I know most people probably don't care about seeing nudity and such, but there are some people who will actually go out of their way to avoid seeing it. I liked it here because of the fact that there were warnings on the pictures of 18+, so I was confident I wouldn't have to see nudity, but I still see it. This is the reason I left oekaki central, and I thought it would be different here. So, please, if there is any kind of nudity, even if it's just breasts, please rate it 18+, since most movies with breast nudity would be rated that also. I just don't want to have to leave the board, or set my rating to block out 13+ and miss a lot the great drawings.


Oh, and please don't reply to this accusing me of somehow being backwards or close-minded because I prefer to avoid looking at pictures of nudity (like saying "what's wrong with nudity!?!?" or bashing my religion and such). It's a religious thing, I hope people can respect that. But again, I don't want to have to set my rating down and miss a lot of great drawings.

Maybe we need clearer ideas as to what we should be rating our drawings. I notice it's really inconsistent.

Thanks

Actually movies with breast nudity are usually rated 15.
I don't think nudity should be offensive...PORN should be offensive. But I can see what you mean about the image rating system being rather...vague..

In the UK maybe, but ratings are no where near as strict in the UK as other coutries. In the US, it would be rated 18+.
And if it's for a religious reason, eggie, it doesn't matter what you think should be offensive.

Anything with minor nudity should be 15+ in my opinon.....if it's explicit, then it should be 18+....that's how it works most everywhere else...

Here in Greece legal pornography and legal prostitution are only for 18+ but even full nudity with no sexual contact is normal to watch for every age, because the human body is considered to be natural and beautiful. Of course, it is up to Marcello of how to use the ratings and how to edit them for each image. Ratings based on age are deceiving because there are cultures in which nudity is forbiden even for ages of 60, like catholic clerics and in other cultures people get married and have children in the age of 13-14, some gypsy races do that in Greece. Maybe Marcello you could change the ratings to be more descriptive like "violence", "nudity" or "sexual content" instead of age numbers that don't make you understand what the picture really is. This is just my humble suggestion. >:)
|XOD|

i recently posted a pic with that bit of nudity u describe...i didn't want to mark it as 18+ cause it's not ment sexually.... however i didn't realise that there where people not comfortable with it...so i didn't ment to offend or 'shock' at any point...i'll just keep it in mind and change the rate... it's a good thing you made it clear this way... heh...i guess we don't want to loose some talent like yours here :)

Although I plan to make these final with v2, here's my basically what my ideas of the ratings are/will be. Feel free to comment:

All/No Rating: a moderator-only rating that can't be hidden in preferences (for site announcements and whatnot)
Everyone: G/PG rating, no violence, no nudity, no sexual content, etc. Allows a level of cartoon violence (something getting squashed by a hammer, for example), but no blood/wounds/etc.
13+: PG-13 rating, minimum violence, minimum blood. No excessive spewing guts, no nudity or sexual content. Implied nudity/skin is allowed in this case, within reason.
18+: Nudity, sexual content (not hardcore), guts/blood. But not super grotesque and offensive.
extreme: Hardcore sexual content, extreme violence, etc. Everything that doesn't fit in the lower ratings.

A side note about the extreme rating. I don't really want to encourage too many pictures in this rating, simply because they are disturbing to many individuals, including myself. And I'll have higher expectations of images that fall in that category, so unless the art is really good, it's more likely to be deleted.

As for the age-related choices, it's not actually intended to require a certain age, but to use common rating systems as a basis. Obviously in different countries, the ages vary, and that can't really be accounted for. And this is a place of art. Everything posted here is from someone's mind, not straight-up reality.

Well I understand compltely what your saying Sererena. I thought what about drawings depicting violence? Like someone putting a gun to their head or something? I just wondered if you had anything against those...? Maybe there should be more descriptive ratings.

Thanks everyone for being so understanding. I was expecting to get shot down... most people on the internet don't like us religious types >_<. while jord's picture wasn't explicit, and most people's aren't, it's nice to have a warning instead of just having to confront it, with no way to hide it. Thank you everyone for being understanding. I think your ideas for ratings are a good idea, Marcello. You might even want to have an option to hide the image and someone can enter their own rating information,

Sererena, i think that any aspiring artist should have no problems with nudity. hell, you wouldn't make it through anatamy or figure drawing classes if you did. I have yet to post any nude pieces so this thread doesn't apply to me directly, but i just wanted to say that i consider myself to be very conservative and i find nothing wrong with nude paintings. it's just a fact of artistry in my opinion. The problem with rating nude pictures as 18+ is that folks like me who enjoy a nude just as much as any good piece of art, consequently see all the slash and gore type pics that I, and other's sharing my view, don't wish to see. o well, rules are rules.

That's why I think context ratings or more specific ratings would be better than just the age rating. I think too that it's unfair that porn and artistic nudity should share the same rating, BUT some people REALLY stretch the term "artistic nudity." That's why I don't think you could ever have an "Artistic nudity" rating because it's just too subjective. Ratngs like "mild nudity" (for breasts) "explicit nudity" (everything) "sexual content" (not necessarily including nudity, but perhaps depicting a sexual act), "violence," etc. would be better for rating your picture, and you could check or uncheck those as needed.

Though the idea has occurred to me when I started, and it seems good at first, but I'm not sure how well it'd play out beyond theory. For example, how many checkboxes do you imagine seeing? It starts to get diluted once you have "some nudity" "full nudity" "sexual nudity" "extreme nudity" "mild violence" "suicidal violence" "cartoon violence" "moderate violence" "extreme violence" "drugs" "alchohol" "homosexual relations" "heterosexual relations" "witch related content" "extremely cute characters" "creepy anthropomorphized animals", and so on....
I mean where do you start, where do you finish? Obviously excessive isn't the answer, because people don't want to wade through a huge list of options to decide what their image is. Then there are technincal questions on the issue; How do I display this on the site? How do you decide what you can see?

Of course, one idea is to keep the regular rating system, but then add yet more options to fine tune it. For example, on my art site, I simply have little letters next to my images that signify blood, violence, and nudity. Of course, I don't have a wide range of drawings, and I don't have anything that qualifies as extreme on this site, nor do I make a distinguishment between everyone and 13+ images.
Plus there's all the grey areas. For example, if someone is doing drugs in a picture, it should probably be rated at least 13+, and personally I think that's all that's necessary.
If you take movie ratings in the usa, they're not much different than how 2draw is setup now. The main difference is that they generally go into more detail with a sentence description about why they chose the rating. So that's a possibility, in addition to a rating, you have a little text box you type up. But in that case, there's nothing forcing the user to write a description, a moderator isn't gonna go and edit it, if they forget it. For the most part, who cares, anyway? In my opinion the title should be enough to describe the general content of the picture. So, if you call something 'venus' and rate it 18+, you should be safe to assume it's nudity (unless Xod posted it, of course). Plus, there's no way to limit what pictures you can see based on a description, you'd still only be able to choose the base ratings in your preferences, and that would be all.
However, while I'm not trying to shoot down the idea, and now is actually the best time to tell me what you guys would like, because I'm about to start coding the privacy/ratings system in the new site, and it's better to decide how they'll work before I code them.

I agree with you Sererena.

Lack of spine, I say.

Here's another site's a rating system: http://www.side7.com/code/ratings.shtml Maybe something along those lines, but I don't know.

May Xod suggest a rating system as well?
http://www.asstr.org/~Uther_Pendragon/code/scfr.htm
|XOD|

Har har.