Template talk:Adult Theme

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Color[edit]

Is there any way we could alter the Adult theme template so that maybe the headline fill is red or orange or something of that brightness. The plain black is easy for younger viewers to ignore. Also, when I come to this page, I see nothing. Anyone know whats up with that?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   07:53, 9 January 2009 (MST)

Red would be nice... Palantini 22:15, 31 May 2009 (MDT)
I changed the background color to red, but my knowledge of wikicode is not sufficient to figure out how to get the template to display on this page (short of adding the actual template to the page, which does work, but would then cause this page to show up in the adult theme category, which is less than ideal). --Dracomortis 17:03, 5 June 2009 (MDT)
Possibly you can move the IncludeOnly for the category only and not the others --Zzo38 12:17, 6 December 2009 (MST)

Drawing the Line[edit]

Because of a few pages (Meme Master, Lusty Tentacles), I think we need to agree on what is fair use of adult theme, and what's just wrong. Meme master was notable because, IIRC, it made child rape into a "funny" class feature. Lust tentacles isn't quite as bad, but it still enables PCs to tentacle rape other creatures.

I've no issue with any pages seriously discussing things such as rape, drug abuse, slavery, etc. They're mature topics for a mature game, so as long as they're not written as jokes, I've no issue. I'd also be fine if we said to avoid those things altogether if others decided D&D Wiki wasn't the appropriate place to discuss those topics. No, my issue is that it turns "adult themes" into a joke, treats them as routine and acceptable, rather than serious issues that might be encountered in a game. It's disrespectful and frankly inappropriate.

And yet, there's been some disagreement over appropriate use of adult themes, with others figuring that so long as it's not "explicit" it should be fine, and as if yet, no offending page has been well-written enough to avoid deletion on other grounds. I just want to know where we stand. Any admins can review Meme Master (5e Class) and Lusty Tentacles (3.5e Spell) to see for themselves. No, it's not explicit, but I still think it's inappropriate. What do others think?--GamerAim (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2017 (MDT)

I fought to have Falcon Punch (3.5e Feat) deleted because I hated that it thinks that forced abortions are funny. The consensus was that it should be kept because "no editor has the right to impose their moral or social views and expectations on the content of this site, nor censor it by those views alone".
If the consensus then was to treat sensitive topics in an immature fashion, then I don't really know what to do. Marasmusine (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
Although we have {{Adult Theme}}, this does not mean illegal practices, suggestions, etc are okay. Like the meme goes, "we are not above the law". To be honest when I read that Meme class before, I thought that class feature was meant as a superiority "meme" in a schoolyard sense. If something is illegal, then it does not fit on D&D Wiki. Where are your concerns after reading my reply? --Green Dragon (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
I'm not sure what you mean, GD. AFAIK, none of the pages mentioned broke any laws (in the USA). Writing about the stuff in the way they did, however inappropriate, probably isn't illegal. And if you meant talking about doing things in D&D that illegal IRL, we have an entire base class themed around breaking the law. So D&D is very much a game that encourage committing acts that would be illegal (and wrong) IRL. Though stealing isn't near as bad as the 3.5e homebrew combination of "tentacle rape a woman and then smash her womb for the lulz."--GamerAim (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
Tentacle sex game rules are not illegal, but sex with minors is. Just like someone cannot write a story about pedophile that encourages it, and offer the text to the public, our pages cannot encourage players into pedophilic actions.
Note: I am not saying that guidelines would be bad, rather I think they would be very helpful. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
Maybe this various from region to region, but can you cite the law that says that you cannot write a story about pedophilia? I mean, there are literally guide books on the topic, the authors have not been arrested (although most bookstores pulled it from sale). I stress that I do not want that kind of thing here, but since we've got to this point we should have a reference for it. Marasmusine (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
The basis information I am using is that an MMC ("Massive Multiauthor Collaboration") website should "ensure accountability for people who violate the rights of others to be free from sexual abuse"[/or insert law here].
As a human rights organization, Human Rights Watch seeks to prevent sexual violence and to ensure accountability for people who violate the rights of others to be free from sexual abuse. We are convinced that public safety will be as protected, if not more so, by modified registration laws targeted only at former offenders who pose a high or medium risk of reoffending, as determined through an individualized risk assessment and classification process, and by community notification that is undertaken by law enforcement on a need-to-know basis.
near the end, Human Rights Watch
To be honest, I am not totally certain about the right answer. It's safe to err on the side of caution, but if we can get expert information that's even better. Guidelines are a good idea, and/or we could use the quote above as a starting point. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2017 (MDT)
Allow me to test the boundaries. Which of the following are acceptable or not acceptable?
  1. Misogyny: A feature that gives you a bonus when you kill a woman (and not just "a member of the opposite sex" which at least has equality)
  2. Ditto, a child
  3. A feature that gives you a bonus when you rape (anyone)
  4. Racism: A sterotyped human variant with dark skin and a -2 Intelligence modifier. [
(I know context is important. If a monster has a bonus like #1, it's a different context, they're the guys you're trying to defeat) Marasmusine (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2017 (MDT)
I'm guessing I'm at a 'liberal' end of the scale here when I say I think that none of the above things should be classed as 'unacceptable' content to have. I mean, probably a majority of the rules in DnD are revolved around creating exciting and creative forms of murder - But at no point, even with rules explicitly about killing humans, is it assumed to be a proclamation that murder is okay.
I don't think it should be in our purview to moderate content based on how gross or wrong we think it is. If it's illegal content for us to host, then duh, we get rid of it, as there's no alternative. But past that, I don't think we should be moderating content based on anything other than its quality, both as DnD content and as a mature piece of written work, its completeness, and how plausibly it could be used in a DnD game of the given system. --SgtLion (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2017 (MDT)
Based off my information above, I would postulate that if a page uses the existing mechanics to implement a death scenario, then its likely allowable. So 1, and maybe 2, are not illegal to have. With number 2, however, I would question the page's intentions. Is this theme really serious?
Number 3, thus, is not allowed since it also has nothing to do with D&D/d20 Modern gameplay.
I would also question the intentions of 4. I doubt a page like that is really intended for serious gameplay (like number 1). --Green Dragon (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2017 (MDT)
So with the example of a class that has a feature that encourages your character to rape people. Such a page should be removed because it's not thematically appropriate? Marasmusine (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
My statements were not policy statements, so I would really need to see the ability in question to provide the informed answer. I like the idea of implementing guidelines for this template, since there is a major gray area between the laws we are required to adhere to, a page's intentions, and what is an acceptable adult theme. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2017 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Actually, I just got an email from Google which makes this much easier. Google Ads do not work with sexually explicit material. I will add this to the template now. If you do not mind, please delete all pages you find which are in violation of this policy. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
I assume that covers neither the tentacle rape feat nor the nude bard, right?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
I think this is the breakdown: <snip> I actually can't link to support . google . com as our spam filter blocks it! But it says "Content promoting underage, non-consensual, or other illegal sexual themes, whether simulated or real", then rape is an example. Nudity is OK if it's not sexualized. Marasmusine (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
Thank you, Mara. I guess Google Ads solved this, aside from the fetus smashing issue, but GD already vetoed that, and I think we all agree it was inappropriate :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
@GD: I see that you've been deleting some images for being sexually explicit. Is Google Ads' definition of sexually explicit really that conservative? I mean, it's not exactly modest, but none of the images strike me as being sexual in nature. If that's what Google Ads says though, then I guess Hercules is losing his statue.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
Actually, I got that email because of the first image I have deleted. So, yes, it is. As such pages like groping tentacles, etc, should be deleted. I don't think that breasts are a big deal, though, since lots of historical images have topless women all over them. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
Okay, so anything uncovered above the waist is fine, but below it isn't? That's a distinction enough for me. All the ones you deleted, while not showing genitals, do have that area uncovered. Got it, boss :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
I hadn't considered ad policy, fair dos. Does this mean we should delete all sexually-explicit writings on mechanics, then? As someone mentioned earlier, I think we have articles somewhere about the mechanics of pregnancy and similar situations. Should we be deleting those? --SgtLion (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2017 (MDT)
I assume that images above the waist are not a problem, since they are mostly public domain historical images.
Sexually gratifying text should be removed. If the text is about reproduction habits, then I don't see it as gratiying. Sexually-explicit text that aims to arouse an audience (yes, like the above tentacle rape topic, etc) need to be put up for deletion. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2017 (MDT)
There's a difference between "sexual" and "sexually explicit". I saw Strong Libido (3.5e Feat), this isn't explicit. No sexual acts are described in any sort of detail. It is vague and left to the player's roleplaying imagination (hopefully this is handled in a mature way in their game). Marasmusine (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2017 (MDT)
My rationale was that is has unacceptable wording, makes little sense at all (and could be too sexual as such), and is part of a [Sexual] type of feats that are not explained. I made some changes to it. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2017 (MDT)
Okay. It's ultimately your call :) Marasmusine (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2017 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors