGReINd5tU2X
Hi commander! Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is a recreation as opposed to simply a modified version of something - maybe not something that warrants a high score, but I'm not sure if it warrants getting reported or not. I may be wrong though!
Fetish animation rated as M - although they're both clothed, Newgrounds only allows M ratings for butts that are clearly non-sexual which this doesn't fall under.
And another from the same creator, again rated as M
Stolen, note sure where the actual source is but I found another reupload confirming this was stolen -> https://ifunny.co/video/see-that-meme-up-there-it-s-mine-now-spor-sUK20FDzA
EGB-related update:
My whistle's just turned silver! :D
At 2/26/24 02:45 AM, CarterSterling wrote:[...] [A]lthough they're both clothed, Newgrounds only allows M ratings for butts that are clearly non-sexual[.]
The art, game and movie portals do not share exact guidelines. There isn't really a "Newgrounds only allows" in that sense. The guideline you're (probably) thinking of is from the Art Guidelines.
Also, you're misremembering the guideline, which is about nude butts:
Mild artistic nudity (non-sexualized butts, mostly) is allowed in M-rated submissions but we ask that nudity not be shown in a thumbnail unless a submission is A-rated.
The Games Portal has a similar guideline, but again it is about nudity:
Any nudity beyond a non-sexualized butt should fall under the A rating nowadays.
There are other reasons you might rerate some of these entries (arguably sexualised content) or even remove some of them (sexualisation of underage characters). Butt, in the end, the bottom line is I wanted to make sure you don't make an ass of yourself misquoting or misapplying guidelines in a cheeky manner.
At 2/26/24 05:02 AM, alsoknownas1 wrote:The art, game and movie portals do not share exact guidelines. There isn't really a "Newgrounds only allows" in that sense. The guideline you're (probably) thinking of is from the Art Guidelines.
Also, you're misremembering the guideline, which is about nude butts:
The Games Portal has a similar guideline, but again it is about nudity:
There are other reasons you might rerate some of these entries (arguably sexualised content) or even remove some of them (sexualisation of underage characters). Butt, in the end, the bottom line is I wanted to make sure you don't make an ass of yourself misquoting or misapplying guidelines in a cheeky manner.
Sorry about that, I'll try not to butt in without re-checking the rules next time. I always overestimate how good my memory is lol - I appreciate it, thank you!
At 2/26/24 05:20 AM, CarterSterling wrote:At 2/26/24 05:02 AM, alsoknownas1 wrote:The art, game and movie portals do not share exact guidelines. There isn't really a "Newgrounds only allows" in that sense. The guideline you're (probably) thinking of is from the Art Guidelines.
Also, you're misremembering the guideline, which is about nude butts:
The Games Portal has a similar guideline, but again it is about nudity:
There are other reasons you might rerate some of these entries (arguably sexualised content) or even remove some of them (sexualisation of underage characters). Butt, in the end, the bottom line is I wanted to make sure you don't make an ass of yourself misquoting or misapplying guidelines in a cheeky manner.
Sorry about that, I'll try not to butt in without re-checking the rules next time ;P I always overestimate how good my memory is lol - I appreciate it, thank you!
Don't listen to him. Fetish content is fetish content:
If your animation is fetish content, please just mark at as adult; people get unhappy when fetish content appears in the non-adult listings.
At 2/26/24 05:22 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:Don't listen to him. Fetish content is fetish content.
Peace brother.
I already mentioned the sexualisation/fetish rules. I was just trying to clarify the rules regarding clothed butts.
The means by which you pursue an end matters. :)
At 2/26/24 05:20 AM, CarterSterling wrote:Sorry about that, I'll try not to butt in without re-checking the rules next time. I always overestimate how good my memory is lol - I appreciate it, thank you!
No worries man. I wasn't trying to dump on you or bum you out. Just glad to be of ass-istance.
At 2/26/24 05:49 AM, alsoknownas1 wrote:At 2/26/24 05:20 AM, CarterSterling wrote:Sorry about that, I'll try not to butt in without re-checking the rules next time. I always overestimate how good my memory is lol - I appreciate it, thank you!
No worries man. I wasn't trying to dump on you or bum you out. Just glad to be of ass-istance.
highlighting a pun in bold sure takes away from what makes it funny in the first place.
At 2/26/24 06:44 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:highlighting a pun in bold sure takes away from what makes it funny in the first place.
Exactly. It simulates what would be my terrible IRL delivery.
At 2/26/24 02:45 AM, CarterSterling wrote:https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/919542
And another from the same creator, again rated as M
Rating error aside, this is also straight-up stolen from somewhere else.
Hell, the dumbass who did it even admitted as such:
he/they - pretty cool guy
