General Discussion
1592 replies · 10939 views
Just to give us some insight, here are other forums' nudity rule...
tFS: Nude Image must not] be of a crass or sexual nature.
Celeb City: Image from magazines like Playboy, Penthouse and etc. are not allowed. Topless nudity is ok. However, Pictures and videos that depicts sexual acts and full frontal nudity are not ok.
FMT: Tasteful nudity, generally done for fashion purposes, is allowed.
Again, here is what I think...
OK
Bare bottoms
It Depends
Nipplege/Bare Chest. I guess it depends on the content. If it is for something editorial or artistic (fashion purposes), I say it is ok as long as it is not lewd.
Not Ok
Complete Nakedness/Full Frontal
Pubic Area
Anything Depicting Sexual Acts or of a Sexual Nature
Anything that the general public would find offensive
I know we have done this before, but let's start from scratch. Everyone please make a list of your comments and what you think is ok and not ok. We can then compare the our lists and come up with something we can all generally agree on (Y)
I hope Maddog and RG can add input to this discussion b/c they might have some information about the guidelines our advertiser, host, and etc. have set for us 
OK, I just realized that this doesn't make much sense either when compared to what I said about breasts and nipples. With or without the nipple - no big difference either, especially if most of the breast is clearly visible (come on, we know what's beneath the covering hand, anyway...). So maybe we should not allow naked buttocks, but thong will be OK. What do you think?
Considering thongs/g-strings are ok, I don't see why bare bottoms are not---they isn't much of a difference 
Again, here is what I think...OK
Bare bottoms
It Depends
Nipplege/Bare Chest. I guess it depends on the content. If it is for something editorial or artistic (fashion purposes), I say it is ok as long as it is not lewd.
Not Ok
Complete Nakedness/Full Frontal
Pubic Area
Anything Depicting Sexual Acts or of a Sexual Nature
Anything that the general public would find offensive
1. Nipples should not be allowed, artistic or not. That's what I think.
2. Bare bottoms are OK. No problem with that. As I said earlier, there is no big difference between a bare ass and a thonged one.
3. Full frontal, pubes, offensive stuff - NOT allowed, no doubt about that.
Pictures that come from pornographic sites or are of pornographic nature and do not show nudity, yet are "erotically offensive" should be text-linked or banned altogether. This might be just a matter of taste, but I believe that we have some common opinion on what is artistic and what is just straight offensive.
Good thinking guys, I agree with Qball about the nipples, because I do forsee :Dinah: a bit of conflict/controversy over the "depends on whether it is artistic and not lewd".
Because the Lucy Pinder fan will then say there's a double standard to see the same degree of nudity allowed for a Lara Stone fan and a warning given for the same degree of nudity for a Lucy Pinder fan and there'll be a big blah, blah....blah deal . And at the end of the day will be too much confusion and take more time moderating the debate than the nudity :| 
.
Ok, I do see the point about the nipplege thing.
I am going to keep this discussion up until Saturday 
I want to see does anyone else want to add anything before we update the rules
Hmm... I was thinking that maybe we could expand the Nudity rule in the BZ rules topic... maybe something like this?
Nude content is allowed on Bellazon only when properly marked. Any image containing nudity (as defined below) must be text-linked and accompanied with a text warning - preferably highlighted in red (e.g. "WARNING: nudity").NOTE: You cannot use the Bellazon image upload feature for nude content since it posts thumbnailed images and it does not have a text-link option. Use an on-line image-uploading service that provides it.
Members of the Bellazon moderating team have agreed that the following shall henceforth be considered nudity when visible (also through a fully or partially transparent clothing) in full-sized or thumbnailed images:
1. female nipples
2. male/female genital area
Furthermore, the BZ staff reserve themselves the right to remove any images that, while not containing nudity as defined above, depict anything of explicit sexual nature or anything that could be generally considered sexually offensive.
NOTE: Playboy content policy
Posting any nude or non-nude content taken from the Playboy magazine (e.g. scanned images) or its on-line site is not allowed due to copyright matters.
Any action that violates the aforementioned rules after their announcement shall result in an indefinitely raised Warn level.
Personally I'd allow almost all nudity. 
But I guess we could expand the existing BZ rules to include bare bottoms. I'm a bit on the fence on nippage. I say we either completely allow it or completely ban it, the "artistic" moniker will just lead to pointless discussions.
I like your idea Qball about posting a thread explaining the nudity rule 
Would you like to post it or would you like me to post it and credit you?
It seems like we overall agree on the following:
No Need to Text-linked:
Bare Bottoms
Text-linked:
Nipplege of any kind
Full Frontal
Pubic Areas
Should be banned altogether:
Anything crass, depicting sexual acts, or "erotically offensive." I am pretty sure most members here are able to decipher what is not allowed. It's usually spammers who want to promote their porn sites that post offensive contents 
I will give one more day before updating the rules to see is there anything James or Taha would like to add
Ok, here's a question I have: with the change of rules there might be some members who will request their warning levels to to be decreased. Should we do it? If not, what would we say to them to explain why? 
That's tough...but IMO, it depends on the way they did it...Because the way I interpret it, its the blatant disregard for the staff person that warned them that was the problem moreso than the offense itself. If someone
A) You know 100% that they knew and understood the rules but kept doing it regularly or without regard anyway.
B) Was warned and it is understood that they fully comprehended what was being said and they continuously and overtly went about doing the same thing time after time in a "piss on you" type fashion.
I'm not for reducing their warning meter (see Julie Ordon's thread ) . Because to me the "piss on you" is still an offense itself even if the rule changes .
On the other hand...I do think someone that speaks very little english and possilby from their cultural outlook may not have really been sure what all comprises of what we call nudity, I'm for giving them a break .
:morning:
I agree with this too.
No Need to Text-linked:Bare Bottoms
Text-linked:
Nipplege of any kind
Full Frontal
Pubic Areas
Should be banned altogether:
Anything crass, depicting sexual acts, or "erotically offensive." I am pretty sure most members here are able to decipher what is not allowed. It's usually spammers who want to promote their porn sites that post offensive contents
I always assumed bare bottoms wasn't considered as nudity, hence not textlinking any of those type of pictures
I agree with this too.No Need to Text-linked:Bare Bottoms
Text-linked:
Nipplege of any kind
Full Frontal
Pubic Areas
Should be banned altogether:
Anything crass, depicting sexual acts, or "erotically offensive." I am pretty sure most members here are able to decipher what is not allowed. It's usually spammers who want to promote their porn sites that post offensive contents
I always assumed bare bottoms wasn't considered as nudity, hence not textlinking any of those type of pictures
I think that should be fine. Personally im all for nudity (
) as long as its artistic but unfortunantly our advertisers dont agree (aka google). So I think what Pinky said should be able to slide by.
Ok, here's a question I have: with the change of rules there might be some members who will request their warning levels to to be decreased. Should we do it? If not, what would we say to them to explain why?
Hmm... I'd follow the Latin saying - lex retro non agit ("the law does not operate retroactively").
If we wanted to change the warning levels, we should also look for every post that contained bare bottoms (which have not been allowed so far) and change text-links to thumbnails again... So, to me, there's really no point in looking back. Let's just post the new rules, forget about the past and act accordingly from now on. And be stricter! 
Pinky, you can make the topic on the Nudity rule. Maybe make it an open one to let in some feedback from the members.
Warning: Nudity
Please state whether female or male, WTH??? :yuckky: , first and last warning about that 
. ~ Post edited by Joe > Average
:| 
click if you're curious :|
Who the F is that? o_O
Perhaps this is a dumb question, but who is that guy???
I will update the rules, start a thread about the new nudity topic, and post an announcement soon
^ Oh 
Anyways, I updated the rules, started a thread about the new nudity rule, and posted an announcement. I also updated the image host links b/c many of them are no longer available.
New Rule: No male model spamming :yuckky: WTH 
??? 
First and last warning .
Great job guys, I think everyone will appreciate the clarity .
Great job, Pinky And thank you all, guys! Go us, the BZ staff! 
Is linking to the Playboy site (both nude and non-nude stuff) ok??? I would assume it is ok since the content isn't posted on our site