Just jumping in here late, but I (as always) reside along the fence. . .
To Chern Ann: Thank you for making a site like this, but really, do you need to feed the trolls? Your posts are just as inflammatory as anything and offensive at times ("Do we really need to accommodate the handicapped?" or however you put it, is just as wrong as some people claim this dio to be)
If I truly believed any of these posters to be trolls, the proper response would be to delete their posts and ban them. I'd invite you to reflect on how often that happens, or rather, how often that does not. Would you care to point out the trolls to me so I can rid the board of them? Making throwaway remarks about site administration comes across as confused. Perhaps you'd like to expand on that?
As for the handicapped comment, you are quoting me out of context, which I do not appreciate. If you are not aware, these are legal requirements in some jurisdictions that websites that receive government funding (of which this site is not) be accessible to the handicapped. This is a worthy thing for access to government to etc, but does also mean that these sites incur additional costs, and there may be some inconvenience to non-handicapped users which is minimized as far as possible. However, how inconvenienced the majority are does not factor into this decision making process at all; it must be done because it is the right thing to do. Ergo, are you equating a NSFW filter on CoolMiniOrNot to a handicapped requirement, i.e. it
must be implemented without regard to cost and convenience?
I am equating those with special sensitivities towards sexual violence to those with special sensitivities towards torture; I'm talking real victims here, not people who get armchair uncomfortable on behalf of someone else. There is much medical literature that both groups suffer real and unpleasant psychological trauma. However, in order to cater to the needs of the former, it would be hypocrisy not to cater to the needs of the latter. Therefore, to both groups, my answer is, move along, there's nothing to see here.
Sexual violence is objectifying, removing one's own will and/or control, and is a temporarily vulgar answer to a disturbingly permanent (psychological) issue. In war, death, blood and gore are inherent, rape and molestation are not, and thus unnecessary.
Tell that to the victims of the Lord's Resistance Army, who are no doubt planning another Christmas atrocity. I sincerely doubt being held down and having ones hands and ears cut off is any less psychologically traumatic than being raped, with the added bonus of having no hands and no ears. One of the purported reasons for doing this is to cow the local population into non-cooperation with government forces. The LRA also does indulge in rape, child slavery/soldiers etc for the same reasons.
After reading your post in detail, I find you are drawing the line at conventional warfare, and I presume you find the Dark Eldar equally repugnant to the Agonizer etc. This is a clear point of view at least. Fair enough.
As far as being inflammatory goes, when it is time to be 100% clear, I find using weasel words often obscures meaning. I ask questions in posts where I
genuinely want to see an answer. A series of questions means I am mystified as to a poster's point or motivations. I
could presume that the poster has no point and try to reason in advance of data, in which case instead of asking a question I'd analyze them in advance.
i.e. "Why are you here?" (caveat, I do not know if any of these apply to you, hence the question) -
1. There is a disconnect between what you feel, and what you can logically justify. Stating simply "I don't like this, and I have no idea why" is something you are uncomfortable doing.
2. You are here to enjoy cool miniatures. You are ok with cartoon violence and torture which would in the real world be utterly horrific, because you do not equate these images with real people, or combining violence and cartoons is something you are ok with (This is me, by the way).
3. You are here to enjoy cool miniatures. You are not ok with cartoon sexual violence because it reminds you uncomfortably of real people, or you feel sex and cartoons should not be combined. (This applies to me as well, to a lesser extent).
4. None of your discomfort about any of the above particularly bothers you over much.
5. Your discomfort of any of the above means you want some kind of special treatment because you either i) "I want it" don't care about what other people want, or ii) believe lots of people want it too (i.e. silent majority argument) or iii) it is ethically or morally justified for some reason "Think of the children".
Just because someone has an "ow my head hurts" feeling or "oh shit I have no intellectually defensible position" epiphany or "man, why is he badgering me with questions" moment will not go unchallenged by me especially when the site administration is called into question. I don't think there is nice way to tell someone he is making no sense, which is why discussions on religion are typically avoided. If you think your point of view has merit, then it's up to you to explain why, not the other way around.
I'm not going to address the ease or difficulty of implementing a filter, since it was already explained earlier. When you find a set of standards that can be applied to and a bunch of volunteers that are objective enough to apply them, let me know. I'd like to know where the Wet Nurse falls on that one, or the two guardsmen kissing etc. Gearhead has straight up admitted he has no idea in advance what he'll find offensive, in which case the only standard to apply would be the lowest common denominator (i.e. WASP standards of what is acceptable, thankfully there are no Islamic fundamentalists amongst us). Which I have already stated, this is not that kind of site.
Finally, and this is the bit I find absolutely fascinating (no sarcasm intended or implied): Those advocating a NSFW filter/child filter appear to be asking for it for themselves. As adults, does anyone of us really feel the need to be "mentally prepared" to see something on this site? Do you really need a "shields up" moment before looking at something? This is ok to admit, I personally did not watch any live execution videos because I found the whole concept completely repugnant, as in, I literally could not bring myself to do it. I haven't seen anything on this site that would require that kind of warning since it's all fiction to me. I might find something vile, repugnant or juvenile but not to the extent that my mind recoils from it.
