Overreact much, Yori?

[Yuno]

So umm being a female and all I googled the image up and studied it...and as a back drop to this you need to know that in my house we have many artistic depictions of topless or nude women by comic book artists. (long story short both my mom and dad love comics and felt these paintings/sketches were beautiful)

I also must say ahead of time I agree with Yori's decision to remove it from the forum.

Not because it is terrible but simply because someone could overreact and get this all shut down which would suck. (We know it's true, some people don't like it when I say holy cow because cows aren't holy in their world..)

I think it is quite beautifully painted and bravo because it did provoke feeling and thought. It didn't bother me at all as a woman because honestly rape happens and it is in the world. It is despicable, it is an afront to my moral fibers, but none of that will make it go away. And those who can depict it without forcing you to feel one way or another about it are really quite good.

That said...does not belong on this forum. We are public, and very close, so there is no reason this discussion cannot be taken to other social media that doesn't have a terms and conditions that is as strict.

[t⊗theark]

Personally, objectionable content should not be posted directly onto the forum. From ProBoards Website Terms of Service

You represent and warrant that you shall not use the Website or Services to upload, post, transmit, display, perform or distribute any content, information or materials that:
(a) are libelous, defamatory, abusive, or threatening, excessively violent*, harassing, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or pornographic;
(b) constitute child pornography;
(c) solicit personal information from or exploit in a sexual or violent manner anyone under the age of 18;
(d) incite, encourage or threaten physical harm against another;
(e) promote or glorify racial intolerance, use hate and/or racist terms, or signify hate towards any person or group of people;
(f) glamorize the use of hard core illegal substances and drugs;
(g) advertise or otherwise solicit funds or constitute a solicitation for goods or services;
(h) violate any provision of this Agreement or any other ProBoards agreement or policy, including without limitation ProBoards' Community Guidelines; or
(i) is generally offensive or in bad taste, as determined by ProBoards+

*We have posted models with gore and such all over this forum. One may argue it isn't the gore these terms refer to and it is but a representation of gore, but this is but a representation of rape. If this comes under the catagory of ' obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or pornographic,' is this gore?-


+This admits subjectivity in the matter *place 'you don't say' meme here* and so if it's that much of a problem than ask ProBoards.

I'm personally an advocate for 'NSFW' warning on think without directly posting onto the site in cases like this. Such contentions have happened in the past, however, over linking with differing mods and so I'd like some common consensus here. There has been linked music videos of language that would otherwise have been censored if posted. If indeed that it is permissible than one may simply link to 'CoolMiniOrNot' and if one did not want to see it, one does not have to see it. This would only be in questionable areas and if it's more clear that offends a greater number of people or is linked with actual harm than a 'NSFW' tag would not be sufficiant and such a link should not be posted publicly.

As for the assumed attitudes of war - weather the moderator in question be involved with the military should be irrelevant to the decision. If his personal offense to assumed views of the military drawn from this incident were an integral part of his decision than should think twice before acting in a similar manner again.

[Jabberwocky]

The grey area with violence is the use of the word excessive.

In real life both in and out of war, violence is accepted and expected. Whether it be in certain combat sports, animal slaughter for food, criminal justice or whatever.

There are however laws against unnecessary or excessive violence. Torturing, mutilation, etc.

In a wargame, it is expected there will be violence, which is why on some level it is accepted.

On the other hand, when the ToS deals with items of a pornographic nature, it gives no measure of severity and is simply a blanket ban.

This is why we can have guns, blades, bones etc depicted.

However wrong, it is considered that war and death can be justified as a means to an end. In some cultures even torture can. Rape however cannot, especially gang rape. (you may argue that some cultures allow husbands to force their wives into sex whilst not considering it rape but that is a whole other topic)

[warischoy]

He did what was needed to be done however he did over react. He shouldn't have had insulted the hive. Think about it though, children will not be able to understand (see illithid's post) and they are exposed to things like slannesh an d dark Elgar which actually take pleasure from pain and contains a lot of not very R rated stuff. What the piece implies is not what it displays. Yes it does display a partially exposed part of the elder body but then the rape is really implied and not displayed. You could argue that if the elder women had Completely killed the guardsmen in CC (which she can) then it would be fit for a codex.
So violence is ok then? Just partially exposing a body part cannot be count as pornographics because firstly it is a diorama and secondly it isn't sexually simulating and so it isn't pornographic. In biology text books it contains numerous illustrations of the naked human body and yet it is not pornographic because if you check the dictionary it doesn't sexually stimulate people. And therefore the textbooks are children friendly.

[Jabberwocky]

There is a difference though when you talk about education and children. The context in which something is presented is incredibly important.

You can show a child something whilst explaining why and what is happening, or you can let them see something on their own and draw their own conclusions on whether that activity is appropriate.

ToS is there to protect vulnerable users. Restricting others is just an unfortunate side effect.

[Voice of Reason]

JUST TO BE CLEAR.

I started this thread not to talk about Yori's job here on the forum. He's been doing a bang-up job for more than a few years, and for the most part, he's really good at it. His job is to make the call whether or not something should be blocked, moved or deleted. He made the call. I don't agree with the call, especially if you consider the NSFW and link and so forth that t⊗theark mentioned here:

Apr 21, 2012 5:34:37 GMT t⊗theark said:

I'm personally an advocate for 'NSFW' warning on think without directly posting onto the site in cases like this. Such contentions have happened in the past, however, over linking with differing mods and so I'd like some common consensus here. There has been linked music videos of language that would otherwise have been censored if posted. If indeed that it is permissible than one may simply link to 'CoolMiniOrNot' and if one did not want to see it, one does not have to see it. This would only be in questionable areas and if it's more clear that offends a greater number of people or is linked with actual harm than a 'NSFW' tag would not be sufficiant and such a link should not be posted publicly.

I'm calling Yori to the carpet about his reaction, his accusations, his questions. As TotallyNotABot said:

Apr 21, 2012 0:22:02 GMT Bot said:

Moreover, I am personally offended by this. This is what you think war is, people raping each other once the bullets stop flying? Do you really think that the Soldiers who defend you are no better than the criminals that roam the streets? People who are so selfless that they would give their lives to protect you are no better than the lowest criminal in your mind.

I mean, yes Yori, people were "totally" saying that.

C'mon Yori... What was that? Is that how you picture us? A bunch of people who dislikes the army and thinks they are no better than criminals? If that were not how you pictured us... Then why did you ask us those questions? More importantly, why did you ask us such provoking questions for then to lock the thread?

Good points from you both.

[maugrim]

Apr 20, 2012 22:56:06 GMT yoritomo said:

Sure, I'd be happy to post a link to the ProBoards terms of service.
www.proboards.com/tos
I'd look at 18, "Objectionable Content". It fits under A and I'm willing to bet I, though we'd have to ask ProBoards to be sure.

As a point - it can be easily argued that the previous thread did not violate the TOS. Providing a link to another site's content is not posting/hosting/etc it on this site. Also refer to TOS point 14.

As a legal point - at least here in Canada - situations like this went to our Supreme Court. The case was where one article linked to another article where libelous content was posted. The person sued the poster of the article where the link was, and it was determined that simply linking to another site does not make you liable for the contents of that other site.

Although it does come down to their interpretation of the phrases contained in there, as others have posted, lots of things we've already posted on this board (including the picture above) could possibly violate the TOS as well.

Now Yori's personal reaction to the content is a completely different topic. The action taken is not outside the scope of his authority - as Mods do have some personal discression in how they perform their duties. But the comments he posted themselves constitute possible violations of 17 and 18 themselves, should somebody choose to take those statements as personally directed at them and offensive to them.

Artwork like the diorama cause strong reactions - as they are supposed to. Does everybody appreciate it in the same way - of course not. Should we limit who can see it? That's a good question, which comes down to the individuals involved.

[rehkal]

Apr 20, 2012 22:37:57 GMT maskedtyranid said:

Okay, not having seen the pic, the description makes it clear what's really going on. So I'm calling BS on all "alternative interpretations," like maybe one of the guys got a snakebite on his weener and he needs the woman to suck the venom out. Get real. It's a rape. So, unless you're trolling Yori, stop. Hell, if you ARE trolling him you should stop anyway. So just stop. You're not going to get your miniature porn on this forum with some clever argument.

Now about the "rape happens" argument, which I hear a lot. I don't want it in my miniature wargame. I don't care if it would happen, I don't want to see it. "But people die in so many horrible ways in this game!" So? At least they aren't being sexually violated, which seems to have escaped the supporters of the mini rape porn thing. And notice how I keep calling it porn. It isn't? Well, tell me, then, can we see the Eldar woman's breasts exposed? Is that consistent with the terms of service here? And furthermore, is this really an attempt at "art" or just an exploitation fest? The latter sounds more likely to me.

I shouldn't need to say any of this. It should be obvious that a depiction of an imminent gang rape isn't appropriate here, but apparently not. And it's really distressing how many people don't seem to care how bothered Yori was by this, like how he feels about the subject matter isn't important. I don't think whatever discussion this thing was supposed to provoke is worth alienating him or any women who might be frequenting these forums.

Anyway, if you really want to see a picture of a Venomthrope molesting a Khymera or something of that nature I'm sure 1d4chan can help you out, so just go there.

+1

You said basically everything I was going to say last night about this but was too tired to bother typing up. Glad someone else pointed out that the title of the piece tells exactly what is happening in the piece.

I don't Yori overreacted at all because I don't it's possible to overreact to rape. It sounds to me like he has some kind of close personal experience with it. Anyone that has ever been through it or is close to someone that has been through it knows this.

Ultimately it boils down to this, such content has no place on this forum. Nobody is censoring it from you, go look it up if you want but don't bring it here.

Yori did the right thing, his reaction to it should tell you all how sensitive of a subject it is to him and you should all respect that and drop the subject. We're all human and we all have our own triggers that cause us to react strongly to things.

[Edzilla]

Its disgusting alright, its should never have been made even if it one of these so called underlying parts of the 40k universe.
It is obvious it happens in 40k. Rape is a horror of war and denying that it happens is ignorant. Have people never heard of the American treatment of the Japanese on okinawa? Or the japanese armies treatment of Nanking in China. Both left me feeling horrible about the human race but it happens and you cannot escape that.
Introducing it into the hobby however is a ultra delicate subject. You just can't, I would personally have a problem with it and society would as well, you just can't do it. Sure it happens in books such as the bestseller "the girl with the dragon tattoo" but that is considered a work of art. If it was in 40k it would be seen as a sign to "please" those darker fans of the hobby.

[captainbirdbum]

i've not even seen it but i'm disturbed. i don't know whats more wrong. that some1 would want to show something like that or that anyone would complain that anybody would disagree with it. its just wrong. and even if it wasn't if the moderator's don't want it on their forum then i say its their choice. and if it was my choice i would ban all who had anything to do with it or complianed about the moderators reaction.

ITS WRONG.

[maskedtyranid]

If I get punched in the face, I could probably get over it. Fondled in an inappropriate way? Maybe not as quickly. Knifed in the gut? Assuming I survive, I could maybe get over that too. Raped? Yeah, I don't think that would be quite so easy and I hope I never have to go through with it. But the key is that it goes beyond a personal injury and into a deeply emotional violation. It's not something you can walk off. If you're still not sure why it might be that much worse, well, try a rape some time and let me know how it goes.

Apr 21, 2012 15:30:48 GMT maugrim said:

As a legal point - at least here in Canada - situations like this went to our Supreme Court. The case was where one article linked to another article where libelous content was posted. The person sued the poster of the article where the link was, and it was determined that simply linking to another site does not make you liable for the contents of that other site.

Wait, wait, so I can link to a pornographic video and I'm golden? I may have to try that. Well, okay, I wouldn't do that, and honestly I wouldn't blame Yoritomo for deleting any message or thread I made which "just" provided a link to such material.

Lastly, I'm glad to finally see confirmation that there's nudity in this diorama, because that sounds about par for the course for CoolMiniOrNot, where nude models abound. Frankly I don't see what we're supposed to learn from it. It just sounds like typical sexploitation to me. It's just like when a movie has an actress get attacked by a rapist just so they can get her boobs out. They don't really care about the moral issues involved, they just want your eyeballs on the screen. Same thing, here, I think. "Hey, everyone, this Eldar babe's totally gonna get it from these guys, click here to see!"

[Hatchy]

I missed the original thread this one is referring to but from the comments I've read, does this have anything to do with the 'Wet nurse' model? If not, I strongly advise NOT looking at that (unless it is the subject of this thread then most of you would have seen it already). That thing is pure sick imo !

[Geneva]

Wow, am I feeling unpopular at the moment...

Okay, I feel the need to speak up again. I was actively trying to avoid posting in this thread as I don't want to fan the flames that seem to have sparked from my original post but I'm not one to stand by while being accused of being in favour of rape or "sexploitation".

I can understand Yori's outburst, the model was provocative and, as has been mentioned before, it would be more concerning if it hadn't prompted an alarmed reaction. It certainly did so for me. Perhaps it was a bit aggressive, perhaps it was overly hostile. The point is, it was a reaction, and while I would have liked to say my piece before the thread was locked, I understand that such a reaction is human. Overstated or not, that's not a trait that I feel should be condemned.
But I do find it somewhat ironic that the people most forward with this slander are the ones who themselves admit that they haven't even seen the image in the first place. More so, I find it insulting that the immediate response is the claim that I posted it thinking "A rape scene! Oh goody! Everybody look! Isn't this hilarious!"
That couldn't possibly have been further from my intentions and had anyone bothered to check the original thread they would have realised this.

I posted the image in the hopes of bringing up the very kind of discussion we are having here now on this thread. Was the image provocative or did it go too far? That was my intention. Not the attempted promotion of pornography. I also feel the need to point out that the diorama was implicit not graphic, and that the actual nudity seems to have been exaggerated here. The rape was not actually happening in the diorama. It merely implied the intentions of the Guardsmen strongly.

I understand that this was the wrong place to raise the subject if only because it it stretched too far the limits of the forum rules. I suppose I knew it was going to be somewhat controversial from the start. That's why I openly invited any mod who felt it too adult-themed to remove it from my post. It's also why I linked it with a warning rather than posting the image on open display. In hindsight that may have been a mistake but I can't do much to change that.

I have apologised to those offended and taken the reactionary insults in my stride but I will not stand for being called a promoter of rape or a misogynist of some kind. I have the utmost respect for women. Frankly, I didn't care much for the implication that they are emotional china plates as implied by some comments expressed in this thread, but I digress.

I'm not one to respond to things hotly but I feel like I'm being portrayed as an intentional villain here. I rose this issue to discuss the horror that comes with the idea of rape. I can't imagine anyone looking at that diorama without feeling some kind of dread or melancholy. That was what I perceived was the message of the piece. You know, having actually seen it and all.

I restate my apology to the Hive for all of the fallout but a part of me is glad that the topic is at least being discussed, although I regret the discussion had to be formed from such messy origins. I have to give my thanks to Devil's Advocate for the more controlled debate and I am fully appreciative of it.

That's really all I have to say on the matter. Consider it my own human reaction to the whole ordeal.

[Psychichobo]

I don't really thing there's much I can add that's not already been said here. Still, I'll throw my lot in:


Firstly, there's a BIG difference between gore and violence depicted in a cartoony fashion (like in a lot of 40k) and in real life. How many of you as kids didn't play with toy soldiers and had them explode or get blow up in ridiculously over-the-top fashion? Yet if you were to see it in real life it has a very different effect on you. Same with horror movies - I doubt anyone who watched those terrible gory hammer horrors would laugh off the same thing happening in reality.

The same is with 40k. There's all sorts of mental stuff like the Parasite's chestbursters, the Devourer's brainworms, someone turning into a Chaos Spawn, etc. However, like Sean Locke's imaginary Budgie, stuff can be obliterated time and time again and it's all fun and games because we can make that distinction.

However, when it comes to sexual assault, that's for many people a very different thing. It's not something you can enjoy in an imaginary fashion (and if you do you probably should go hand yourself in now) and it causes decent people to feel revulsed and generally uncomfortable.

So you can kind of see how you can argue that it's something that shouldn't be portrayed on this site, despite the ridiculous amount of gore that 40k provides on a regular basis. It is a different matter entirely, and to be honest if I had kids who go on this forum I wouldn't be happy for them to see anything like that (I'll admit I've not seen the actual diorama, but if the implication is there then I've pretty much got the message).



However, as to it being an art piece: There was a guy not too long back who reconstructed Auschwitz in Lego form, with skeletons as the Jews. The general idea was to emphasise the contrast between such uncomfortable subject matter and the way it was depicted in a children's toy. It worked as an intrusion of truth, forcing a painful reality into the spotlight via an unexpected medium.

Something similar is done here: it's bringing the uncomfortable and horrific realities of war into a game that supposedly emulates war but glosses over the dark side of it and instead bases it on the more entertaining aspects. It's quite shocking, and it intends to be - to remind you that whatever you feel about the models and the game itself, real war is not like that. People suffer, atrocities are committed, and you shouldn't have such romantic notions of it.


For the record, I want to emphasise that I don't believe all soldiers are rapists or lunatics or anything like that - I've got a friend in the army myself. But war allows the nutters to slip through the net, as the cases of prisoner abuse show, so we shouldn't at the same time pretend that such things 'just don't happen'.

[Illithid]

Personally, I do not care that it got banned from the site, but it is people's reactions and accusations that really anger me. There are many assumptions flying around about the piece from people who have not even seen it and going from brief descriptions. If you want to throw your two cents into the discussion, go look at it with an open-mind - walk away, think about it and then respond.

The first of these assumptions was made when it was banned in that thread. I am not calling you narrow-minded or telling you that you have an illiberal viewpoint, so think before you make assumptions about the others who think the piece is an interesting diorama.

Apr 21, 2012 19:15:23 GMT maskedtyranid said:

Lastly, I'm glad to finally see confirmation that there's nudity in this diorama, because that sounds about par for the course for CoolMiniOrNot, where nude models abound. Frankly I don't see what we're supposed to learn from it. It just sounds like typical sexploitation to me. It's just like when a movie has an actress get attacked by a rapist just so they can get her boobs out. They don't really care about the moral issues involved, they just want your eyeballs on the screen. Same thing, here, I think. "Hey, everyone, this Eldar babe's totally gonna get it from these guys, click here to see!"

This has to be one of the non-evidential and insulting things I have read in a long time Maskedtyranid and I am going to call you on it. Your previous post was just as ill-thoughtout about molestating Venomthropes and assuming what we want to see.

You are assuming that we are leering at a picture of a naked Eldar and it is what attracted us to the picture? Mate, grow up. I have seen plenty of breasts in my day in the real world and am in no shortage of them.

Firstly, you (and many others in this thread) have not seen the model (as you admitted a page ago) and have no basis to comment. Secondly, the rape is implied, it is not like there is a Imperial Guard soldier on-top of the Eldar and the rest are standing around doing other sexually explicit things. There is no actual rape in the diorama, hence why the art piece is brilliantly done.

I have now shown this piece showed the picture, like I said to two females and a wider audience of open-minded people (a few who have no interest in the hobby and one who absolutely hates that her boyfriend plays it).

Out of this, two missed the point of the model, not even aware what was happening until I pointed it out - that is how "explicit" it is and draws your eye to the screen to "give people their jollys".

Is it provoking, Yes? Should it be on the forums - that is up to the moderators. Should people assume why we are looking at it and assume we are sex-fiends.... get real.