The problem isn’t the existence of the pictures, it’s that Wolfery doesn’t want to host them, which would happen if they were uploaded directly. Having that separation of external hosting with a link to it also helps prevent jumpscaring people who would rather not see such.
As for the rest of it, litigating specifics of porn, especially fictional drawn porn, never works out well, so I wouldn’t even bother. Best judgment applies.
That’s an interesting question. The issue with me is that I do have a character policy, in which all my characters are 18+, so I may not be that reliable when it comes to this question.
To answer, I think this also falls into this issue.
It’s not described much further, but: Terms of Service and Privacy Policy update
It appears to be about the character’s appearance within the upload, i.e. judged in a vacuum.
As someone who does host a lot of things, including cub porn, but not certain other content: there’s a big distinction legality-wise between linking and hosting/serving. It’s also normal to have things users can link to, but not post on a site itself. Sometimes the first relates to the second, but not always; it may just be that users will not expect such content on your site but you want to leave a way open for those who do want to see it to access it.
We have to keep it vague because we 1: can’t think of every single situation and 2: A hard list would necessarily have to be much stricter to take care of those situations.
There are - perhaps unfortunately - two lines. Green is right, we judge things individually. But also we do have to enforce a hard line of no NSFW pfps on underage characters for a couple reasons, including not having to quibble over apparent age in cases like that. Having said that, the adult nsfw pfp/underage desc situation has been pretty rare.
Hosting such content is a Mucklet-level rule. It is both a personal decision by the owner and a concern about the area the content is hosted in/is expected to be hosted in.
I’m sorry like you feel like you get a lot of different answers. When we get borderline cases we do often confer about them to make sure we’re trying to be consistent.
I can’t speak to the EU, but there is some case law concerning linking to content even without hosting it if you’re knowingly allowing/condoning the links to persist on the service.
It’s usually, as Green says, a very different thing. If you’re referring to the US, you might want to see how the legal framework around that has changed post-Sony v. Cox. Which is irrelevant in any case.
Yeah, this is something I have confused on as well. I recently reported an underage character with what I considered to be a suggestive PFP. I was told that it wasn’t actionable. It would be nice to have a more clear standard or at least some additional guidance.
For example, if that same character with the PFP I reported that apparently wasn’t suggestive enough had a LFRP that is suggestive, then would that change the equation as to how staff would respond?
I know it isn’t relevant, but wasn’t that case ruled on Cox not being responsible for users it unknowingly had linking to infringing or illegal material?
The game has knowledge and promotes by having ageplay themed areas with sexual themes. I don’t think that’s too much of a stretch? Encourages characters for said zone with said references.
It is a stretch, but luckily it’s a completely different jurisdiction and area of law - we’re not talking copyright here - so it doesn’t matter anyway.
I see. That’s an interesting choice considering both elements are part of the same whole that is the character. Which is how it would be viewed by anyone looking at said character. Good to know though.
The characters are allowed, the content is not. You have to look at it differently. The one exception is ‘my character’s 10’ at which point I don’t care if the naked vixen is 40 in the picture.
The character in your example though is what is making the otherwise acceptable content of the naked 40 year old vixen unacceptable. (Assuming their PFP is just a profile shot of the head with nothing explicit of course.) So, clearly they are related. Why should that just go one way?
Look, I am really not looking to argue here, I am just a bit frustrated on the ambiguity of everything regarding this issue. I understand the goal is to not put rules in place that would limit RP. However, if one has to twist themselves into a logic pretzel in order to do that, then perhaps another solution is needed. More concrete guidelines would be a start. Otherwise this issue is just going to keep coming up over and over again.