[quote name="Niceless" date="2021-10-12 22:35:00" ]
[quote name="Viletta" date="2021-10-12 22:31:34" ]
Them locking it just proves the point of them abusing power via claiming it as 'trolling', which while some of it definitely is, some definitely aren't
[/quote]
Also here before it gets locked.
Edit: I also, on the other side, feel like a lot of other players ruined it for everyone else by being way too aggressive in their debate, and now we can't have nice things (like free speech on this forum).
[/quote]
This. I’m sorry but some people went too hardcore, stating they want a rebellion and all that. Now no one can openly express themselves
Niceless wrote on 2021-10-12 22:35:00:
Viletta wrote on 2021-10-12 22:31:34:
Them locking it just proves the point of them abusing power via claiming it as 'trolling', which while some of it definitely is, some definitely aren't
Also here before it gets locked.
Edit: I also, on the other side, feel like a lot of other players ruined it for everyone else by being way too aggressive in their debate, and now we can't have nice things (like free speech on this forum).
This. I’m sorry but some people went too hardcore, stating they want a rebellion and all that. Now no one can openly express themselves
[quote name="jumbledbyrd" date="2021-10-13 03:43:50" ]
[quote name="fattycatty" date="2021-10-13 03:36:50" ]
This. As much as I’d like for FR to allow blood and a lil bit of gore, they can’t control age rating. They’re already toeing the line (I’m p sure) with plague, plague lore, luminax and plaguebringer, they can’t bend the rules much more :/
[/quote]
but the problem i personally am having with it is that fr *does* have blood, there are multiple items with blood in the title! most skin creators who are getting rejected dont want serious gore with open wounds or anything, they want the colour red to be able to be used on dragons that have a plague theme (or in some cases, a galaxy theme in the colour red)
[/quote]
You got me wrong, when I said blood I meant wounds and such, just minor ones, and the word ‘blood’ isn’t..? Bad? In terms of age rating? We have dragons that are XXX blood as a color etc etc, but when you see them you don’t think of wounds :(
I’d really love for better clarification on skins and accents, and for us to be allowed small wounds and scratches, but damn red galaxies not being allowed? Cringe
jumbledbyrd wrote on 2021-10-13 03:43:50:
fattycatty wrote on 2021-10-13 03:36:50:
This. As much as I’d like for FR to allow blood and a lil bit of gore, they can’t control age rating. They’re already toeing the line (I’m p sure) with plague, plague lore, luminax and plaguebringer, they can’t bend the rules much more :/
but the problem i personally am having with it is that fr *does* have blood, there are multiple items with blood in the title! most skin creators who are getting rejected dont want serious gore with open wounds or anything, they want the colour red to be able to be used on dragons that have a plague theme (or in some cases, a galaxy theme in the colour red)
You got me wrong, when I said blood I meant wounds and such, just minor ones, and the word ‘blood’ isn’t..? Bad? In terms of age rating? We have dragons that are XXX blood as a color etc etc, but when you see them you don’t think of wounds :(
I’d really love for better clarification on skins and accents, and for us to be allowed small wounds and scratches, but damn red galaxies not being allowed? Cringe
[nextcol]
Blank blank blank[nextcol]blank blank blank[nextcol]
Everyone went to hard and we couldnt have a discussion. The mods were unfair and we went berserker. I will admit, mods have been very transparent with us and giving us good updates better than most games but that doesn't make it right. Would I rather have some transparency than compared to none? Well of course. But would I like complete clarification the most? Who wouldn't? This is unfair to our skin artists and the only way we can peacefully solve this without getting in trouble yet still getting a point across is to stop submitting skins. That be at all, just the fests, or only RoR. All up to the player. Because otherwise we just have this cycle of "Hey can we have clarification?" and the response being "Troll".
Everyone went to hard and we couldnt have a discussion. The mods were unfair and we went berserker. I will admit, mods have been very transparent with us and giving us good updates better than most games but that doesn't make it right. Would I rather have some transparency than compared to none? Well of course. But would I like complete clarification the most? Who wouldn't? This is unfair to our skin artists and the only way we can peacefully solve this without getting in trouble yet still getting a point across is to stop submitting skins. That be at all, just the fests, or only RoR. All up to the player. Because otherwise we just have this cycle of "Hey can we have clarification?" and the response being "Troll".
a
|
a
|
saltypie
• fr+3
• he/him
• uma & g1 addict
|
[quote name="WolfTears" date="2021-10-12 22:30:30" ]
Disease is way more suffering than a simple cut.
[/quote]
This.
WolfTears wrote on 2021-10-12 22:30:30:
Disease is way more suffering than a simple cut.
This.
Also, am I the only one who finds it weird that the Plaguebringer supposedly hates death? Like..... she knows that plagues are highly deadly, right? Why are you bringing them if you don't want death to result???
It just feels like such a hamfisted way to portray and set up a rule. I can respect them not wanting heavy gore on the site, but light blood, "suffering" (whatever the hell that even means because it's so ludicrously vague) and the color red is not something that I think constitutes as gore, especially not for a pg-13 site like FR. I could honestly see it be like a Castlevania-type thing where blood is allowed, just not any organs/entrails/etc.
Also, they say this as if the site doesn't have a lot of canon body horror (Luminax, plague/shadow primal, multi-gaze, etc) that I've seen be a lot more upsetting to users than just a little bit of blood on a skin or apparel item.
I think my issue is just a lack of consistency and transparency as opposed to the rule existing. No blood or gore, okay cool, maybe shoulda thought of that before making bloody bandages items, verifying UMAs with blood/gore anyways, and before filling the site to the brim with body horror that is arguably more upsetting to the average player than an UMA just having a red swirl on it.
Hell, plenty of my own dragons are explicitly stated or implied to be suffering even if they don't have any blood present on them. Is that not allowed now even though these aesthetics were achieved solely through site genes and functions? Wild.
Also, am I the only one who finds it weird that the Plaguebringer supposedly hates death? Like..... she knows that plagues are highly deadly, right? Why are you bringing them if you don't want death to result???
It just feels like such a hamfisted way to portray and set up a rule. I can respect them not wanting heavy gore on the site, but light blood, "suffering" (whatever the hell that even means because it's so ludicrously vague) and the color red is not something that I think constitutes as gore, especially not for a pg-13 site like FR. I could honestly see it be like a Castlevania-type thing where blood is allowed, just not any organs/entrails/etc.
Also, they say this as if the site doesn't have a lot of canon body horror (Luminax, plague/shadow primal, multi-gaze, etc) that I've seen be a lot more upsetting to users than just a little bit of blood on a skin or apparel item.
I think my issue is just a lack of consistency and transparency as opposed to the rule existing. No blood or gore, okay cool, maybe shoulda thought of that before making bloody bandages items, verifying UMAs with blood/gore anyways, and before filling the site to the brim with body horror that is arguably more upsetting to the average player than an UMA just having a red swirl on it.
Hell, plenty of my own dragons are explicitly stated or implied to be suffering even if they don't have any blood present on them. Is that not allowed now even though these aesthetics were achieved solely through site genes and functions? Wild.
Going to give a warning for extreme salt and some rudeness. I'm not usually rude, I'm just really fed up with this now and every year it gets worse. No, rules haven't changed, but the way the rules are maintained certainly has, and it's very noticeable.
Warning given, and I'm sorry in advance if I upset anyone reading this
I'm going to spoiler this as I need my feelings out and don't want anyone who didn't read the warning to see this first
Here we go
In before this thread gets locked, and it definitely will because "oop, we upset the community, let's not address actual concerns and instead silence everyone and claim they're trolling and not allowed to be upset about unclear + unfair rules! Our community shouldn't discuss what they'd like to see improve on this site"
There's plenty of movies containing wounds and blood that are PG-13. Meanwhile here a skin gets denied due to a tiny cut equivalent to a papercut.
Think of movies like Avatar (James Cameron's), Hunger Games, and (though this is a bit of a discussion at times) Jaws
Think about that. Jaws.
Even without that, the amount of babying that's being done to the people on this site is irritating. I frequently come in contact with 13 year olds. They're not stupid, they know the difference between fiction and reality. A dragon with a cut on it isn't going to traumatize anyone.
I'm not saying "Oh, just allow all kinds of gore on this site, it's fine, everyone can handle it" I'm talking small cuts and injuries. Red wounds, a bit of suffering is fine as life isn't all sunshine and roses, so fictional life isn't either. We should be allowed to express that even a little. Disease is allowed, cuts aren't. I'd gladly have a papercut over whatever diseases ROR skins usually have. Mushrooms growing out of me? No thanks, I'll take a papercut instead, any day of the week.
Rules are rules, yes, but it'd be great to have even a tiny bit more info to work with to understand what's allowed and what isn't, and why. Consistency, fairness, understanding, and transparency are all things we're missing greatly when it comes to this. I beg for just some more info. We're just being silenced and told to deal with unfairness
I'm sorry I feel bad ;v;
Going to give a warning for extreme salt and some rudeness. I'm not usually rude, I'm just really fed up with this now and every year it gets worse. No, rules haven't changed, but the way the rules are maintained certainly has, and it's very noticeable.
Warning given, and I'm sorry in advance if I upset anyone reading this
I'm going to spoiler this as I need my feelings out and don't want anyone who didn't read the warning to see this first
Here we go
In before this thread gets locked, and it definitely will because "oop, we upset the community, let's not address actual concerns and instead silence everyone and claim they're trolling and not allowed to be upset about unclear + unfair rules! Our community shouldn't discuss what they'd like to see improve on this site"
There's plenty of movies containing wounds and blood that are PG-13. Meanwhile here a skin gets denied due to a tiny cut equivalent to a papercut.
Think of movies like Avatar (James Cameron's), Hunger Games, and (though this is a bit of a discussion at times) Jaws
Think about that. Jaws.
Even without that, the amount of babying that's being done to the people on this site is irritating. I frequently come in contact with 13 year olds. They're not stupid, they know the difference between fiction and reality. A dragon with a cut on it isn't going to traumatize anyone.
I'm not saying "Oh, just allow all kinds of gore on this site, it's fine, everyone can handle it" I'm talking small cuts and injuries. Red wounds, a bit of suffering is fine as life isn't all sunshine and roses, so fictional life isn't either. We should be allowed to express that even a little. Disease is allowed, cuts aren't. I'd gladly have a papercut over whatever diseases ROR skins usually have. Mushrooms growing out of me? No thanks, I'll take a papercut instead, any day of the week.
Rules are rules, yes, but it'd be great to have even a tiny bit more info to work with to understand what's allowed and what isn't, and why. Consistency, fairness, understanding, and transparency are all things we're missing greatly when it comes to this. I beg for just some more info. We're just being silenced and told to deal with unfairness
I'm sorry I feel bad ;v;
I think the fundamental problem is that the definition of "too gory" or "suffering" is more subjective than it may seem.
Like, there are a number of accepted skins that I think could be construed as depicting suffering--take
, for instance, which pretty clearly shows entrails and exposed bone, or this
official RoR skin, which to me seems like it'd be pretty unpleasant for the dragon in question. I assume these get by on the fact that there are elements to them keeping them from being too realistic--the bright green in the case of the former and in the case of the latter, well, there's no real-life disease or anything that really looks like that.
This would also explain why some skins unfortunately don't seem to make the cut for very minor reasons, such as minor (but still real-looking) cuts or patches of red that
could look like an actual, bloody injury if misinterpreted. But then there's the bloody bandage apparel, which is frequently cited as a counterexample--is it fine because the wounds aren't actually visible? Is it just a remnant of an earlier time of the site where there was more wiggle room for this stuff?
My point is, I think everybody would be happier if there were a
specific list of things that are or are not allowed in skin submissions. I realize that might take some work to figure out given the aforementioned subjectivity, and that this would probably go better in the suggestions forum, but having rules that are as clear as possible instead of simply saying "no gore" or "no suffering," things that are going to be interpreted in different ways by different people, would get far less backlash.
I think the fundamental problem is that the definition of "too gory" or "suffering" is more subjective than it may seem.
Like, there are a number of accepted skins that I think could be construed as depicting suffering--take
, for instance, which pretty clearly shows entrails and exposed bone, or this
official RoR skin, which to me seems like it'd be pretty unpleasant for the dragon in question. I assume these get by on the fact that there are elements to them keeping them from being too realistic--the bright green in the case of the former and in the case of the latter, well, there's no real-life disease or anything that really looks like that.
This would also explain why some skins unfortunately don't seem to make the cut for very minor reasons, such as minor (but still real-looking) cuts or patches of red that
could look like an actual, bloody injury if misinterpreted. But then there's the bloody bandage apparel, which is frequently cited as a counterexample--is it fine because the wounds aren't actually visible? Is it just a remnant of an earlier time of the site where there was more wiggle room for this stuff?
My point is, I think everybody would be happier if there were a
specific list of things that are or are not allowed in skin submissions. I realize that might take some work to figure out given the aforementioned subjectivity, and that this would probably go better in the suggestions forum, but having rules that are as clear as possible instead of simply saying "no gore" or "no suffering," things that are going to be interpreted in different ways by different people, would get far less backlash.
it's a game. the owners are entitled to reject content they don't want on the site. yes, the rules are subjective. who would actually benefit from a hardline 'you can draw x but not y, z but not a' list of mandates? that seems even more stifling of creativity than a simple guideline on a website with young users. it's case by case, it doesn't have to be 'fair', the rules are subjective because art is subjective.
this thread is against forum rules that have been reiterated over and over, though.
it's a game. the owners are entitled to reject content they don't want on the site. yes, the rules are subjective. who would actually benefit from a hardline 'you can draw x but not y, z but not a' list of mandates? that seems even more stifling of creativity than a simple guideline on a website with young users. it's case by case, it doesn't have to be 'fair', the rules are subjective because art is subjective.
this thread is against forum rules that have been reiterated over and over, though.
[quote name="Cakeless" date="2021-10-13 05:15:49" ]
[quote name="WolfTears" date="2021-10-12 22:30:30" ]
Disease is way more suffering than a simple cut.
[/quote]
This.
[/quote]
As a md, i can definitely agree and don't really understand the whole "no suffering" concept but then you have a whole flight that has it as one of its features
Cakeless wrote on 2021-10-13 05:15:49:
WolfTears wrote on 2021-10-12 22:30:30:
Disease is way more suffering than a simple cut.
This.
As a md, i can definitely agree and don't really understand the whole "no suffering" concept but then you have a whole flight that has it as one of its features
[quote name="jackaling" date="2021-10-13 07:48:29" ]
it's a game. the owners are entitled to reject content they don't want on the site. yes, the rules are subjective. who would actually benefit from a hardline 'you can draw x but not y, z but not a' list of mandates? that seems even more stifling of creativity than a simple guideline on a website with young users. it's case by case, it doesn't have to be 'fair', the rules are subjective because art is subjective.
this thread is against forum rules that have been reiterated over and over, though.
[/quote]
And we, be it paying or not, userbase, are also entitled to ask for clarification regarding what is allowed or not, especially now that we actually see red galaxy clouds on a dragon’s arm being outlined as gore for Earthshaker’s sake.
That forum rule can exist and we can abide by it if, as a lot of users could attest, “Contact Us” did not mean “sending our frustrations into what might as well be the void” [i]at best[/i]
jackaling wrote on 2021-10-13 07:48:29:
it's a game. the owners are entitled to reject content they don't want on the site. yes, the rules are subjective. who would actually benefit from a hardline 'you can draw x but not y, z but not a' list of mandates? that seems even more stifling of creativity than a simple guideline on a website with young users. it's case by case, it doesn't have to be 'fair', the rules are subjective because art is subjective.
this thread is against forum rules that have been reiterated over and over, though.
And we, be it paying or not, userbase, are also entitled to ask for clarification regarding what is allowed or not, especially now that we actually see red galaxy clouds on a dragon’s arm being outlined as gore for Earthshaker’s sake.
That forum rule can exist and we can abide by it if, as a lot of users could attest, “Contact Us” did not mean “sending our frustrations into what might as well be the void”
at best
I have always blindly followed behind you and stayed by your side, remember? May we embrace glory together, for back then we could not. Grant the proper end to those locked up here, and to yourself.
