# Tightening up our "Family Friendly" rules on KBoards



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

_Update (Nov 5th):_

- We are in some discussions with Google Adsense about some alternative ways of us implementing these changes. More to come shortly on that.

- We are designing some tools that will make any changes to sigs as easy as possible, and with minimal changes to the overall look of author sigs.

- We have had several off-line discussions (PMs and emails) with authors, including erotica authors, and those have been helpful in having us come closer to a way forward that (a) puts our site in alignment with advertiser policies; (b) makes KB an acceptable place to view for most home/family/work settings; and (c) does so in a way that retains much of the free KB visibility that authors have enjoyed in the past. I thank those authors for having a good discourse with us.

As noted before, a small fraction (less than 5%) of signature images will be affected by this. I know there are authors who have announced their departure from KB, and deleted their posts, in protest of the rules and/or my handling of them. For those who remain, I thank you for bearing with us and not being too quick to label us as insensitive or worse. I think most of you will be pleased, or at least accepting of, our administration of this policy and will continue to reap benefits from your participation with KBoards. Thank you for helping us shape this path going forward.

~~~~

_Original Post (Oct 29th)_

_(cross-posted in Let's Talk Kindle, Writers' Cafe, and Forum Announcements)_

Effective immediately, we are revising our Forum Decorum to tighten up our "Family Friendly" rules. This will affect some of your signatures, avatars, and Book Bazaar content... and also a small number of threads in other parts of our forum. We are doing this now to add clarity to our Family Friendly rule, which in the past was loosely defined and left a lot of gray area. The tighter language ensures that the site is in compliance with our major advertisers such as Google Adsense. I realize that this affects many of you, particularly erotica authors, and thank you for understanding.

Here is the new language in our Forum Decorum:



> Sexually explicit pornographic images are not allowed. In addition, "adult content" or "mature content" is not allowed, which includes but is not limited to text or images related to adult toys, fetishes, sheer or see-through clothing, strategically covered nudity, close-ups of breasts / buttocks / crotches, and lewd or provocative poses (even if clothed) that have sexually gratifying overtones. Please use your judgment, and respect that the moderator team and the board owner have final say.


What this means to you:

AVATARS AND SIGNATURES
- We are asking that you review your forum signature and avatar, and make changes as needed to reflect the above language. Please do this by November 5th.
- After November 5th, we will begin removing adult content from forum signatures and avatars.

POSTS
- For past posts, we will review and remove adult content as we encounter it.
- For new posts, please keep the Family-Friendly rules in mind. If you see a new post that is not in line with those rules, you may bring it to our attention by clicking the "Report to moderator" button.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

> also a small number of threads in other parts of our forum


Is the 7 Day Erotica Challenge going to be removed then? I love that thread. =(


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Puzzle said:


> Is the 7 Day Erotica Challenge going to be removed then? I love that thread. =(


While I support the move by Harvey (I've been caught out a few times by family members while reading the forum, asking me WTF I was looking at, and I felt really uncomfortable with that), I think clearly labelled threads should stay.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Puzzle said:


> Is the 7 Day Erotica Challenge going to be removed then? I love that thread. =(


I don't believe the thread as a whole will be impacted, as much of it is technical--how many words, who is signed up, etc. But if (and I confess I haven't read it closely with the revised Forum Decorum in mind) there are excerpts or anything like that, yes, they could be impacted.

The thread content, whether the thread is labelled or not, comes under the new Forum Decorum rules.

Betsy


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Seems fair, but then I don't have naughty pics.  I'm not bothered by racy covers but I also drop by the boards at work, and some are definitely not safe for work 

Can I still say "*sshat", though?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Quiss said:


> Seems fair, but then I don't have naughty pics. I'm not bothered by racy covers but I also drop by the boards at work, and some are definitely not safe for work
> 
> Can I still say "*sshat", though?


No.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

So does this mean we can't discuss erotica kinks and how to sell in the erotica catagory. I'm not sure if we can have those discussions under these guidelines.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Puzzle said:


> Is the 7 Day Erotica Challenge going to be removed then? I love that thread. =(


If that thread falls within the Forum Guidelines, it will stay. If it contains images or text that fall outside the guidelines, then those will be removed. Where possible we'll prune rather than delete threads wholesale.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Kalypsō said:


> So does this mean we can't discuss erotica kinks and how to sell in the erotica catagory. I'm not sure if we can have those discussions under these guidelines.


It depends: if the discussion of erotica kinks contains images or text that are counter to that Forum Decorum language, then... no. In terms of how to sell in the erotica category, I think much can be (and has been) discussed about that without going against Forum Decorum. The discussion doesn't have to be explicit or include adult content to be useful.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Harvey said:


> It depends: if the discussion of erotica kinks contains images or text that are counter to that Forum Decorum language, then... no. In terms of how to sell in the erotica category, I think much can be (and has been) discussed about that without going against Forum Decorum. The discussion doesn't have to be explicit or include adult content to be useful.


Okay. Good. I was just curious how far this was going.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

Does the tightening up only relate to sexual content? The reason I ask is that there have been some (extremely useful) threads dealing with, for instance, gunshot wounds. Such threads are usually quite technical, but can of necessity employ fairly graphic language. Under a strict interpretation, they could be construed as containing adult material.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Sam Kates said:


> Does the tightening up only relate to sexual content? The reason I ask is that there have been some (extremely useful) threads dealing with, for instance, gunshot wounds. Such threads are usually quite technical, but can of necessity employ fairly graphic language. Under a strict interpretation, they could be construed as containing adult material.


Under our present rules, that type of thread is generally allowed. (It is possible we would remove graphic material if we deemed it offensive... but we handle that on a case-by-case basis. It's a judgment call without a fixed rule.)

Thank you for the question.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

Harvey said:


> Under our present rules, that type of thread is generally allowed. (It is possible we would remove graphic material if we deemed it offensive... but we handle that on a case-by-case basis. It's a judgment call without a fixed rule.)
> 
> Thank you for the question.


Thank you. That seems a commonsense approach.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Please when it's convenient take a look at the leftmost cover in my signature and tell me if the pole dancer is acceptable under the new guidelines. Thank you.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Thank you for asking. That image is subtle enough that it would fall within our Forum Decorum rules. Now, as for your avatar...


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Drew Smith said:


> Obviously this applies to women in suggestive poses, but does it also apply to covers with men on it? What's the official position on moobs and half-dressed men in provocative poses? Cause if the rule is going to be applied fairly, I think a lot of romance covers are in just as much danger as the erotica covers.


It is a reasonable question. Our Family Friendly rules as stated above would allow the "beefcake and bodice" romantic novel cover, as long as the subjects were not in provocative poses. There will probably be some judgment calls to be made there. But generally, even though it may strike some as unfair, many sites (and advertisers) view an image of a bare-chested woman as not being Family-Friendly, but will tolerate an image of a bare-chested man.


----------



## Daniel Cane (Oct 16, 2014)

Thank you! I'm tired of my wife walking by and thinking I'm browsing a porn site.
Was going to see if I could figure out how to make sigs invisible. I do enjoy seeing the other covers on here though.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Just popping in to let you see the covers in my sig. Are they ok?


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Harvey said:


> If that thread falls within the Forum Guidelines, it will stay. If it contains images or text that fall outside the guidelines, then those will be removed. Where possible we'll prune rather than delete threads wholesale.


Alright, that sounds fair. Thanks for the reply!


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Lanette Curington said:


> Just popping in to let you see the covers in my sig. Are they ok?


Of those, the only one that would come into question would be #4. We would ask that you remove that one or replace it with a tamer cover image. Thank you for asking.


----------



## Nick Fox (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm really glad to see this. I don't begrudge anyone what they want to write, but the wall of near-pornographic images in many signatures can be a little offputting for those of us trying to interact on the boards during a lunch break at work, for example.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Nick Fox said:


> I'm really glad to see this. I don't begrudge anyone what they want to write, but the wall of near-pornographic images in many signatures can be a little offputting for those of us trying to interact on the boards during a lunch break at work, for example.


While we work on tightening up the standards...if you weren't aware, you can turn off signatures by going to your Profile. It's one of the settings (I think in Look and Layout?)

Betsy


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Lanette Curington said:


> Just popping in to let you see the covers in my sig. Are they ok?


Lanette,

you might check your links. Book #4 doesn't lead to the book it says it does? Unless you've changed titles.

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Posting so you could please evaluate the covers I have to let me know which ones need to be taken out?


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Anwen Stiles said:


> I've reviewed my signature and I'm uncertain whether to delete it or not. You wrote that "provocative poses (even if clothed) that have sexually gratifying overtones" will no longer be allowed. Most of the covers in my sig could be considered guilty as charged under that language. I can't make the call. It's your site, and your rules, so it's your call. Just let me know if you want them gone, and poof, they're gone. Thanks.


We would request that you change or remove the first one. Thank you.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Kit Tunstall said:


> Posting so you could please evaluate the covers I have to let me know which ones need to be taken out?


Thank you. 2 and 6, please.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Boyd said:


> Question to the Mods... My covers and titles are pretty tame IMO, but what do you all think? Since I make my bread and butter writing erotica, I am interested in how this is going to go so I know whether or not to strip my sig, delete posts etc.
> 
> Let us know


4 and 8 should be changed or removed, please. Thank you.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

question--- how is this going to impact the "reader bar" that some of us use?


----------



## JessieSnow (Jul 25, 2014)

So... I'm guessing covers like mine would be disallowed or no?

_Edit:_

(Approved)

Thanks!


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

telracs said:


> question--- how is this going to impact the "reader bar" that some of us use?


Yeah... we had discussed that earlier today but haven't come up with a solution yet. My impression is that there are very few reader bars that don't meet the Family Friendly rules, but there are a few, and we'll need to figure out what to do about those.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Lanette Curington said:


> I must have changed books at some point and didn't change the link. It's a wall'o'html when trying to change things in the sig.
> 
> Thanks!


Let me know if you need help--or try using our signature tool at http://www.kboards.com/authorsig

Betsy


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Harvey said:


> Yeah... we had discussed that earlier today but haven't come up with a solution yet. My impression is that there are very few reader bars that don't meet the Family Friendly rules, but there are a few, and we'll need to figure out what to do about those.


Since I do read erotica from time to time I will keep an eye out for my reading bar. Most of the time even the erotica I read seems to comply with the new rules. But if it doesn't, I'll skip it here.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LOL, newbies who don't realize sigs change retroactively are probably reading through this thread thinking "They object to THAT cover? Man, is this place strict...."

I'm another who is glad to see this. It's not that I mind seeing erotica covers sometimes: it's just that, sometimes when there is an active discussion with several prolific erotica authors -- and the subject is not erotica (might even be, say, children's books) -- I feel like I'm reading the serious article in one of those dirty magazines.  It often feels like there is more space devoted to erotic images than to the subject of the discussion.

Since we don't control where and when our sigs appear (and because the sigs DO appear retroactively everywhere we've posted here) I think it is generally better to keep them safe for work/family.

Camille


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> Thanks!  Didn't want to take any chances.


Ha Ha!


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Drew Smith said:


> Obviously this applies to women in suggestive poses, but does it also apply to covers with men on it?


I can't stop laughing at your new Avatar. You look mahvelous in red, by the way.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Well, my cupcake could inspire some food lust ...


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

JessieSnow said:


> So... I'm guessing covers like mine would be disallowed or no?


Those covers are fine; they are in line with our Family-Friendly rules noted in the OP. Thanks for asking.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Please let me know if I need to change anything!  Thanks...


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

HSh said:


> Please let me know if I need to change anything! Thanks...


No changes needed, Hollis!


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Um. Wow.

[checks for year & country & planet]

Never underestimate the power of *******.

[self censored so ****** can freely surf KB at work/on company/around family without ***** ***** ******* ***** getting embarrassed, cuz simply being a ******* ******* *** ***** ****** not to **** ** ******* ***** ** ***** ****** is just too ******* **** *******, huh?]

Yay!

:x


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

LBrent said:


> Um. Wow.
> 
> [checks for year & country & planet]


Adults aren't the only people who have access to Kboards.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

vlmain said:


> Adults aren't the only people who have access to Kboards.


That's *** ** ****** ******* ******, *** ************ **** ********* ****.

:/


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

vlmain said:


> Adults aren't the only people who have access to Kboards.


And it's not illegal for teens to read erotica. I know I certainly did.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> Can never be too careful! I'm pretty sure this will be okay though if you ever get bored with your clothed kitten:


+1


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Oaklandish said:


> And it's not illegal for teens to read erotica. I know I certainly did.


I'm sure a lot of teens have and still do, but we we're not talking about teens. Harvey asked that the boards be kept "family friendly" and that includes all ages, not just teens and adults. It seems that every time this subject of sig lines and erotic covers comes up, people refer to members browsing at work, etc. I was merely commenting that this board is accessible to any age.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

vlmain said:


> I was merely commenting that this board is accessible to any age.


Make a subforum inaccessible to anyone not adult?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

It also isn't a matter of people being offended by erotic content.  It's about not having it in every meal or dish, like spam.

It's not necessary to have it everywhere, either.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Nic said:


> Make a subforum inaccessible to anyone not adult?


I have seen private subforums in other communities, too. That would be a good thing for those times when the erotica writers need to discuss genre specific topics in detail.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> It also isn't a matter of people being offended by erotic content. It's about not having it in every meal or dish, like spam.
> 
> It's not necessary to have it everywhere, either.


Personally I have no problem with curbing the signatures and avatars.

But from what I read further up in the thread the content of posts also gets censored. That's rather chilling when you want to talk about writing erotica. The title of a thread usually already says it all, so it is discussion easy to avoid. Another very feasible solution would be to invest 'Writer's Cafe' with a password protected adult-content sub-forum to which only those who're adult and want to read it have access.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

Ah... so guns are OK, but a "provocative pose," even clothed, is not? Like my (former) avatar? I'm actually more disheartened by all the people chiming in to say that we've been bringing the tone of the place down, ruining the experience for decent folk. I'm quite used to images upsetting people (I work a lot in the Middle East), but ... I had formerly considered this a more open place. Amazon shows our covers; are parents of young children wanting Kboards to be more closed than Amazon? Why not just monitor what your kids' access? I did.

But in any case, I get the message, loud and clear.

I haven't disabled my account, so if anyone would like to stay in touch, send me a PM.


----------



## skyle (Oct 13, 2014)

Harvey said:


> Here is the new language in our Forum Decorum:
> 
> What this means to you:
> 
> ...


Hello, sorry to pile on the "are my books okay?" queries, but mine don't cross a single one of the boundaries stated in the forum decorum, but are still "adult" in theme.


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

1001nightspress said:


> Ah... so guns are OK, but a "provocative pose," even clothed, is not? Like my (former) avatar? I'm actually more disheartened by all the people chiming in to say that we've been bringing the tone of the place down, ruining the experience for decent folk. I'm quite used to images upsetting people (I work a lot in the Middle East), but ... I had formerly considered this a more open place. Amazon shows our covers; are parents of young children wanting Kboards to be more closed than Amazon? Why not just monitor what your kids' access? I did.


That was the first thing that occurred to me as well: Amazon allows these covers...



Harvey said:


> We are doing this now to add clarity to our Family Friendly rule, which in the past was loosely defined and left a lot of gray area. The tighter language ensures that the site is in compliance with our major advertisers such as Google Adsense.


So Kboards will be removing pictures of content offered on Amazon for Kindle, to appease Amazon's competitor Google. What does the K in Kboards stand for again? "_KBoards is an independent resource for people who own or have interest in Kindle - Amazon's family of wireless reading devices, tablets, and *content*._"

The irony.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

1001nightspress said:


> I haven't disabled my account, so if anyone would like to stay in touch, send me a PM.


Losing your participation is a real and grievous loss.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Harvey said:


> The tighter language ensures that the site is in compliance with our major advertisers such as Google Adsense.


My sense is that this is the key issue being addressed. And, to put it in perspective, I doubt KBoards would be here without ad revenue. It's not a concern that can be dismissed as frivolous, or base, or greedy. Then again, maybe KBoards wouldn't be here without erotica affiliate purchases. I dunno.

Sorry you're being dungeonized again, erotica folks. I certainly wish you weren't.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Dolphin said:


> My sense is that this is the key issue being addressed. And, to put it in perspective, I doubt KBoards would be here without ad revenue. It's not a concern that can be dismissed as frivolous, or base, or greedy. Then again, maybe KBoards wouldn't be here without erotica affiliate purchases. I dunno.
> 
> Sorry you're being dungeonized again, erotica folks. I certainly wish you weren't.


It's easy enough to set up a pass-word protected erotica-specific sub-forum and exclude the advertisement there. Then everyone is happy.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Nic said:


> It's easy enough to set up a pass-word protected erotica-specific sub-forum and exclude the advertisement there. Then everyone is happy.


Eh...maybe. Maybe not. Might not be easy at all. Neither is policing everybody's sigs, though.

And it does sound rather dungeony.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

It comes with the software for the forum. It allows people to have their conversations without these having to be self-censored.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Please. No more gun porn. Put your weapons away!


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Harvey,

I don't drop by often, but you said your new Forum Decorum is worded this way:



> Sexually explicit pornographic images are not allowed. In addition, "adult content" or "mature content" is not allowed, which includes but is not limited to text or images related to adult toys, fetishes, *sheer or see-through clothing, strategically covered nudity*, close-ups of breasts / buttocks / crotches, and *lewd or provocative poses (even if clothed) that have sexually gratifying overtones*. Please use your judgment, and respect that the moderator team and the board owner have final say.


I've bolded the two sections than concern me.

While I'll admit that it's better to have specific guidelines rather than Amazon's too-general "about what you'd expect," things that are "suggestive but fully clothed" or "strategically covered" concerns me.

Most of my books are erotica, except for Kari Okay, and I went to a lot of trouble creating covers that intrigue without "showing too much."

They've all passed muster on Amazon, but I worry that a couple of the clauses I bolded might make some of my covers at risk here. As a result, this makes me feel a bit targeted as an erotica author.

Any reassurances? Or are photos of two girls kissing, or two arms that cover more than most bikinis cover, now too much?

I'm all for good taste and family-friendly, but I don't see the need to target "strategically covered" or "suggestive but fully clothed" ... that's stricter than Amazon and really seems to target erotica authors like me, even when we're being discreet.


----------



## jacklusted (Nov 29, 2012)

I think people need to pay more attention to the mention of advertisers by Harvey. Google can be really strict when it comes to this kind of stuff, another forum I visit had to massively clamp down on people avoiding the censor over there as it was resulting in them losing ad revenue from people who didn't want their ads on a site with so much swearing. It'll be the same over here. Even if a special erotica password protected forum was setup, people's signatures and avatars would still need to be setup.

It's stricter than Amazon because of what google ads are like.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

What I'm not sure about is, if nothing naughty is showing, what's the violation of "family friendly," exactly? Seems very arbitrary and targeted.

And I'm quickly getting the sense that it'll be one set of "go away, we don't want you" rules for erotica authors, but a lot more "judgement call goes in your favor" for steamy romances and whatnot.

I'm only about 77 posts old in 3-4 years on here, but if that's how it's gonna be... not sure I'll reach 80, let alone 100.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Can't a restricted access area be introduced, as others have suggested? They do that on other forums. Romance Divas do it, for example.


----------



## jacklusted (Nov 29, 2012)

Drew Smith said:


> Well one thing's for sure, that 14.9k Alexa ranking would probably suffer if the erotica folk weren't here. Not sure how that would impact Google's advertising program, but I have to think part of a site's value is based on their traffic.
> 
> Look at two threads on page one today:
> 
> ...


Oh I know how much Erotica authors contribute to this forum, I'm just saying how freaking picky Google ads can be about this kind of stuff. Unfortunately it's the best ad provider out there for most forums so things like this happens.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

jacklusted said:


> I think people need to pay more attention to the mention of advertisers by Harvey. Google can be really strict when it comes to this kind of stuff...
> 
> ...It's stricter than Amazon because of what google ads are like.


Google can be really strict when it suits them. But do a search on Google for say, 'sex toys' and up comes Google ads containing copy such as: "Up to 80% Off Bondage Equipment." And: "Buy Sex Toys, Vibrators & Dildos."

Now I'm personally okay with this, and I'm sure that they are happy to take the advertising dollars, but for Google to try act as censors smacks of rank hypocrisy.

Anyway, didn't the Dildo become extinct in 1662...and isn't bondage equipment used when sticking stuff together?

Could be wrong....


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

Colin said:


> Google can be really strict when it suits them. But do a search on Google for say, 'sex toys' and up comes Google ads containing copy such as: "Up to 80% Off Bondage Equipment." And: "Buy Sex Toys, Vibrators & Dildos."
> 
> Now I'm personally okay with this, and I'm sure that they are happy to take the advertising dollars, but for Google to try act as censors smacks of rank hypocrisy.
> 
> ...


Sorry however that example is not relevant - These are two different things. One is sex toy makers paying for ads via adwords so that their products come up when people search via Google. The example we are looking at here is non-sexual advertisers paying to have their ads displayed on ostensibly non-sexual websites. Let me give an example to illustrate - I am "Bob's Christian Bookshop" or "The International Society for Conservative Values and Victorian Prudishness". I pay Google to advertise by nominating a cents per click number and some rough demographic/target market stuff. Google then makes my ad appear on certain sites who rely on Adsense money to survive. What happens when poor Bob, bless his sole, with his heart condition and all that, gets a call from a fellow parishioner who "accidentally" stumbled onto a site promoting, say, inappropriate contact between man and beast only to find an ad for Bob's store proudly displayed above the act in question? Google don't give a flying hoot about promoting sex if it makes them cash. What they do care about however is losing business because conservative advertisers see their ads on sites not consistent with their values or target market.

That is what Google is trying to prevent and that's what makes this change completely justified and right, if that's what's required to keep this site running in a financially viable manner. It wouldn't be practical for Google to go over every website with a fine tooth comb so, quite sensibly, they create strict guidelines that unfortunately mean completely inoffensive stuff like a lady covering her boobs with her hands or a couple in a suggestive embrace become collateral damage.

At the risk of getting lynched I will say one thing - me and all the people I known in real life who come on here all have sigs blocked due to uncomfortable experiences from children or co-workers walking past the screen when there are erotica covers displayed. Before I worked out how to block sigs, I used to spot a book or two each week to buy - now I don't. This doesn't seem fair to non-erotica writers in my opinion. So if you add to this the issue of adsense compliance, this seems like a reasonable request.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I recognise that this comes from Google's requirements rather than a sudden lurch towards the overly puritanical at Kboards, so I'm not blaming Kboards for this - however, it sucks for the erotica authors with tasteful covers that nevertheless contravene these very stringent requirements - and I say that as an author of sweet romance who hasn't got anything hotter than a fade to black sex scene out there.

Yes - I wouldn't want to see tacky full-frontal nudity on book covers, but I'm even more put-off by say - a graphic horror cover.  When non-family friendly horror images are allowed, but artistic and tastefully covered nudity isn't - that sends out a worrying message about the direction society is heading in.  Again, I know that Kboards has to make money to keep going and that they therefore have to conform to the requirements set out by their advertisers - but the demonization of women, their bodies, and their sexuality is happening everywhere at the moment, and it concerns me greatly.  

My sympathies to all the erotica authors here.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

So perhaps 'conservative advertisers' should stick to putting ads in parish magazines or on Christian fiction oriented discussion websites. This is a broad discussion forum predominantly made up of authors who often post topics such as the use of profanity and what is the best level of sexual explicitness in various genres of books etc. So naturally, the discussions are going to get a little risque at times. But it is Harvey's board and he ultimately says what goes and what doesn't.


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

(Harrison Bergeron reference) Soon we may well need a Handicapper General to make all covers equally devoid of any kind of potentially stimulating emotion or thought. Lest we alienate someone whom may take offense at that given emotion or thought provoked by a cover.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Lydniz said:


> Can't a restricted access area be introduced, as others have suggested? They do that on other forums. Romance Divas do it, for example.


There are already erotica forums out there if you look.


----------



## Catnip (Sep 7, 2013)

^^ I agree with Anwen.

I can understand why some of the more graphic covers might cause problems for people at work and so on. But I'm failing to see the issue if they're fully clothed.

And why is still ok to discuss violence and show covers with gory imagery or guns? Is that really more 'family friendly'?



SarahSalari said:


> Or are photos of two girls kissing, or two arms that cover more than most bikinis cover, now too much?


I would hope not. It would be blatant discrimination to censor a cover with two girls when romance books with opposite-gender couples kissing are all over the place.

Edited to add - I don't blame Harvey for doing what he needs to do to stay on the right side of the advertisers. It just irritates me that we live in a society with such a messed up value system where sex (and female sexuality in particular) is seen as something that needs to be controlled and hidden away. It's ok for kids to be exposed to video games where everyone beats/shoots the crap out of each other, but god forbid they might see a book cover with a bit of cleavage or a couple embracing


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Spoiler



"Harvey's house, Harvey's rules"



Absolutely! But keep in mind, ******* EVERYONE *** ***** ****, ********* ******* ********, Harvey ******* **** * house. Period.



Spoiler



advertisers



Of course. **** ******* ** ******** ** **** **** ** ****** ** * ******* *** **** ****** *******?
Ha! ****** ** ** ***** ** "*******".

BTW, KB is *** *** ********. Seriously.

Carry on and **** **** ** *** ******** ** **** ******* *********** *********.

:/

Oh, I forgot to add...As was pointed out to me several months ago in the midst of * ****** *********** situation, "


Spoiler



This is NOT primarily a writer's forum.


"


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

LBrent said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but ***** *** ****** bear in mind: ********* *** an ****** **** advertisers shouldn't **** clients. The *** ****** ** in a perfect world, **** ******* *** monopolize **** the industry.

G***** ***** **** to dictate terms. ****** of ***** *********** alternate ***** *** ******* revenue sources. **** ******** ***** ******* ****** 42 *** ******* **** censored ****** ** **** popcorn ******* turtle. ***** However, **** ****** *** a **** goesinyou *** ****** apparently ******* okay though.


Spoiler



Harvey's house, Harvey's rules; true.


----------



## NoahPorter (Sep 15, 2013)

Agree with Anwen. This is a bad move, complete double standards going on, with no reasoning (other than keeping Google happy for some more ad money and that women should cover up but men, eh, we don't really mind - show them off).


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

bare chested women vs. bare chested men, in public, one will get you arrested for indecency, one will not.
It's those secondary sexual organs that get women in trouble all the time.


----------



## komura 420 (Aug 25, 2013)

I fear that violence is family friendly, yet nudity is not. Killing is OK, but sex ain't.

Think that pretty much sums up the major problem with the world today as well.

Will comply until I can't...then face the consequences.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I want to point out here that we have in the past, and will in the future, remove violent images and text in posts, signatures and avatars that we feel are not family friendly.

Betsy


----------



## komura 420 (Aug 25, 2013)

Could we perhaps do this based on the family friendly values of MY FAMILY?

Just kidding...


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

Sex is bad. There should be no sex. Ever.
Eat potatoes instead.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Anwen Stiles said:


> I don't just write erotica. In fact, my title which has been disallowed in this forum is romance, not erotica. But it's Harvey's right to allow and disallow as he pleases since this is his site. What I have to say here isn't personally directed at him. My problem is with what is underneath this idea of "family friendly."
> 
> As a writer, I've got concerns about this kind of restriction. But as a woman, my concerns are exponentially compounded. I hate that this society presents female sexuality as something to be hidden away as if it were shameful (and at the same time objectifying her physicality to the point of absurdity). Meanwhile, male sexuality is on full display and considered safe for all. Witness the very books which have been disallowed in signatures so far here. Naked male torsos and suggestive situations have been okayed while fully clothed females in suggestive poses have been disallowed. Male sexuality--okay. Female sexuality--no, hide it, it makes us uncomfortable and it's not "family friendly." This double standard has been around my whole life, and I doubt I'll live to see an end to it.
> 
> ...


Anwen, you *ROCK* more than you'll ever know! I would +1 your post *FORTY FIVE MILLION TIMES* if I could!!! You're my heroine!!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Kat S said:


> There are already erotica forums out there if you look.


Yes, there are, *THANKFULLY*. Eventually, I'll start one of my own.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

For a couple of years now, erotica authors have been playing the "Well, the rules don't specifically say..." card and using the fact that Harvey needs to have clearer guidelines as an excuse for not regulating themselves. So now Harvey has spelled out the rules in the way people claimed they wanted and, unsurprisingly, some people are having a hissy fit.

This is Harvey's house. We play by his rules. You don't get the right to walk into someone's house and dictate the rules to them based on what YOU want. Particularly when for years Harvey has nicely asked people to tone it down and been ignored. 

You wouldn't be allowed to use some of these covers on billboards. Why on earth would you think you should be allowed to use them in a private forum? There is a strip club a few miles from my house. The township has guidelines on what they can and can't use on their sign. Surprisingly, they manage to always have a full parking lot despite the fact that their sign is just words and doesn't have an nudity on it. Some of the covers people use would not be legal in most townships on signs or flyers. 

I can't believe erotica authors feign like that don't understand the difference between bare breast or a naked butt compared to a gun. YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE! That is why you want to use those images! You write erotica. Your job is to titillate. Nudity titillates. Ergo, you KNOW the difference. No normal person sees a gun on a book cover and thinks "WOW! I can't wait to go out and shoot somebody!" But people do see nudity and become aroused. And you know this! That is why you use the images! To sell sex! 

And insofar as violent covers: I write horror. I don't use dismembered body parts or gore on my covers. I don't use it because it does make some people uncomfortable. I don't feel my speech is being infringed on because I don't use gore. If anything, it EXPANDS my ability to be heard because more people can hear me and fewer are turned off. What good is "free speech" if nobody listens to you? What good would it do me to use horribly violent covers to the point where half the membership felt the need to turn off signatures to avoid seeing them? How does that actually help me promote?

In all seriousness, this is a basic marketing issue. This is not an erotica site. People don't come here with the expectation of seeing a lot of nudity. But they may still be interested in erotic books. It is a fairly well known fact that one of the reasons why erotica took off in ebook format was because people could read it without others seeing the covers. People who would not walk into a bookstore and buy an erotic title because of embarrassment buy ebooks. Why wouldn't you want to design your marketing material to reach the WIDEST group of potential readers instead of just targeting the smaller group while everyone else turns off signatures? It makes no sense? All those people who buy erotic titles but don't want their children, boss, hubby knowing they are reading "smut." 

Particularly the erotica authors here. This is a pretty savvy bunch. I think they are more than capable of walking the line and maximizing their visibility without alienating potential readers who may be interested in their work, but don't want the covers popping up while their 9 year old is reading over their shoulder.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Nathalie Aynié said:


> Sex is bad. There should be no sex. Ever.
> Eat potatoes instead.


I notice you're from France. I'm sorry we Americans are so silly about this stuff. It's incredibly embarrassing for me that we act this way, but unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever change. Our history is Puritan in nature, so we're hungry for sex and sexual images while pushing it away at the same time.

Yeah, I know. We're pitiful.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Julie, understand that we erotica writers are *not* blaming Harvey. Yes, this is his house, and yes, we are more than capable of playing by his rules.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Lydniz said:


> Can't a restricted access area be introduced, as others have suggested? They do that on other forums. Romance Divas do it, for example.


I was and am against ghettos and segregation in any form. I don't want cliques set up here please. As for signature pics, I think if the covers meet Amazon's often draconian guidelines, they should be okay for public viewing. However, this is about money, not people, and I would prefer sigs not disappear altogether. Why not just keep them so they are clickable, but have naughty bits greyed out or blurred?


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Kayla. said:


> I've been asked questions about some of the content of this forum by a family member, so I guess I don't mind. However, I could/should also just block images.
> That being said, as a previous Google Adsense user (not a successful one), I know revenues have plummeted over the years, and I can sympathize.


Talking of plummeting ad revenue, let's see what happens when all our romance and erotica writers either leave or completely delete their sigs. I'm sure amazon affiliate income will soon dry up. Maybe we need to make kboards a subscription only website and kick google into the long grass


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> Talking of plummeting ad revenue, let's see what happens when all our romance and erotica writers either leave or completely delete their sigs. I'm sure amazon affiliate income will soon dry up. Maybe we need to make kboards a subscription only website and kick google into the long grass


+1


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Nathalie Aynie said:


> Sex is bad. There should be no sex. Ever.
> Eat potatoes instead.


Yes Nathalie. Sex is bad because humans can be a by-product of such activity. Humans are bad because they end up having sex, which results in more humans. It's a vicious circle that needs breaking...

Pass the potatoes!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Julie, while you make some good points, you're painting with a pretty broad brush.  

We appreciate the willingness of most posters in this thread to work with us under the new standards and appreciate the civility, maturity and humor of their posts, to include the suggestions that have been made.  Thank you and pass the potatos.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Irish Mint (Jul 19, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This is Harvey's house.


Fortunately, there are plenty of other "houses" out there. Well, for erotica and erom writers anyway.
-erotic author forum
-reddit.com/r/smutwriters
-reddit.com/r/heaving_breasts
-reddit.com/r/eroticauthors

3 of the 4 listed above are private, so no moral policing or trolling or 1 starring


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Frankly, I find the major retailers' rules regarding nudity on covers (I've had to cover up bare breasts on vintage paintings) already so restrictive that I for one don't find covers which comply with retailer rules even the slightest bit problematic. It's not as if we're going to see full frontal nudity here, because the retailers don't allow that anyway.

But I understand that Harvey and gang need to comply, if advertisers complain. I also agree that the US is somewhat messed up with regard to sex, but we'll have to live with that.

I can't imagine anything in my sig would be considered offensive, but if it is, let me know.


----------



## Irish Mint (Jul 19, 2014)

Mike_Author said:


> Sorry however that example is not relevant - These are two different things. One is sex toy makers paying for ads via adwords so that their products come up when people search via Google. The example we are looking at here is non-sexual advertisers paying to have their ads displayed on ostensibly non-sexual websites. Let me give an example to illustrate - I am "Bob's Christian Bookshop" or "The International Society for Conservative Values and Victorian Prudishness". I pay Google to advertise by nominating a cents per click number and some rough demographic/target market stuff. Google then makes my ad appear on certain sites who rely on Adsense money to survive. What happens when poor Bob, bless his sole, with his heart condition and all that, gets a call from a fellow parishioner who "accidentally" stumbled onto a site promoting, say, inappropriate contact between man and beast only to find an ad for Bob's store proudly displayed above the act in question? Google don't give a flying hoot about promoting sex if it makes them cash. What they do care about however is losing business because conservative advertisers see their ads on sites not consistent with their values or target market.
> 
> That is what Google is trying to prevent and that's what makes this change completely justified and right, if that's what's required to keep this site running in a financially viable manner. It wouldn't be practical for Google to go over every website with a fine tooth comb so, quite sensibly, they create strict guidelines that unfortunately mean completely inoffensive stuff like a lady covering her boobs with her hands or a couple in a suggestive embrace become collateral damage.
> 
> At the risk of getting lynched I will say one thing - me and all the people I known in real life who come on here all have sigs blocked due to uncomfortable experiences from children or co-workers walking past the screen when there are erotica covers displayed. Before I worked out how to block sigs, I used to spot a book or two each week to buy - now I don't. This doesn't seem fair to non-erotica writers in my opinion. So if you add to this the issue of adsense compliance, this seems like a reasonable request.


Honestly the whole "adsense compliance" bit seems weak to me. It's fairly easy to block ads on the entire Writer's Cafe subforum. I doubt most writers here click on ads anyway. I know I've never clicked an ad on kboards. I'm sure 90% of Kboards AdSense revenue comes from the other sections.


----------



## 75910 (Mar 16, 2014)

I understand Harvey's dilemma here and I sympathize.  
But I also agree that the way we Americans have a fainting spell when women even suggest that they like sex while men can run around pillaging villages is somewhat idiotic.  My covers were all bare chested men but I deleted them.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Glad I don't use a sig. But I do like to make sex jokes about the founding fathers. I'm not sure Google would approve.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I can't imagine anything in my sig would be considered offensive, but if it is, let me know.


Cora. That Zeppelin on one of your covers looks like a giant silver flying phallus. Remove it at once!


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Olivia Jaymes said:


> I understand Harvey's dilemma here and I sympathize.
> But I also agree that the way we Americans have a fainting spell when women even suggest that they like sex while men can run around pillaging villages is somewhat idiotic. My covers were all bare chested men but I deleted them.


Olivia, I applaud you for rejecting the double standard.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Drew Smith said:


> But fully-clothed-woman-looking-like-she-might-be-having-a-passing-sexy-thought vs. bare-chested-pirate-in-skin-tight-britches-clenching-some-tavern-wench --> one will get your cover banned as indecent and one will not. It's those backwards attitudes that get women in trouble all the time.


No one said any of that. I know many don't like change and I know that many of us have strong opinions about the double standards that exist in our society around gender inequality.

We understand that you have feelings about this change and we respect your opinions. And, we make every effort to be as even handed and possible on this board. I know I don't moderate inside the Writer's Cafe, but I'm in here a lot and I've been on this board for years. The moderation team here has been one of the most levelheaded groups on any board I've been on going back to my BBS days in the 90's. I thought so long before I agreed to become a moderator.

I really think you should give Betsy, Ann and Harvey a chance to show that this isn't about throwing you into _Purdah_. They're good people and they're not trying to make your life miserable but instead trying to keep this board a place where everyone can be comfortable.

Just my two cents ....


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

Eclectic Authoress said:


> I notice you're from France. I'm sorry we Americans are so silly about this stuff. It's incredibly embarrassing for me that we act this way, but unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever change. Our history is Puritan in nature, so we're hungry for sex and sexual images while pushing it away at the same time.
> 
> Yeah, I know. We're pitiful.


I don't care either way, and I have taken my sig down to abide by the new rules. It's Harvey's place, and it's his rules.
But I think Anwen made a pretty good point on the double standard between male and female bodies. 



Colin said:


> Yes Nathalie. Sex is bad because humans can be a by-product of such activity. Humans are bad because they end up having sex, which results in more humans. It's a vicious circle that needs breaking...
> 
> Pass the potatoes!


Okay, but just plain boiled potatoes, not the sexy, hot fried ones.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Nathalie Aynié said:


> Okay, but just plain boiled potatoes, not the sexy, hot fried ones.


Better still, let's stick to raw potatoes to exclude any possibility of steam.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Nathalie Aynié said:


> I don't care either way, and I have taken my sig down to abide by the new rules. It's Harvey's place, and it's his rules.
> But I think Anwen made a pretty good point on the double standard between male and female bodies.
> 
> Okay, but just plain boiled potatoes, not the sexy, hot fried ones.


Now I'm trying to remember whether any of your covers were ever even remotely offensive. The Calamari spy ones maybe (and even those were tame for the subgenre), but any of the others?


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Now I'm trying to remember whether any of your covers were ever even remotely offensive. The Calamari spy ones maybe (and even those were tame for the subgenre), but any of the others?


I've been lazy, was simpler taking everything off than faffing around with the HTML.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Conflicted.
First off, I totally respect Harvey's house, Harvey's rules. And I love the mods. I couldn't do their job, they do it very well, and very fair. 

I am sad, tho. When I first found this place a year-ish ago, it was neat to see erotica, horror, thriller, children's, cooking, nonfiction and every other genre author talking, helping each other out. I've made friends here (some of whom have left, feeling picked on, others won't recognize the new me, although I'm confident some will.) I've learned and grown here, and hit the All Star list in September, because of the knowledge shared here. (Yes, erotica authors do make the list, Amazon just isn't loud or proud about it, lol)

Lately, though, it seems as if every other thread (yes, I'm being flippant, and sarcastic, but with a smile, otherwise known as-  me) is 'I hate erotica, hey can y'all tell me how to make money writing this gross stuff I hate, so I can sell out too?' Or 'hide the erotica covers! Our eyes, our eyes!'

But, on the other hand, without a name or a sig, I don't feel the need to lurk any more. So, ya take the good, and ya take the bad, right? Thankfully, as others have said, there are other forums where I can be me, but like I tell my kiddo, 'there is a time and a place for everything, act accordingly.' 

So, I'm acting accordingly, hiding, but participating.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Eclectic Authoress said:


> *****, understand that we erotica writers are *not* blaming Harvey. Yes, this is his house, and yes, we are more than capable of playing by his rules.


There are posters in this thread using all ***** ***** in their posts to be rather passive aggressive, and taking their ball and going home (i.e. "I'm closing my account" posts). Those are the specific type of responses I was referring to. I have to use general language because if I call out specific individuals this becomes a cat fight. But too many people are in fact playing the roll of the victim, which does place blame on Harvey even if they do not explicitly say it.


----------



## Irish Mint (Jul 19, 2014)

Kalypsō said:


> So does this mean we can't discuss erotica kinks and how to sell in the erotica catagory. I'm not sure if we can have those discussions under these guidelines.


Given that they just removed 5+ pages of content from the 7-day thread, discussing erotica in any meaningful way on this forum is dead.

_editing to add, as people quote this before they see the correction later in the thread, that we have not removed any content from the seven day thread; that was removed by a member or members on their own. --Betsy_


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Irish Mint said:


> Fortunately, there are plenty of other "houses" out there. Well, for erotica and erom writers anyway.
> -erotic author forum
> -reddit.com/r/smutwriters
> -reddit.com/r/heaving_breasts
> ...


Thanks for the list.



Irish Mint said:


> Given that they just removed 5+ pages of content from the 7-day thread, discussing erotica in any meaningful way on this forum is dead.


Really? I knew I should have saved some of those posts. I thought I could just bookmark the thread and...ah well. Doesn't matter now.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Irish Mint said:


> Given that they just removed 5+ pages of content from the 7-day thread, discussing erotica in any meaningful way on this forum is dead.





anderson_gray said:


> Really? I knew I should have saved some of those posts. I thought I could just bookmark the thread and...ah well. Doesn't matter now.


No. Not really.

In fact -- the moderators did NOT delete ANYTHING from any threads within the last 24 hours. If posts have been removed, they've been removed by the person who'd originally posted, as is their right.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Going Incognito Cause People Have Issues With Erotica said:


> Lately, though, it seems as if every other thread (yes, I'm being flippant, and sarcastic, but with a smile, otherwise known as- me) is 'I hate erotica, hey can y'all tell me how to make money writing this gross stuff I hate, so I can sell out too?' Or 'hide the erotica covers! Our eyes, our eyes!'


Disingenuous and unrelated issues.

According to some sources, erotica and romance account for almost 50% of the ebook marketplace. So the fact that people who hate romance and erotica want to jump on what they perceive as a gold rush is to be expected and has zero to do with this thread. Contrary to some opinions, there is more to this site than the Writer's Cafe, and just because you see a bunch of threads in WC about how to write erotica does not mean that is the primary focus of the rest of the forum (where there are actually few conversational threads about erotica outside KB).

And nobody has said "Oh, gross stuff!" People have made genuine valid points and some erotica authors have been incredibly dismissive and insensitive to legitimate concerns. I'm allowed to browse at work. I'm not allowed to browse porn. There was a time in the past the KB got flagged by my company's anti-porn filters for erotic content and I needed to have it whitelisted. I have a good relationship with IT that I could get that done. Most people don't. How many companies out there now block KB so that people can't view it because of the same filters? But you bring this point up to erotica authors and they scoff and say "Well, you shouldn't be browsing at work!" Well it really isn't your (Imperial your, not you specific) to tell other members of this site when they are allowed to visit. It is ridiculous to even claim such a right to tell other members when they are "allowed" to visit. For some people, their lunch break may be the only free time they have. You the heck are you to dictate to other members when they are allowed to come here.

It's the same thing when people raise concerns about their kids looking over their shoulders. You say "well, turn off signatures." But I can't target turn off signatures. What if I LIKE seeing everyone's signatures? I'm not allowed to view ANY signatures because erotica authors want to have nekkid butts on covers? Again, instead of simply taming down the signatures, too many erotica authors want to dictate to other members how they should behave. Is it really so hard to see the hypocrisy in this? There are some erotica authors who, if their behavior in this is any indication, seem to be of the opinion "Our rights are more important than everyone elses, and everyone else should be forced to change their behavior so that we can do what we want." That's wrong. Pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *****, while you make some good points, you're painting with a pretty broad brush.


Apologies. I was speaking in general terms to avoid calling out specific people.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Ann in Arlington said:


> No. Not really.
> 
> In fact -- the moderators did NOT delete ANYTHING from any threads within the last 24 hours. If posts have been removed, they've been removed by the person who'd originally posted, as is their right.


Whew. Thanks for the clarification. Shame they deleted their posts, though.


----------



## Vermicious Knid (Apr 1, 2013)

anderson_gray said:


> Whew. Thanks for the clarification. Shame they deleted their posts, though.


Deletion out of fear of moderation is to be expected when standards become excessively puritanical.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

I've been wading through all the posts from last night / this morning (hey, it's still early on the west coast..!).  

I imagine that some authors have left, or will leave, because they object to the Family Friendly rules we've put in place. I respect that and, though I hate to see you go, it's certainly anyone's right to do so. And there are other good forums out there with, I'm sure, lighter sets of rules. 

I will say that here, we've tried to strike a balance that will be "acceptable to most." Authors continue to be welcome here, and that includes erotica authors.


----------



## Chance (Jul 2, 2014)

While it's not much of a concern for me to have "Family Friendly" rules around (I don't write erotica), I do understand the implications of the rule affecting discussion about erotica in general. That's why I have a suggestion.

If it is not too much of a burden, maybe we should implement an "adult dungeon" in terms of discussing more "erotic" topics. If our concerns are about presenting images/discussion of erotica out in the public view and it's not a concern (for some) in Kboards, we could restrict the more erotic topics within membership view granting that the member is, of course, at 18+.

I know that anyone could just make an account and change the birthday date to reflect he/she is 18+, but I figured to just throw that out there. However, if it's too much of a burden (or simply not possible, or already suggested but shot down), then I understand and will take back the suggestion. I just thought this might be a good compromise between those that would like a place here to discuss erotica topics (in depth) and those that don't want to (or protect the general visitors from view) won't see it, at least not out in the open.

[Forgive me if I didn't make any sense or was out of order; it's the morning and my head hurts from the drinking last night]


----------



## Elizabeth Barone (May 6, 2013)

Some of my covers fall under questionable (the Upside Down novelette in my On the Edge series has a stripper on a pole, and the cover for my to-be-released The Nanny with the Skull Tattoos is a couple making out, half naked). I don't like the double standard, either. I understand the position that Harvey is in, though. This is exactly why I don't run forums anymore. You just can't keep everyone happy.

The advice that I've received from everyone in these forums has been invaluable. I don't want to see anyone go. But I totally understand, and I'll probably have to go soon, myself. (I've been working on redesigning the covers for my ESX series, and the new ones are quite sexier than what's in my sig now. I write New Adult, and though my books are romance and not erotica, I do write steamy scenes.)

I wish that advertisers didn't push their customers and their customers' users into corners like this.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Going Incognito Cause People Have Issues With Erotica said:


> Conflicted.
> First off, I totally respect Harvey's house, Harvey's rules. And I love the mods. I couldn't do their job, they do it very well, and very fair.
> 
> I am sad, tho. When I first found this place a year-ish ago, it was neat to see erotica, horror, thriller, children's, cooking, nonfiction and every other genre author talking, helping each other out. I've made friends here (some of whom have left, feeling picked on, others won't recognize the new me, although I'm confident some will.) I've learned and grown here, and hit the All Star list in September, because of the knowledge shared here. (Yes, erotica authors do make the list, Amazon just isn't loud or proud about it, lol)
> ...


Agreed. I'm fairly new, but felt welcome from the start. Now, not so much. I'm not sure if I feel worse about the new "standards" or all the people joyfully embracing censorship. Surprising in a group of writers. I'm glad to know the true lay of the land, and I will try to comply with the rules when I post.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Anwen's title was in no way a Google ad problem. That's beyond prudish.

OT: When I was a board mod on professional art boards, we had a standard of veracity. Anybody who came in with unsubstantiated claims would be called out for proof because we took pride in the quality of the information. It would be nice to see something like that here, instead of suggesting that people should put the most pathological posters on Ignore. A lot of noobs are getting advice from people who post some very weird stuff.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Oh Harvey.  You make me so glad I don't run forums anymore. 

KBoards is a business.  It is a privately-owned website, and as such, Harvey must do what makes sense for the business.  Like we all have to.  Your rights aren't being violated.  It's not personal. It's not the end of the world.  It's not even the end of erotica.  It's business.

For all the rage-quitting and rhetoric-spewing, the bottom line is that it is not about you.


----------



## P.C. (Peter) Anders (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm wondering where I stand on this. My guess: shaky ground. Families in Indonesia and Thailand do go in for massages, Grandpa, Grandma, 30-year-old son and daughter-in-law, drive up to the same establishment and get their massages at the same time, as a family. In parts of Papua New Guinea, the Amazon jungles, and Africa, nudity is family-friendly, while wearing a 3-piece suit would be considered scandalous. 

Anyway, I'll do what's required. Just let me know which of the covers need covering up. Could one just have a black cover with the title on it, and link it to the actual book on Amazon? I wonder how that would work, technically.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

elizabethbarone said:


> This is exactly why I don't run forums anymore. You just can't keep everyone happy.


I certainly wouldn't want to. It looks like it's a tough, sometimes thankless, job.



elizabethbarone said:


> The advice that I've received from everyone in these forums has been invaluable. I don't want to see anyone go. But I totally understand, and I'll probably have to go soon, myself. (I've been working on redesigning the covers for my ESX series, and the new ones are quite sexier than what's in my sig now. I write New Adult, and though my books are romance and not erotica, I do write steamy scenes.)


The advice I've received has been equally valuable. Sadly, the advice most relevant to me is the erotica advice. I don't really understand what this means in terms of squelching erotica discussion but I can see how it will make things more complicated and, honestly, anxiety-producing. Now, having to monitor what is said, how it's said,will I, after trying to make sure it conforms to the rules, come back to find a comment I have made has been monitored further to remove yet more inappropriate, rule-breaking content.



elizabethbarone said:


> I wish that advertisers didn't push their customers and their customers' users into corners like this.


Agreed. But, there's other places to go to have these erotica discussions. I don't spend a lot of time online trying to suss out these hidden places but guess I'll make a day of it.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Catnip said:


> And why is still ok to discuss violence and show covers with gory imagery or guns? Is that really more 'family friendly'?


I 100% agree with this question. I find violence and gore (though not necessarily guns) extremely offensive, and if I had kids, I'd far rather they see positive portrayals of sexuality than have them come to view violence as an acceptable form of entertainment.

The problem with over-moderating for "family friendliness" is that your definition of what's "family-friendly" might not be the same as mine, by a long shot.

I'll be honest: I think it's incredibly offensive that a woman's cleavage is now going to be censored on this board but book covers dripping with gore or discussions about violent acts will not be.

This makes me re-think whether I want to be a part of such a community. I strongly suspect that the answer is "no." I'll have to give it a few days to decide. I really am not happy about belonging to a community that thinks a woman's breasts are unfriendly to families, but blood strewn across the screen is something children should be exposed to.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> For all the rage-quitting and rhetoric-spewing, the bottom line is that it is not about you.


It may not be 'all about us' but it certainly affects us more so than others on the board who, apparently, will see some added benefit for it.


----------



## Irish Mint (Jul 19, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There are posters in this thread using all ***** ***** in their posts to be rather passive aggressive, and taking their ball and going home (i.e. "I'm closing my account" posts). Those are the specific type of responses I was referring to. I have to use general language because if I call out specific individuals this becomes a cat fight. But too many people are in fact playing the roll of the victim, which does place blame on Harvey even if they do not explicitly say it.


And erotica and erom writers aren't the "victim" in this? Given that Kboards isn't the only game in town, it's Kboards loss at the end of the day if/when the erotica writers stop posting.

And I personally doubt these "rules" will be applied fairly anyway. I doubt the admin would be removing pics of covers like these from anyone's reader bar:

































This is #39 in the entire kindle store right now:








Trad-pubbed book by Zane:









These are all top 200 in the amzn store or have been in the past.

And if anyone says that these are tame, well the mods did remove someone's cover that had a fully clothed chick because it was suggestive enough apparently.

Fact is these rules will only be applied to erotica and erom writers. Harvey admitted in this very thread that he hasn't thought about removing reader bars. Well, I gave plenty of examples of top authors w/ covers that'll be added to the people's reader bars here sooner or later... I'd love to see how admin responds to that.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

ElHawk said:


> I'll be honest: I think it's incredibly offensive that a woman's cleavage is now going to be censored on this board but book covers dripping with gore or discussions about violent acts will not be.


As Betsy said earlier, such covers and avatars have, in fact, been removed. And graphic descriptions are, at a minimum, blocked with the spoiler block.

But, again, it goes back to we can't read every single post. Anyone who sees a post or image that offends them _for any reason_ please report it. If we don't know about a problem, we can't fix it.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Anwen Stiles said:


> As a writer, I've got concerns about this kind of restriction. But as a woman, my concerns are exponentially compounded. I hate that this society presents female sexuality as something to be hidden away as if it were shameful (and at the same time objectifying her physicality to the point of absurdity). Meanwhile, male sexuality is on full display and considered safe for all. Witness the very books which have been disallowed in signatures so far here. Naked male torsos and suggestive situations have been okayed while fully clothed females in suggestive poses have been disallowed. Male sexuality--okay. Female sexuality--no, hide it, it makes us uncomfortable and it's not "family friendly." This double standard has been around my whole life, and I doubt I'll live to see an end to it.
> 
> All my stories are about women who take control of their sexuality and don't make apologies for it. It's my "why," to borrow from another thread here. I'm going to keep writing about a place where women can be as sexual as they want without judgment, where people aren't taught to be uncomfortable because a woman dares to be provocative. I should categorize my stuff as fantasy.
> 
> I wanted to let this thing go, just dump the one title I was asked to dump and move on. But now I've given in and had my say. For what it's worth, which I'm sure isn't much, I've decided to get rid of all the books in my signature. It's all or nothing for me. This isn't just about KBoards and Google. It's a bigger issue for me. It's my why.


THIS

ENTIRELY, THIS.

I'm extremely disappointed that a forum with two women for moderators is jumping onto the societal bandwagon and deeming women's bodies as shameful, offensive, and to be hidden away for the sake of the children.

My mind is made up. I'll keep my account active in case anybody wants to contact me, as I get email notifications. But my participation in this community has reached its end. I don't stand for misogyny. I speak out against it wherever I encounter it. That includes here.

'Bye.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> I'll be honest: I think it's incredibly offensive that a woman's cleavage is now going to be censored on this board but book covers dripping with gore or discussions about violent acts will not be.


Where exactly ARE all of these covers dripping with gore and discussions of violent acts? I keep seeing this type of response, but where are these covers and posts? Someone want to point me in the direction of these rampaging gore covers folks are suddenly up in arms about? And if they do exist and you are up in arms, why haven't you reported them for guideline violations because, as both Anne and Betsy have noted, those covers violate the family-friendly guidelines as well.


----------



## P.C. (Peter) Anders (Feb 6, 2013)

EelKat said:


> Erotica covers don't have to be, well, "erotic" either.


I don't think of my books as erotica, but as a report on the real world, fictionalized. Undercover reporting, if you will--holding a mirror up to life, which is what Shakespeare said art ought to do. Sometimes, it is funny, satirical, political; but often, it is just a report of a human being in various situations. We are often better off experiencing these situations vicariously than going to the trouble and expense of going through them ourselves.

Still, I find that the book with the least sexy cover sells the least, by far. Interestingly, if your readers are heterosexual men, nothing will turn them off more than the presence of another man on the cover.

But my guess is that, if your market is heterosexual males, a sexy woman on the cover is likely to sell the book far more easily than a man, or an unsexy woman. That's just a fact, how it is--rather than how we'd like it to be. In Europe, they use nude models to sell products, even when the product has absolutely no connection with nudity. So I do feel some regret about the pendulum swinging back towards the Fifties. (I mean, the 1850s.)

Of course, it could also have to do with the writing, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> I 100% agree with this question. I find violence and gore (though not necessarily guns) extremely offensive, and if I had kids, I'd far rather they see positive portrayals of sexuality than have them come to view violence as an acceptable form of entertainment.
> 
> The problem with over-moderating for "family friendliness" is that your definition of what's "family-friendly" might not be the same as mine, by a long shot.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Where exactly ARE all of these covers dripping with gore and discussions of violent acts? I keep seeing this type of response, but where are these covers and posts? Someone want to point me in the direction of these rampaging gore covers folks are suddenly up in arms about? And if they do exist and you are up in arms, why haven't you reported them for guideline violations because, as both Anne and Betsy have noted, those covers violate the family-friendly guidelines as well.


I see them all the time, and I find them far more disturbing than boobs.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

LisaGloria said:


> Anwen's title was in no way a Google ad problem. That's beyond prudish.
> 
> OT: When I was a board mod on professional art boards, we had a standard of veracity. Anybody who came in with unsubstantiated claims would be called out for proof because we took pride in the quality of the information. It would be nice to see something like that here, instead of suggesting that people should put the most pathological posters on Ignore. A lot of noobs are getting advice from people who post some very weird stuff.


I completely agree. Why is complete fabrication of reality something that is blatantly allowed and calling the fabricators out on it is not? I don't get it. It constantly confuses the hell out of me. I'm getting a little headache about it right now.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Disingenuous and unrelated issues.
> 
> According to some sources, erotica and romance account for almost 50% of the ebook marketplace. So the fact that people who hate romance and erotica want to jump on what they perceive as a gold rush is to be expected and has zero to do with this thread. Contrary to some opinions, there is more to this site than the Writer's Cafe, and just because you see a bunch of threads in WC about how to write erotica does not mean that is the primary focus of the rest of the forum (where there are actually few conversational threads about erotica outside KB).
> 
> ...





Going Incognito Cause People Have Issues With Erotica said:


> ...yes, I'm being flippant, and sarcastic...


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Kalypsō said:


> I see them all the time, and I find them far more disturbing than boobs.


PLEASE . . . . report them.

Over the years we've had ONE avatar that was reported and we asked the member to change it. I don't recall EVER getting a report about a book cover or other content. We've happened upon some ourselves and done some editing.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Where exactly ARE all of these covers dripping with gore and discussions of violent acts? I keep seeing this type of response, but where are these covers and posts? Someone want to point me in the direction of these rampaging gore covers folks are suddenly up in arms about? And if they do exist and you are up in arms, why haven't you reported them for guideline violations because, as both Anne and Betsy have noted, those covers violate the family-friendly guidelines as well.


I can tell you why I didn't report the book covers that were so gory as to trigger me (and that's not easy to do at all). Because I felt like the author had written them and as a member of this board, had just as much a right to display them with pride as any author of more tame content.

I don't know if they've since been removed, or if the author has left the boards, or if I've managed to train myself to glance over sig lines quickly at the first sign of squick-matter. I didn't mute the sig lines because like many have said on this thread and many others, I don't want to mute them because I don't want to miss the other authors who might have books I do want to read.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Kalypsō said:


> I see them all the time, and I find them far more disturbing than boobs.


And how many of them have you reported? Because I never see these things people are talking about. Do you have an example? I am seriously bewildered. I'm on this site multiple times a day. I don't see all of this gore people are talking about.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Irish Mint said:


> And erotica and erom writers aren't the "victim" in this? Given that Kboards isn't the only game in town, it's Kboards loss at the end of the day if/when the erotica writers stop posting.
> 
> And I personally doubt these "rules" will be applied fairly anyway. I doubt the admin would be removing pics of covers like these from anyone's reader bar:
> ...
> Fact is these rules will only be applied to erotica and erom writers. Harvey admitted in this very thread that he hasn't thought about removing reader bars. Well, I gave plenty of examples of top authors w/ covers that'll be added to the people's reader bars here sooner or later... I'd love to see how admin responds to that.


Well, you seem to have pre-judged how we'll handle this... seeing as we only set these rules a few hours ago, and haven't done any pruning of posts or sigs at this point (except in a few cases where a member has asked us to).

The OP defines our Family Friendly rules, and those apply to everyone. It is true that erotica sigs are more likely to be affected by those, but I don't agree with your conclusion that erotica authors are being singled out while others are given a pass.

The reader bar example is more of a technical issue, and we'll come up with a solution for that. So, I wouldn't get too outraged about that at this point.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

anderson_gray said:


> I can tell you why I didn't report the book covers that were so gory as to trigger me (and that's not easy to do at all). Because I felt like the author had written them and as a member of this board, had just as much a right to display them with pride as any author of more tame content.


Your decision NOT to report something that may have violated the site rules does not mean that the site should drop it's rules and allow a free-for-all. Because if the cover violated the family-friendly rules, then there was no "right" to display it. It was a violation.


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> I 100% agree with this question. I find violence and gore (though not necessarily guns) extremely offensive, and if I had kids, I'd far rather they see positive portrayals of sexuality than have them come to view violence as an acceptable form of entertainment.
> 
> The problem with over-moderating for "family friendliness" is that your definition of what's "family-friendly" might not be the same as mine, by a long shot.
> 
> ...


Totally agree. But then the same ridiculous standards are followed everywhere - on ebook publishing sites and on T.V. Violence is promoted as if it is nothing and intimate relationships are censored. I'd rather have my kids seeing kissing than shooting and stabbing.

PS I ascribe it to the hidden agendas of the aliens, Illuminati and hidden world government...they would love to manifest WW3 after all, and get rid of overpopulation.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Your decision NOT to report something that may have violated the site rules does not mean that the site should drop it's rules and allow a free-for-all. Because if the cover violated the family-friendly rules, then there was no "right" to display it. It was a violation.


Ok.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And how many of them have you reported? Because I never see these things people are talking about. Do you have an example? I am seriously bewildered. I'm on this site multiple times a day. I don't see all of this gore people are talking about.


Not everybody is childish enough to report everything that offends them, Julie.

Some of us are grown-up enough to realize that occasionally some things in this world will offend us, but that doesn't give us the right to scream and yell about them until the offensive person is silenced and the world becomes the Nerf-covered Utopia we wish it to be. Some of us are mature enough to realize that others have a right to express themselves, and that if we are offended by X, perhaps that's our issue, not the person who's doing X.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

As an erotica author I don't have any problem with the new rules. It's a publicly visible forum and it relies on advertising dollars to continue. Harvey made a business decision and I fully respect that. I pulled the covers out of my sig because about half of them were deemed over the line and it was quicker just to wipe them all than go in and muck with the HTML and figure out what covers to use as replacements, *not* because I was upset about the requirements. When I've got time I'll go back in and re-fill it with my less steamy covers and hopefully contribute a little to KBoard's maintenance costs with an affiliate sale or two.

I think for the most part the erotica discussions were focused more on the business end of the genre - how to find/use keywords, story length, publishing frequency, sales results, etc. -  rather than going into anything explicit. No one was posting blurbs or anything like that. It doesn't seem like any of that is going to be impacted by the new rules, so I'm not really seeing what the big deal is. Tempest in a teapot.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> THIS
> 
> ENTIRELY, THIS.
> 
> ...


I don't usually chime in on these kinds of issues, but this is an issue that's very close to my heart. I agree with you (and several other members who have made a similar point) 100 percent. While I understand that these decisions are business oriented, it's still unfortunate and in my opinion, a societal step backwards.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Ann in Arlington said:


> PLEASE . . . . report them.
> 
> Over the years we've had ONE avatar that was reported and we asked the member to change it. I don't recall EVER getting a report about a book cover or other content. We've happened upon some ourselves and done some editing.


I'm not the kind of person who goes around reporting people. I also haven't seen sweeping proclamations about gore and violence by the mods.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

People. What you have to remember is that female sexuality is dangerous. If we knew that women enjoyed sex, it would cause the break down of society. We'd all end up as communist, lesbian, feminist hippies, running around naked on LSD. Lord knows I don't want my daughter to know she can enjoy her own sexuality. That's for a man to do. I believe in free market capitalism, hetero-normative gender roles and Jesus. Damn it!


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There are posters in this thread using all ***** ***** in their posts to be rather passive aggressive


MEOW. 

YUP 

What? I'm VOLUNTARILY selfcensoring so the ***** little self righteous intolerant ************* ****** ******** in attendance won't be offended by the truly filthy and deliberately offensive comments that I feel in the mood to make regarding this won't reach their ******** eyes and cause their **** ***** ***** to ******* incinerate.

I'm protecting them from...well...**********, actually, but I digress...

Passive/aggressive?

Erm. Well. And?

Is there * ******* ***** **** **** ** ****, *** ****************** *****?

**** **** **? Then **** **** **, *** ****** ******* ****, ok?

 <American. Freedom of speech, etc, etc 

(As the youngest child in the family, you quickly learn how to get your point across, avoid ******* **** *******, and ******** *** **** out of *** **********. Bonus!)

The trick is to open your eyes REALLY wide and innocent and feign cluelessness as you do it. ****** *** ***** person *****!


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> People. What you have to remember is that female sexuality is dangerous. If we knew that women enjoyed sex, it would cause the break down of society. We'd all end up as communist, lesbian, feminist hippies, running around naked on LSD. Lord knows I don't want my daughter to know she can enjoy her own sexuality. That's for a man to do. I believe in free market capitalism, hetero-normative gender roles and Jesus. Damn it!


Lol, this, and your basic personality, is why I poached you. 
*waves from under cover*
*waves to the newly minted Crayola, and LBrent, too. Just saying, lol. *


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

Kalypsō said:


> People. What you have to remember is that female sexuality is dangerous. If we knew that women enjoyed sex, it would cause the break down of society. We'd all end up as communist, lesbian, feminist hippies, running around naked on LSD. Lord knows I don't want my daughter to know she can enjoy her own sexuality. That's for a man to do. I believe in free market capitalism, hetero-normative gender roles and Jesus. Damn it!


I watched a documentary about how that mindset works in the film industry, and I was completely horrified the entire time. Now it's hard for me to watch movies without pointing these things out to my wife. She just smiles and nods like it's nothing new to her. I hate that women have to deal with issues like this.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

ElHawk said:


> Not everybody is childish enough to report everything that offends them, Julie.
> 
> Some of us are grown-up enough to realize that occasionally some things in this world will offend us, but that doesn't give us the right to scream and yell about them until the offensive person is silenced and the world becomes the Nerf-covered Utopia we wish it to be. Some of us are mature enough to realize that others have a right to express themselves, and that if we are offended by X, perhaps that's our issue, not the person who's doing X.


Yet you were just screaming and yelling about misogyny .... As I said earlier, give the mod team a chance. You are ready to assume the worst about the moderation in this section when nothing has been done yet.

Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

Geoffrey said:


> Yet you were just screaming and yelling about misogyny .... As I said earlier, give the mod team a chance. You are ready to assume the worst about the moderation in this section when nothing has been done yet.
> 
> Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.


Respectfully, she explained perfectly *why* she was "screaming and yelling" about it.



> ...until the offensive person is silenced and the world becomes the Nerf-covered Utopia we wish it to be.


I think it's easy enough to read into what she meant just given this single part of her statement.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Geoffrey said:


> Yet you were just screaming and yelling about misogyny .... As I said earlier, give the mod team a chance. You are ready to assume the worst about the moderation in this section when nothing has been done yet.
> 
> Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.


Screaming and yelling? Really? Um... Yeah.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> Not everybody is childish enough to report everything that offends them, *****.


It is not being childish if you see something that

A. _Genuinely_ offends you and
B. Is an actually violation of the site's policy

What IS childish is to essentially claim that people who do report things that are

A. Genuinely offensive to them and
B. Are actually violations of a site policy

are the ones who are wrong.

You want to have it both ways. You want to complain that the site isn't targeting the things that offend you, but you don't want to be 'childish" and report the things that offend you. The mods have a great many powers. Mind reading is not among them. If you are GENUINELY offended by something that is a violation of the site's policy, then report it. But don't claim you are being unfairly targeted in the process. Don't hypocritically imply everyone else is a child and you are the only grown up in the room. If you personally CHOSE not to report something, that is your choice. That doesn't invalidate the choice of others who do report items that violate the site's policies.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Al Dente said:


> I watched a documentary about how that mindset works in the film industry, and I was completely horrified the entire time. Now it's hard for me to watch movies without pointing these things out to my wife. She just smiles and nods like it's nothing new to her. I hate that women have to deal with issues like this.


Women are also in large part *responsible* for issues like this. The vast majority of my readers are women. But so are the vast majority of the people who complain that I'm writing erotica and _ZOMG!!! We must save teh childrens!!!!1!111oneone_ and leave one-star rants on my stories about how I'm personally destroying civilization by writing about sex. For the most part guys just seem oblivous (God love 'em, and keep 'em that way!)


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> It is not being childish if you see something that
> 
> A. _Genuinely_ offends you and
> B. Is an actually violation of the site's policy
> ...


I don't usually make it a habit to try to control other people.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Kalypsō said:


> Screaming and yelling? Really? Um... Yeah.


I just used her terminology .... But thank you for making me wrong.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Kalypsō said:


> I also haven't seen sweeping proclamations about gore and violence by the mods.


Apparently because everyone is too "mature" to report this widespread gore and violence so the mods don't know it exists on the site


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> Women are also in large part *responsible* for issues like this. The vast majority of my readers are women. But so are the vast majority of the people who complain that I'm writing erotica and _ZOMG!!! We must save teh childrens!!!!1!111oneone_ and leave one-star rants on my stories about how I'm personally destroying civilization by writing about sex. For the most part guys just seem oblivous (God love 'em, and keep 'em that way!)


Interestingly enough, I was talking to my wife last night about how men are oblivious.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Geoffrey said:


> I just used her terminology ....


Sorry. I just realized that. But you really should be more careful when you make statements like, "screaming and yelling about misogyny." It really doesn't look good. 
There are people on this board who have a tendency to be aggressive know-it-alls. Elhawk isn't one of them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Kalypsō said:


> I don't usually make it a habit to try to control other people.


Telling people not to browse at work, to turn off signatures, and to not report violations of a site's policy when the site asks people to report violations IS trying to control people.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

What I'd like to see is a little less aggressive hyperbole and more reasoned discussion from all sides.

...and a pony.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Where exactly ARE all of these covers dripping with gore and discussions of violent acts? I keep seeing this type of response, but where are these covers and posts? Someone want to point me in the direction of these rampaging gore covers folks are suddenly up in arms about? And if they do exist and you are up in arms, why haven't you reported them for guideline violations because, as both Anne and Betsy have noted, those covers violate the family-friendly guidelines as well.


This, to me, really highlights the crux of the problem.

I don't have a family so I haven't bothered to worry about what is or isn't friendly. I don't care about the violence or gore on covers. But I DO see them. There are action/thriller authors with guns and explosions, there's one author with a cover featuring a bloody man whose body seems to've been halved, there are covers with floors and objects covered in blood, there are knives and guns--sometimes the guns are pointed right at you!!! (!!! emphasis because guns is scary !!!). Just looking through the threads on the front page right now you can see all of this. I'm not going to link to them or display them or report them because I don't think the authors should be forced to take these books out of their signatures. The fact that you don't even notice these covers and that you aren't reporting them could mean lots of things, but mostly I think it means you're not offended by them--they don't go against your family values. For lots of people, I imagine the same could be said for romance and erotica covers. I mean, to remove 1001nightspress's avatar? To update and clarify the rules so they only deal with sexually explicit pics but say nothing of gore, violence, abuse, etc. that's ... well, that's not actually friendly at all.

Like I said, it doesn't matter to me, but if you really want family friendly--as in, respecting the family values of all members--perhaps you shouldn't allow any covers or avatars at all.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Apparently because everyone is too "mature" to report this widespread gore and violence so the mods don't know it exists on the site


It's called live and let live.


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

Kalypsō said:


> It's called live and let live.


Kalypso, I <3 you.

(and yes, this is a new account from someone whose books would be banned under the new fatwa against women's bodies. But like so many others, at least now I don't have to be afraid of people one-starring my books just for speaking my mind.)


----------



## P.C. (Peter) Anders (Feb 6, 2013)

What surprises me is this search on Google Play books:

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=erotical%20books%20free&c=books

Every book here violates the new KB guidelines, and probably most of the old ones.

I'm confused: Google Play allows (and good for them) erotic covers, but Google wants others to stop?


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> Not everybody is childish enough to report everything that offends them.
> 
> Some of us are grown-up enough to realize that occasionally some things in this world will offend us, but that doesn't give us the right to scream and yell about them until the offensive person is silenced and the world becomes the Nerf-covered Utopia we wish it to be. Some of us are mature enough to realize that others have a right to express themselves, and that if we are offended by X, perhaps that's our issue, not the person who's doing X.


[[[[[ElHawk]]]]]

EXACTLY!

BTW, Harvey, no harm, no foul. I understand you're in a difficult position, my quarrel isn't with you truly. If anything, it's *** ******* ****** *** **** think for themselves. Yet another argument against babies produced by ******. Down with inbreeding! Lol


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

I'm not all that active here so it doesn't probably doesn't matter to anyone, but I just thought I'd pop in to let the mods/Harvey know that the double standards in this 'family friendly' policy will probably make me leave if it doesn't change. And other more active posters obviously feel the same way.

Fully clothed, happy looking women? Really? Bare male torsos are far more sexual images. They make ladyparts tingle (yes, really!) and should be included in this ban. I understand that Google doesn't have a problem with them, but to be fair to its members, Kboards should really consider banning provocative and sexual images of ALL genders, not just women. If not, this is a *very* misogynistic policy. Is that really who you want to be?

Seeing that this is chasing away some prominent and very helpful posters, this change to your policy would even make business sense. 

I can't believe that I'm campaigning to remove such wonderful images of rippling male torsos from my viewing pleasure, but I am. Including bare man chest is such a simple fix to this problem. Please strongly consider doing this, because if 'Harvey's rules' remain so blatantly misogynistic, I'm obviously not welcome in this house. This is a new policy and you have plenty of time to do the right thing.

And no, I'm not a screaming lunatic, even though a woman commenting on misogyny, no matter how calm and rational she is, will always be seen as such by some people. Sad.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

WordSaladTongs said:


> This, to me, really highlights the crux of the problem.
> 
> I don't have a family so I haven't bothered to worry about what is or isn't friendly. I don't care about the violence or gore on covers. But I DO see them. There are action/thriller authors with guns and explosions, there's one author with a cover featuring a bloody man whose body seems to've been halved, there are covers with floors and objects covered in blood, there are knives and guns--sometimes the guns are pointed right at you!!! (!!! emphasis because guns is scary !!!). Just looking through the threads on the front page right now you can see all of this. I'm not going to link to them or display them or report them because I don't think the authors should be forced to take these books out of their signatures. The fact that you don't even notice these covers and that you aren't reporting them could mean lots of things, but mostly I think it means you're not offended by them--they don't go against your family values. For lots of people, I imagine the same could be said for romance and erotica covers. I mean, to remove 1001nightspress's avatar? To update and clarify the rules so they only deal with sexually explicit pics but say nothing of gore, violence, abuse, etc. that's ... well, that's not actually friendly at all.
> 
> Like I said, it doesn't matter to me, but if you really want family friendly--as in, respecting the family values of all members--perhaps you shouldn't allow any covers or avatars at all.


I get what you are saying, but apparently a bunch of people *are*offended by these covers and these covers do violate their family values and they are making a decision not to report them. Of course it feels like the mods are singling out erotica if that is all that is getting reported. Squeaky wheels. If people aren't reporting anything else, then the mods aren't going to go actively looking for problems that, through lack of reports, do not exist.

I stand by what I said. People can't have it both ways. This notion that erotica authors are "more mature" because they "allow" gore and violence to violate the site's policies by not reporting it is silly. It is a backhanded way of telling the rest of the membership they are a bunch of babies. It is insulting and does nothing to generate sympathy.

This isn't a new conversation. Harvey has time and time again politely asked people to tone down covers BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS. And while many authors have happily complied, a handful of people have decided to willfully ignore the policies and then feign surprise now that Harvey has had to bring the hammer down. I believe this complaint about blood and god is a red herring. It is meant to distract from the greater issue.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

WordSaladTongs said:


> Like I said, it doesn't matter to me, but if you really want family friendly--as in, respecting the family values of all members--perhaps you shouldn't allow any covers or avatars at all.


^^^^^YES!!!!!!! THIS would be fair/unfair to EVERYONE!^^^^^


----------



## Catnip (Sep 7, 2013)

In response to Julie's question about reporting violent covers - I've only seen a few, and I didn't report them because I don't think authors should lose the chance to promote their books just because I personally don't like their cover or content. They were graphic enough to bother me, but could have been worse. I recognise that I'm probably more sensitive to violent imagery than many people, so I think it would be unreasonable to try to impose my standards on others. That said, if I saw something that was extreme enough, I would report it.

What I think is unfair in this situation is that sexual content of an equivalent level to those horror or thriller covers is now off-limits. It's as Drew said earlier:



Drew Smith said:


> Apples and Oranges. You say you don't use body parts or gore on your covers -- good point. You don't use images _at the most graphic end_ of the spectrum of horror cover images. So an apt comparison for an erotica author would be if they used a... for lack of a better way to say it... money shot on their cover. But that's not at all what erotica authors are defending. An awful lot of them are talking about images that _suggest_ sex not display the act in technicolor. So for a more honest comparison the horror writers would need to censor guns, knifes, axes, creepy woods, rope, duct tape.... all the images that _suggest_ something horrific is going to happen. Get rid of those and it's a fair comparison.


It's okay for a cover to give the suggestion of violence, but not the suggestion of sex.

Again, this isn't a criticism of Harvey or the mods. I understand why the decision has been made (although I still don't understand why clothed people are problematic, or why bare male flesh is okay when the female version isn't...).


----------



## Jac1106 (Jan 13, 2012)

I don't understand why 1001nightspress' avatar was taken down. Was it because of something inside that carry-on luggage?


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

StraightNoChaser said:


> And no, I'm not a screaming lunatic, even though a woman commenting on misogyny, no matter how calm and rational she is, will always be seen as such by some people. Sad.


Ding ding ding.


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

Clearly we should just ban all covers. Everything is bound to offend someone. Or maybe, as Julie keeps saying, we should ban the ones that get reported and not rush out to self-ban ourselves.

But can we stop calling this "family friendly"? This isn't about families, it's about google ad money. Call it what it is: Google Friendly. If it was family friendly than covers that suggest violence or horror would also be banned. Just look at the "family films" section on Netflix. How many covers do you see with guns or knives or dripping blood? None.

This board used to be really useful and really fun. It's a shame to see it collapse like this.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jac1106 said:


> I don't understand why 1001nightspress' avatar was taken down. Was it because of something inside that carry-on luggage?


Let me reiterate, as there seem to be some misconceptions.

*The staff here at KBoards have not "taken down" anyone's avatar, cover signature or post based on the new Forum Decorum. 
*

Some members have asked in this thread if they should alter sigs or avatar and Harvey has responded. I believe 1001nightspress took out her avatar before even posting for the first time in this thread. Could be wrong, but that's what I see based on the posts here.

Betsy


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I get what you are saying, but apparently a bunch of people *are*offended by these covers and these covers do violate their family values and they are making a decision not to report them. Of course it feels like the mods are singling out erotica if that is all that is getting reported. Squeaky wheels. If people aren't reporting anything else, then the mods aren't going to go actively looking for problems that, through lack of reports, do not exist.
> 
> I stand by what I said. People can't have it both ways. This notion that erotica authors are "more mature" because they "allow" gore and violence to violate the site's policies by not reporting it is silly. It is a backhanded way of telling the rest of the membership they are a bunch of babies. It is insulting and does nothing to generate sympathy.
> 
> This isn't a new conversation. Harvey has time and time again politely asked people to tone down covers BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS. And while many authors have happily complied, a handful of people have decided to willfully ignore the policies and then feign surprise now that Harvey has had to bring the hammer down. I believe this complaint about blood and god is a red herring. It is meant to distract from the greater issue.


Ever considered that erotica authors are just more tolerant people? I personally think tolerance _is_ a sign of maturity.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> Ding ding ding.


[tongue firmly planted in cheek]

"You, my dear, must be PMSing."

[tongue removed from cheek]

Seriously, you do know that the history of the word "hysteria" comes from being correlated to the word "hysterectomy", right? It was thought that women complaining of certain nervous conditions (hysteria) was directly related to possessing a uterus so the removal (hysterectomy) was considered a cure.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I stand by what I said. People can't have it both ways. This notion that erotica authors are "more mature" because they "allow" gore and violence to violate the site's policies by not reporting it is silly. It is a backhanded way of telling the rest of the membership they are a bunch of babies. It is insulting and does nothing to generate sympathy.


I was willing to let all the aggression, extreme derailing hyperbole, rude comments go by in this thread. Emotions are high. People are feeling attacked on both sides. I really do see a lock coming if people can't drop the passive aggressive swipes at each other, or even the outright attacks.

Hyperbole and sarcasm don't have room in a reasoned, rational discussion. It serves to escalate emotion and little more.

But I stated a reason why _I_ didn't report covers I found offensive in response to a question of 'why don't you report them?' only to be shouted down, ridiculed, belittled and wrapped into one big blanket of the rest of the (implied) 'hysterical' people responding in this thread for whatever their reasons are for being upset (whether you think it's justified or not).

That's a mighty big brush you have there. I'm getting tired of being swiped with it.


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> I'm extremely disappointed that a forum with two women for moderators is jumping onto the societal bandwagon and deeming women's bodies as shameful, offensive, and to be hidden away for the sake of the children.
> 
> 'Bye.


Wow. Just wow. I'm sorry, but I deeply appreciate Ann's and Betsy's presence on these boards. I have a history as a rabid feminist, who embraced Women's Studies, etc, so I understand the dogma being spouted on this thread about women's sexuality vs. male sexuality. I will also say on a personal level it's great when you reach a point in life where you can see past that and be receptive to a variety of views on many subjects. Especially when you can reach the point of being respectful of people's opinions who differ from your own. But I don't understand any personal attack against Ann or Betsy. Sorry, I just don't.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Oaklandish said:


> But can we stop calling this "family friendly"? This isn't about families, it's about google ad money. Call it what it is: Google Friendly.
> 
> This board used to be really useful and really fun. It's a shame to see it collapse like this.


+1. I know it's just semantics, but it would make a big difference to me if this policy was called Advertising Friendly. At least then the sexism would be something Kboards was essentially forced to adhere to. I seriously doubt anyone has a problems with Kboards doing what they have to do to make money, so just be honest about it.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Jac1106 said:


> I don't understand why 1001nightspress' avatar was taken down. Was it because of something inside that carry-on luggage?


You'll have to ask 1001nightspress. We haven't taken down anybody's avatars.

I appreciate everyone's reaction, and know that our Family-Friendly rule is rattling a few of you quite a bit.

We're attempting to put in place a balance. It's not anti-erotica, and it's certainly not misogynistic. You may not agree with cultural or social conventions as they stand, but I think you know that there is currently a difference in how society views a man walking down the street topless, versus a woman. That ought not to surprise you... and if you want to change that, there's a whole lot of work to be done far beyond this discussion forum.

In terms of potential solutions, I would ask: how would *you* like us to define Family-Friendly? Some people are advocating for "anything goes." Other people are calling for "nothing should be allowed," as in no sigs or avatars.

So... if you disagree with our Family-Friendly policy... what are your proposals for a better solution to this? Let's discuss.


----------



## WordSaladTongs (Oct 14, 2013)

Jac1106 said:


> I don't understand why 1001nightspress' avatar was taken down. Was it because of something inside that carry-on luggage?


EDITED because apparently that avatar was not removed by mods.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I get what you are saying, but apparently a bunch of people *are*offended by these covers and these covers do violate their family values and they are making a decision not to report them. Of course it feels like the mods are singling out erotica if that is all that is getting reported. Squeaky wheels. If people aren't reporting anything else, then the mods aren't going to go actively looking for problems that, through lack of reports, do not exist.
> 
> I stand by what I said. People can't have it both ways. This notion that erotica authors are "more mature" because they "allow" gore and violence to violate the site's policies by not reporting it is silly. It is a backhanded way of telling the rest of the membership they are a bunch of babies. It is insulting and does nothing to generate sympathy.
> 
> This isn't a new conversation. Harvey has time and time again politely asked people to tone down covers BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS. And while many authors have happily complied, a handful of people have decided to willfully ignore the policies and then feign surprise now that Harvey has had to bring the hammer down. I believe this complaint about blood and god is a red herring. It is meant to distract from the greater issue.


You're right--if the sexual images are what's being reported then it makes sense to come down heavier on them, but I'm not sure this is true. ARE they being reported? In such mass numbers that there needs to be a new special rule in place? If so, I would think that in recent weeks we'd have noticed the signature bars changing as mods take down what's offended people. I follow the erotica threads and I haven't noticed that, nor has anyone grumbled about it (IIRC) and I'd think they would have.

As for claims of extra maturity, I don't get that from the posts but I'm not going to tell you that your inference is wrong and mine is right.

Ultimately, I think the biggest problem is that these new rules were presented under the header of "family friendliness" and, as someone else pointed out, human sexuality isn't exactly unfriendly to families and some of the edits have gone way too far (again, I'll bring up 1001nightspress's avatar edited--see above). I wouldn't expect people who are basically being told that their covers are offending families to not bring up the point that maybe guns pointed at the reader, blood covering the floor and boxes and wine glasses, and bodies being shot in half miiiiiight be unfriendly too--even if they aren't actually offended by them.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Oh boy.

I don't write or consume erotica, due to a variety of personal beliefs, but I do believe in the open court of ideas. That said, the rights of the private property owner are paramount. This isn't a public domain site; this is more like someone's house.

Someone brought up gore-filled, graphic covers and someone else brought up a gun phobia. First, any person looking at this issue from a rational perspective could see that the amount of titillating covers vastly outweighs the number of "violent" covers. It's quite a bold claim that such "horror" covers are anywhere near as ubiquitous as erotica covers at this point. Yes, if there were page after page of violent covers Harvey and co would have probably intervened at this point. They haven't, but they have intervened because erotica has so saturated this site that some of us can't even browse here at work, or in their homes, because this place is starting to feel like the magazine rack down at Starship. My wife is not a prude, for example, but she's double-taked walking past my laptop before.

Further, the implication seems to be that if the mods don't allow this content on their site, they're trodding on women, or sexuality, or whatever. I think that's ridiculous, and deflective. Since you're onboard with the mods not having the rights to ensure a certain content rating in their house, I'd say I should be expected to bring my Remington into your next social gathering, and maybe we can watch _Faces of Death_ while we're at it.

I mean, honestly, folks. Many of you have designed your covers to titillate. You chose to do that. You went with the eye-catching option that you knew would bring home the bacon. You have to accept the risks that come along with that. And since someone accused Julie unfairly of not being an adult--may I ask: what about someone who expects the world to agree with their outlook on human sexuality, then descends into straw men, ad hominem and threats to leave the first time they're politely asked to tone it down in a resource owned and operated by some rather gracious hosts?

Further point for those of you who think kboards is dropping some kind of iron fist: there are a lot of you in this thread who would have been banned on the spot for the way you're treating the mods right now. I've been on tons of boards, and this place is very, very laid back in comparison.


----------



## Jac1106 (Jan 13, 2012)

Oooops!   

I stand corrected. 1001nightspress deleted the avatar herself.


----------



## amy_wokz (Oct 11, 2014)

No problem. It's your board, and there are other boards where adult content is allowed.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

LBrent said:


> [[[[[ElHawk]]]]]
> 
> EXACTLY!
> 
> BTW, Harvey, no harm, no foul. I understand you're in a difficult position, my quarrel isn't with you truly. If anything, it's *** ******* ****** *** **** think for themselves. Yet another argument against babies produced by ******. Down with inbreeding! Lol


I was going to stay out of this, but I've had enough. If you're trying to be funny, you failed.

I'm a kindle owner. That's why I joined KB, to meet other kindle owners and interact with other people (readers, writers, graphic artists, I didn't care). The original members were kindle owners. They wanted to interact with other kindle owners. Over time, as self publishing evolved, more people who saw themselves as writers first arrived. And were welcomed. And I bought their books.

And from the start, the rules requested family friendly. Suitable for work. And I bought books out of sigs thanks to that. The rules have evolved over time.

For what it's worth, I read erotica.

In the end, it's Harvey's board and his rules.

Oh, and btw, i buy books from authors I find on KB. But mostly if I like the person. If I feel that they are insulting readers or other people here, then I move on to someone nicer.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Do I get a vote?

I think a gender neutral policy regarding bare chests and/or exposed nipples may be appropriate. That would certainly go far to end any perception of misogyny even where it's not intended.

Regarding gore, I'm not a fan (unless it's on _The Walking Dead_), so a clarification there could also be a good thing.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Harvey said:


> In terms of potential solutions, I would ask: how would *you* like us to define Family-Friendly? Some people are advocating for "anything goes." Other people are calling for "nothing should be allowed," as in no sigs or avatars.


I liked the suggestion about an adult only subforum for frank erotica discussion that doesn't result in sanitized words for underage ears to attempt to have any meaningful conversation. I am not a moderator, have never been one (and after this thread, I would never want to be one) so I don't know how easy that would be to implement and to moderate membership into.

It still doesn't solve the sig line situation but considering your reasons for doing so are based on a sound business decision, I think it's a moot point to try to fix. I'm sorry you're getting pushback on it. I respect that it must not have been an easy decision to make.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

anderson_gray said:


> I liked the suggestion about an adult only subforum for frank erotica discussion that doesn't result in sanitized words for underage ears to attempt to have any meaningful conversation. I am not a moderator, have never been one (and after this thread, I would never want to be one) so I don't know how easy that would be to implement and to moderate membership into.
> 
> It still doesn't solve the sig line situation but considering your reasons for doing so are based on a sound business decision, I think it's a moot point to try to fix. I'm sorry you're getting pushback on it. I respect that it must not have been an easy decision to make.


I think this is pretty close. Ideally, the sig creator tool would have an "enable in erotica board" checkbox that would automatically show/hide the cover based on which sub folks were browsing. Then just make the erotica-only board request-access-only, and you're off to the races.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

heidi_g said:


> Wow. Just wow. I'm sorry, but I deeply appreciate Ann's and Betsy's presence on these boards. I have a history as a rabid feminist, who embraced Women's Studies, etc, so I understand the dogma begin spouted on this thread about women's sexuality vs. male sexuality. I will also say on a personal level it's great when you reach a point in life where you can see past that and be receptive to a variety of views on many subjects. Especially when you can reach the point of being respectful of people's opinions who differ from your own. But I don't understand any personal attack against Ann or Betsy. Sorry, I just don't.


This.

And thank you very much for saying it. 

I think "tempest in a teacup" - mentioned by someone above - is about right. I'm amazed at the size of the tempest, though, and just hoping it subsides quickly.

It seems to me that you'd _really_ have to be looking very hard for something to be deeply offended about, to be deeply offended by this announcement of a minor and entirely understandable policy-change on a privately owned website.


----------



## Chance (Jul 2, 2014)

My proposal to the solution of this "Family Friendly" Policy still stands - but mainly because I haven't heard anyone disregarding it yet (I didn't bother re-reading the previous posts).

My reasoning behind putting the explicit erotica discussions into a separate section where only verified members can only access by being 18+ is to restrict those who may stubble into Kboards by coincidence or otherwise, and are not members of the boards yet, and thus will not be exposed to the material in offense (especially those who may be underaged). 

As said earlier, I know some can just as easily lie about their age and enter the separate section without a problem. But at least those that stubble into Kboards without membership will not be exposed to the explicit erotica discussions or images.

I only suggest this because I know a forum that had a similar restriction in terms of discussion about related topics (this was a MMORPG forum). It's personally the only compromise I can think of at this moment in terms of making everyone somewhat happy. Erotica authors or readers can still have access or have discussions with others on explicit topics of erotica, while others who are either not into the area or are simply not members will not be exposed to the matter.

There may be other and more applicable suggestions, but whatever.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Erotica authors are already banding together for mass exodus. It's like the Jews leaving Egypt, except sexier.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Where exactly ARE all of these covers dripping with gore and discussions of violent acts? I keep seeing this type of response, but where are these covers and posts? Someone want to point me in the direction of these rampaging gore covers folks are suddenly up in arms about? And if they do exist and you are up in arms, why haven't you reported them for guideline violations because, as both Anne and Betsy have noted, those covers violate the family-friendly guidelines as well.


Julie, I often agree with what you have to say, but on this topic I think you're maybe failing to see where people are coming from. I probably see a horror cover that squicks me out at least once every other day. However, I don't report them because: (a) I have a low tolerance for horror - though the stuff in your sig is OK to me, close-up pictures of partially decayed corpse faces, or horrific humanoid creatures with giant mouths are the sort of thing that will get me quickly scrolling away; and (b) because I don't want to be a part of censoring what other people have on their covers. I would hazard a bet that I'm not the only person who feels that way.

I'm not hit by this crackdown - and I will repeat that I appreciate that the board's hands are somewhat tied by Google - but the double standards of society IN GENERAL to female sexuality versus violence are deeply, deeply concerning at the moment. I think it's fair for people to want to discuss that.

I also don't like seeing so many good posters being made to feel unwanted. If board members are being hit by this crackdown then it is going to make them feel that they are not wanted here. That's not true. There may now be limits on what they can talk about here, or what they can show, but they as authors are valuable members of this community. But, looking through this thread, I can tell that a lot of them *don't feel like that right now*. I'm seeing posters I like and respect talking about leaving, and that makes me sad for this community. Can we please stop kicking people while they're down and instead, reassure everyone that they are very welcome here even if Google says their covers aren't.


----------



## Catnip (Sep 7, 2013)

I like the separate subforum idea too. 

Hopefully those who are offended by erotica would stay out of it. I don't understand why people read threads on topics they know they're not going to like (I'm thinking of the 'moral line' thread that got locked the other day).


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Kalypsō said:


> Erotica authors are already banning together for mass exodus. It's like the Jews leaving Egypt, except sexier.


actually, i find few erotic authors all that sexy.

and while i will be sorry to see PEOPLE leave, some attitudes will not be missed.

Oh, and I want to go on record as saying thank you to Harvey, Ann and Betsy for being as sane as they are.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Ersatz DT said:


> My proposal to the solution of this "Family Friendly" Policy still stands - but mainly because I haven't heard anyone disregarding it yet (I didn't bother re-reading the previous posts).
> 
> My reasoning behind putting the explicit erotica discussions into a separate section where only verified members can only access by being 18+ is to restrict those who may stubble into Kboards by coincidence or otherwise, and are not members of the boards yet, and thus will not be exposed to the material in offense (especially those who may be underaged).


The thing is that there really haven't been any "explicit discussions" going on to require a ghetto to bury the erotica authors in. If you look through the challenge threads there's no real explicit material in there short of a few joke titles. No one is posting blurbs. No one is asking for help on how to make their sex scenes hotter and more explicit. It's all been the exact same kind of nuts and bolts publishing questions/discussions that you'd get with any bunch of writers in their genre. How do keywords work? Where do you get your stock photos? Are you in KU or are you publishing outside of Amazon? Comparing sales stats. The odd thing or two like the joke titles is the sort of thing that it's easy enough to self-police.


----------



## o.gasim (Oct 5, 2014)

In general I like the change as I frequently peruse this board at work, but as an erotica writer, am worried that I will not be able to openly discuss ideas, story, or general kinks under this new guideline.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Irish Mint said:


> Given that they just removed 5+ pages of content from the 7-day thread, discussing erotica in any meaningful way on this forum is dead.


If that much content has been removed, I absolutely agree. This is a shame, because erotica is a legitimate genre at Amazon. It's one thing to request that images be removed, but when that much content is gone from the 7-day thread, I just shake my head.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

telracs said:


> actually, i find few erotic authors all that sexy.
> 
> and while i will be sorry to see PEOPLE leave, some attitudes will not be missed.


Okay. That's fine. I don't care if you find me sexy.  I don't post in my sig because I don't want to be one star bombed for being my honest self. I like the freedom to say what I please and not having to be afraid of people who don't like my forum "attitude" destroying my career.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

I just wanted to let it be known that I have absolutely nothing against Harvey for doing what needs to be done to keep this forum generating revenue. There are certain archaic, draconian standards that must be met to make that happen, and that's the very unfortunate thing about this whole mess.


----------



## Kathy (Nov 5, 2008)

Eclectic Authoress said:


> If that much content has been removed, I absolutely agree. This is a shame, because erotica is a legitimate genre at Amazon. It's one thing to request that images be removed, but when that much content is gone from the 7-day thread, I just shake my head.
> 
> We're blaming this all on Google, but if any of you prudes or Bible thumpers have stuck your noses into the erotica threads to cause trouble, you should be ashamed of yourselves.


I guess you haven't read all of the post. It has been clearly stated that no content has been taken down by a moderator.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> The thing is that there really haven't been any "explicit discussions" going on to require a ghetto to bury the erotica authors in. If you look through the challenge threads there's no real explicit material in there short of a few joke titles. No one is posting blurbs. No one is asking for help on how to make their sex scenes hotter and more explicit. It's all been the exact same kind of nuts and bolts publishing questions/discussions that you'd get with any bunch of writers in their genre. How do keywords work? Where do you get your stock photos? Are you in KU or are you publishing outside of Amazon? Comparing sales stats. The odd thing or two like the joke titles is the sort of thing that it's easy enough to self-police.


Ideally, I'd like to be able to _have_ the discussion without the stringent self-policing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Harvey said:


> I've been wading through all the posts from last night / this morning (hey, it's still early on the west coast..!).
> 
> I imagine that some authors have left, or will leave, because they object to the Family Friendly rules we've put in place. I respect that and, though I hate to see you go, it's certainly anyone's right to do so. And there are other good forums out there with, I'm sure, lighter sets of rules.
> 
> I will say that here, we've tried to strike a balance that will be "acceptable to most." Authors continue to be welcome here, and that includes erotica authors.


I'm not leaving. However, it's nice to know that there are alternatives for erotica authors. Frankly, there has to be.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Kathy said:


> I guess you haven't read all of the post. It has been clearly stated that no content has been taken down by a moderator.


*GOOD*.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm just here for the pony someone mentioned further back.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

telracs said:


> I was going to stay out of this, but I've had enough. If you're trying to be funny, you failed.


NOPE. I've never been accused of TRYING to be funny. 



> I'm a kindle owner. That's why I joined KB, to meet other kindle owners and interact with other people (readers, writers, graphic artists, I didn't care). The original members were kindle owners. They wanted to interact with other kindle owners.


I'm also a Kindle owner. Aren't they GREAT? Mine's a 7" Kindle Fire that my adult kids got me last XMas. I'm gonna upgrade to an HDX soon. Isn't it great that we met like this and have so very much in common?

GOTCHA. "We were here first. It's our playground so don't get comfortable and *****." Noted.



> Over time, as self publishing evolved, more people who saw themselves as writers first arrived. And were welcomed.


 Welcomed? Really? Erm. By other writers...OK, I won't poke the bear. Lol



> And I bought their books.


Good for you! I'll bet they were grateful and suitably humble.



> The rules have evolved over time.


 Erm. And now they're devolving. OK. I'm still withya.



> For what it's worth, I read erotica.


 Um. Thanx? 



> In the end, it's Harvey's board and his rules.


 Yup. It is. 



> Oh, and btw, I buy books from authors I find on KB. But mostly if I like the person. If I feel that they are insulting readers or other people here, then I move on to someone nicer.


Erm. So, I'm guessing it's a good thing for me that not only have I never put my books in my sig, but this isn't one of the SEVERAL pen names that I write under so I don't feel the need to **** **** *** *** *** ** *** ** and worry about ******* *** ****** ******* on my books, huh? Phew! That was a close call. 

Duly noted. 

Isn't it great when complete strangers on the Internet/fellow forum members can communicate in such a civilized manner? I feel like camping out under the stars, making S'Mores and singing a round of Kumbaya with you now that we've bonded like this.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Just a quick note to thank those who have been concerned about this being the end of KB (or words to that effect). I think the demise of KindleBoards / KBoards has been predicted several times over the years, usually at times where we've made some type of change. (A recent example is when we split the Writers' Cafe out from the Book Bazaar -- many members threatened to leave then, and some probably did leave, because of a perception they were being "ghettoed." That was not our intent, of course. And the results speak for themselves. Most authors would look back on that now as a good decision.)

We may very well see some members leave us over this Family-Friendly policy change. Our traffic levels and Alexa ranking may even go down. But the boards will still be here. Remember, I'm the guy who ran this site for a year when it had less than twenty members. So I'm willing to take a long view that, once we're past this initial (and understandable) reaction, this change will be good for our boards and our community of authors and readers here. Everyone remains welcome here.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> This makes me re-think whether I want to be a part of such a community. I strongly suspect that the answer is "no." I'll have to give it a few days to decide. I really am not happy about belonging to a community that thinks a woman's breasts are unfriendly to families, but blood strewn across the screen is something children should be exposed to.


I've left other forums, but there's lots of information here that makes it worth staying, in my opinion. So, I hope you stay.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm here with you, Harvey.


Betsy


----------



## Chance (Jul 2, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> The thing is that there really haven't been any "explicit discussions" going on to require a ghetto to bury the erotica authors in. If you look through the challenge threads there's no real explicit material in there short of a few joke titles. No one is posting blurbs. No one is asking for help on how to make their sex scenes hotter and more explicit. It's all been the exact same kind of nuts and bolts publishing questions/discussions that you'd get with any bunch of writers in their genre. How do keywords work? Where do you get your stock photos? Are you in KU or are you publishing outside of Amazon? Comparing sales stats. The odd thing or two like the joke titles is the sort of thing that it's easy enough to self-police.


That can be true. I didn't read enough of the erotica threads to make a clear assessment on which is explicit or not. I may jump into a thread or several to see what was being discussed, and from that I do agree that I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary discussed.

But I suggested the solution only to give at least something the mods can discuss about. Because quite frankly, the main complaints that I saw from erotica writers about the change are their freedom to discuss topics, put up books to read on erotica, and whether their avatar or book covers comply to the standards. That all can be remedied (or hopefully) by putting into a separate section that can be accessed by others that are into the genre and are of age (at least when signing up for membership). Anything goes under the sub-section with looser rules.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

anderson_gray said:


> Ideally, I'd like to be able to _have_ the discussion without the stringent self-policing.


That's fine, but there are other places for that. Just like there are other places to discuss the flight dynamics of WW2 airplanes and breeding Rottweilers. There are already topics about the Erotica Forums and several people posted Reddit links. Those are *private* walled-off areas where those types of discussions are appropriate.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Kboards has its issues but also remains the most active writers' forum on the internet, to my knowledge. Because I'm a lonely, home bound, recluse, I enjoy the ability to annoy people on the internet in the most active manner possible. 

I hope kboards remains and becomes stronger because of this. But, honestly, there is a great deal of implied misogyny in these new rules. I propose that all sigs be banned. They create a lot of problems. Either that, or this becomes a private, paid forum. Also solves problems.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

Zelah Meyer said:


> I'm not hit by this crackdown - and I will repeat that I appreciate that the board's hands are somewhat tied by Google - but the double standards of society IN GENERAL to female sexuality versus violence are deeply, deeply concerning at the moment. I think it's fair for people to want to discuss that.


YES. And it's not completely about female sexuality as much as there is a lot of misogyny directed toward women writers in general every-freaking-where. SFWA, anyone?

I'm not terribly active but I've read plenty of threads where posters passively-aggressively sneer at romance, e-rom, erotica, the covers, etc. It's constant and pervasive. And the majority of romance/e-rom/erotica is written by women. The mods try to deal with it but they can't get every instance and a lot of it flies under radar because it's accepted as okay to take knocks at the genre but I don't exactly see other genres getting knocked around so much.

And then this new policy comes up and it's couched in terms of "Family Friendly" like somehow writing erotica is a step below passing out apples with razor blades in them at Halloween. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Oh, well. That's the societal double standard," is lazy and bypasses the fact why people actually may be offended and even hurt by this change.


----------



## Silly Writer (Jul 15, 2013)

SevenDays said:


> I'm just here for the pony someone mentioned further back.


A bare-backed pony? Or will it be saddled? 

In all seriousness (sorry for the joke), I understand the new policy. Unfortunately, I do all my erom/erotica shopping form the sigs here, one at a time. This is because if I go straight to Amazon and search, they end up sending me emails with erotica and changing my browsing habits... Then someone in my fam goes on and sees my 'buying habits.' I've found if I just buy one now and then, directly from a sig line here, that doesn't happen.

So my vote is for a sub-forum where erotica/erom authors can still proudly display their covers.

And please, y'all... Lets be nice to each other. We've gotten over bigger hurdles than this... KU, Select, etc., with opposing positions, and still kept most of the population. I really don't want to see peeps leave over this. 

Edited to correct: I meant "browsing habits."


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

SevenDays said:


> I'm just here for the pony someone mentioned further back.


That was me. I'm still waiting.



KelliWolfe said:


> That's fine, but there are other places for that. Just like there are other places to discuss the flight dynamics of WW2 airplanes and breeding Rottweilers. There are already topics about the Erotica Forums and several people posted Reddit links. Those are *private* walled-off areas where those types of discussions are appropriate.


Fair enough. I had just hoped that kboards would be amenable to that. If they're not, I can go elsewhere, it's no big deal to me. I happen to like it here. I have found the erotica discussion, while restrained, still informative.

If they get further restrained, I'm not sure what good it will do to keep having them. And I'll go elsewhere.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

How could you possibly have a sub-forum where erotica sigs are permitted. Would that mean that erotica authors would only be able to post there? Hmm, sounds a little Jim Crow to me.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Anwen Stiles said:


> As a writer, I've got concerns about this kind of restriction. But as a woman, my concerns are exponentially compounded. I hate that this society presents female sexuality as something to be hidden away as if it were shameful (and at the same time objectifying her physicality to the point of absurdity). Meanwhile, male sexuality is on full display and considered safe for all. Witness the very books which have been disallowed in signatures so far here. Naked male torsos and suggestive situations have been okayed while fully clothed females in suggestive poses have been disallowed. Male sexuality--okay. Female sexuality--no, hide it, it makes us uncomfortable and it's not "family friendly." This double standard has been around my whole life, and I doubt I'll live to see an end to it.


Absolutely right.

Harvey's house, Harvey's rules? Fine. But Harvey wants us here, Harvey benefits from having us here. This is more than his house: it's a community. Communities tend to coalesce around values which may not be attuned with the values of the leader, or the values of those to whom the leader is accountable. A lot of folks in the community see these rules as just and necessary. That's grand. A lot of us oppose the change, however, and there are valid reasons why:
[list type=decimal]
[*]It's not about objectionable content, it's about objectionable _sexual_ content.
[*]It's not about sexuality, it's about _female_ sexuality.
[*]The standards themselves are dubious and by their nature are going to be enforced inconsistently. KBoards doesn't have the manpower to vet everything, or guarantee anything like due process.
[*]The change targets a group that's already marginalized, and which has come to expect a standard of openness and hospitality at KB.
[*]That group is disproportionately active on KB, and I think it's fair to assume they've made a disproportionate contribution to its thriving.
[*]The change was imposed without any debate, discussion, or empathy. Reasonable alternatives have been proposed in this thread, yet we have no sense that they were even considered. This is the sort of thing that always gets folks up in arms when Amazon does it. It's not at all surprising that there's a backlash after this was handled so poorly.
[/list]


Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I can't believe erotica authors feign like that don't understand the difference between bare breast or a naked butt compared to a gun. YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE! That is why you want to use those images! You write erotica. Your job is to titillate. Nudity titillates. Ergo, you KNOW the difference. No normal person sees a gun on a book cover and thinks "WOW! I can't wait to go out and shoot somebody!" But people do see nudity and become aroused. And you know this! That is why you use the images! To sell sex!


You're right that this is how things work in America, but you're wrong if you think that it should be. Violence does cause arousal, even if not in the sexual sense, and as EelKat pointed out, a picture of a gun can cause _physical harm_ to people if it's a PTS trigger. I don't think that's a thing with butts.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> It's the same thing when people raise concerns about their kids looking over their shoulders. You say "well, turn off signatures." But I can't target turn off signatures. What if I LIKE seeing everyone's signatures? I'm not allowed to view ANY signatures because erotica authors want to have nekkid butts on covers? Again, instead of simply taming down the signatures, too many erotica authors want to dictate to other members how they should behave. Is it really so hard to see the hypocrisy in this? There are some erotica authors who, if their behavior in this is any indication, seem to be of the opinion "Our rights are more important than everyone elses, and everyone else should be forced to change their behavior so that we can do what we want." That's wrong. Pure and simple.


Not all hangups are equal. Your embarrassment over being seen by a coworker at a site with erotica covers doesn't hold a candle to the physical and emotional whiplash of a trauma survivor. If it's truly about making it comfortable for everybody browsing KBoards or even nearby someone who is browsing KBoards, then the policy is wrong.

The truth is, I don't give a damn about kids and coworkers, or even KBoards members who themselves are made uncomfortable by suggestive lady parts (but not suggestive man bits). Supposing that I did, it still wouldn't be my highest priority in terms of cleaning up content to make things "Family Friendly." The policy isn't sensibly formulated to make everybody comfortable. Surely we wouldn't be on the ninth page of this thread if it was-lots of people are being made very uncomfortable. The policy is about making things more comfortable for a certain group of people, with a certain set of hangups.



LisaGloria said:


> OT: When I was a board mod on professional art boards, we had a standard of veracity. Anybody who came in with unsubstantiated claims would be called out for proof because we took pride in the quality of the information. It would be nice to see something like that here, instead of suggesting that people should put the most pathological posters on Ignore. A lot of noobs are getting advice from people who post some very weird stuff.


Couldn't agree more.



ElHawk said:


> Some of us are grown-up enough to realize that occasionally some things in this world will offend us, but that doesn't give us the right to scream and yell about them until the offensive person is silenced and the world becomes the Nerf-covered Utopia we wish it to be. Some of us are mature enough to realize that others have a right to express themselves, and that if we are offended by X, perhaps that's our issue, not the person who's doing X.


Also, when your feelings about something like, say, gun violence stem from something with deeper roots than your garden variety prudishness, it doesn't strike me as entirely fair to ask the traumatized party to take all of the responsibility for reporting it. Smacks of blaming the victim to me.



Geoffrey said:


> Yet you were just screaming and yelling about misogyny .... As I said earlier, give the mod team a chance. You are ready to assume the worst about the moderation in this section when nothing has been done yet.
> 
> Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.


The policy itself, as written, is misogynist. The damage is done.



Geoffrey said:


> I just used her terminology .... But thank you for making me wrong.


Why are you being passive aggressive and snarky in your posts? It reflects poorly upon you and the rest of the mod team. Why would we "give you a chance" when you comport yourself in this fashion?

Since Ann and Betsy have excellent manners, I hope that they will impart them to you before you cause any further damage.



Harvey said:


> In terms of potential solutions, I would ask: how would *you* like us to define Family-Friendly? Some people are advocating for "anything goes." Other people are calling for "nothing should be allowed," as in no sigs or avatars.
> 
> So... if you disagree with our Family-Friendly policy... what are your proposals for a better solution to this? Let's discuss.


Better on page 8 than ever, I guess?

Honestly, I don't have any brilliant ideas. What're you to do? Ghettoize erotic depictions of women? I don't agree with that. Eliminate _all_ sigs, book bars, and avatars that are anything less than 100% bland? I don't agree with that, and it'd gut any affiliate revenue you're getting.

If it's possible for KB to survive without AdSense, let them walk away if they don't like the erotic content. Let folks complaining about kids or coworkers continue to alt+tab or hide sigs. I'm not asking you to burn a bra or anything, but at a minimum, maintain the status quo. At least stand firm against the perverted sense of morality that underpins all of this.

And if KB can't survive without AdSense, then I guess it's dead for a lot of folks one way or another. Damned shame, but don't call it "Family Friendliness." Call it a painful decision that you had to make in order to keep KBoards around. Give folks a sense that you're not on the side of the censors and hypocrites. Tell them that you're sorry that a part of the community that you built with them-a community that they've come to love and enjoy-is being lost. It might go down easier.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Harvey said:


> it's certainly not misogynistic. You may not agree with cultural or social conventions as they stand, but I think you know that there is currently a difference in how society views a man walking down the street topless, versus a woman. That ought not to surprise you... and if you want to change that, there's a whole lot of work to be done far beyond this discussion forum.
> 
> So... if you disagree with our Family-Friendly policy... what are your proposals for a better solution to this? Let's discuss.


This most certainly is a misogynistic policy. I'm not calling you sexist, I'm really not I swear, but this policy as it stands is exactly that, which I find very family unfriendly.

We aren't just comparing bare male chest to bare female breasts walking down the street. You are saying that a nude male in a provocative pose, that links to sexual material, is not titillating in any way, yet a clothed women with a certain look in her eye is obscene. If that isn't a sexist and misogynistic stance on the issue, what is?

I'm not attacking you, and I adore this forum, it's members, and it's mods. But the fact that sexism is normalized in many cultures isn't an excuse for it to be normalized here.

Sidenote: It's only completely illegal for a woman to be topless in public in three US states, and nudity is fine in many other cultures, including much of Europe where many Kboards members are from. There are a lot of different cultural norms to consider, even if you remain exclusively within the US. What 'Society' thinks or how 'our culture' reacts is very relative.

We're not trying to changed the world here, we are genuinely concerned about _the culture on Kboards specifically_. This policy is offensive to many very active and helpful members here. You obviously care about our reaction, and you have the power to apply the 'no sexual images' policy fairly, yet you seem to be choosing to ignore the double standards entirely.

Images of males are titillating and provoke a physical and psychological sexual response to people who are attracted to males. Why do you think romance and erotica authors use them so frequently? If family friendly = ban titillating covers, which totally makes sense, these covers should be included.

And another vote for no blood and gore. I've stumbled across some disturbing images that would frighten children. 'Society' thinks that is less damaging than physical expressions of love, yet you appear to be willing to go against the grain there. Food for thought.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Wait. We're getting PONIES

OMG!


----------



## Silly Writer (Jul 15, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> How could you possibly have a sub-forum where erotica sigs are permitted. Would that mean that erotica authors would only be able to post there? Hmm, sounds a little Jim Crow to me.


Good point, Kalypso. Maybe some tech-genius could figure out how to only have the sigs rated (G, R, E), and have them only show up on "R" rated sub forums? Or maybe I'm just tech-stupid... Actually, I am. But there's got to be a way to do that.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

SBright said:


> And then this new policy comes up and it's couched in terms of "Family Friendly" like somehow writing erotica is a step below passing out apples with razor blades in them at Halloween. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Oh, well. That's the societal double standard," is lazy and bypasses the fact why people actually may be offended and even hurt by this change.


I'm sorry, but no one has an innate right not to be offended. Writing fiction of any kind should not be undertaken if you expect the world to completely agree with everything you ever write, the points of view expressed with them, or the content within those works. We're professionals. Suffering disagreement, even unfair disagreement, is what we should expect at times.

There was a prominent thread recently that never even touched on erotica a while back that discussed authors "preaching" in their books. Having people disagree with what we write or our ideas is part and parcel of being in the open court of ideas.

Point of consideration: it's revealing how the same folks complaining of some sort of debasement of erotica authors are labeling those that don't agree with their points of view. Looking back over the last several pages, it appears those in favor of these standards--or at least expressing understanding for them--are:

Prudish
Puritanical
Pro-censorship
"Bible Thumpers"
Misogynistic
Advocates for Double Standards
etc. etc.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Wow I have not seen a thread grow viral like this since the Hachette super merged thread began its multi-faceted existence. I don't see it as my argument as I have no family, no work, and don't write erotica. However, if anyone is offended by volcanoes or coffee mugs I will happily remove those covers.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

I'm out of touch for a day and look what happens. I haven't read all of the posts, but I've gotten the gist of what's going on and naturally, there are opposing views.

Harvey, I've been a member here since 11/08 (anniversary coming up ... cake would be welcome) and there have been times I've disagreed with your decisions. That being said, I know you've always made those decisions for the good of the forum. Maybe I should say the health of the forum as I think that's more accurate. That, to me, is what's important.

Ann and Betsy, I've sometimes disagreed with you, too, but again, I applaud you for doing a difficult job with grace and humor (and sometimes a cattle prod).

So, I'll just say, keep up the good work and I'm here for the duration. But I'm not here for the duration of this thread.

PS: I never turned off signatures but I actually never look at them.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

L.L. Akers said:


> Good point, Kalypso. Maybe some tech-genius could figure out how to only have the sigs rated (G, R, E), and have them only show up on "R" rated sub forums? Or maybe I'm just tech-stupid... Actually, I am. But there's got to be a way to do that.


I hope my comment didn't come across as aggressive to you personally. This whole thing is kind of bonkers. I know you didn't mean to be exclusionary.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I don't see it as my argument as I have no family, no work, and don't write erotica. However, if anyone is offended by volcanoes or coffee mugs I will happily remove those covers.


I spewed coffee reading this. Lol

Too funny!


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

I would be against a sub-forum for erotica authors because I think that in the long run it would only compound what's happening right here. It would lead to a growing divide between "us" and "them" and certain people would complain and insist that any topics related to erotica be sent to the back of the bus, regardless of whether they actually contained any questionable content.

I am also very much against the idea of eliminating all books from people's sigs to level the playing field. A lot of people buy books based on those sigs, and you're hurting the readers as much as you're hurting the sig owner. I've personally grabbed half a dozen books this week based on covers in peoples' sigs and it would be a shame to lose that.

From what I've seen Harvey has been perfectly reasonably in what he's asked people to remove/refrain from based on advertiser requirements. If this appears misogynistic, it's an unfortunate fact of life when dealing with Google, as many, many erotica authors using AdSense have discovered in the past. It's all well and good to rail against it, but at the end of the day it's the only game in town and with the massive traffic kboards gets I doubt that any reasonable subscription fees would cover the hosting costs.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Wow I have not seen a thread grow viral like this since the Hachette super merged thread began its multi-faceted existence. I don't see it as my argument as I have no family, no work, and don't write erotica. However, if anyone is offended by volcanoes or coffee mugs I will happily remove those covers.


Is the coffee mug pink? I'm not big on pink.

~~~

Harvey, thank you for offering Writers' Cafe at Kboards. I have benefitted tremendously from your forum, it has changed my life, and therefore, I'm not leaving it.

You're doing what you need to do to comply with Google, etc. Just because we're voicing our complaints, doesn't mean we don't understand it. Thankfully, erotica authors have alternative places where we can discuss erotica freely and without retribution.

And I don't think you should treat this as a democracy. You make the rules. We can either follow them or leave.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

I feel like getting puppets out and explaining misogyny for people who don't seem to understand the term.


----------



## Chance (Jul 2, 2014)

Kalypsō said:


> How could you possibly have a sub-forum where erotica sigs are permitted. Would that mean that erotica authors would only be able to post there? Hmm, sounds a little Jim Crow to me.


I knew it would come up sooner or later.

But that's taking a bit far. I'd compare this sub-forum idea to other, less-controversial topics. It's somewhat similar to Reddit's subforums for erotica - every time you access the erotica authors subforum, an age check appears. It's a simple yes-no question.

Also applies to the rules about no-smoking areas. Just because there's public establishments that disallow smoking and only allowed in designated areas does not mean they are trying to scream "Jim Crow laws" to smokers.

The idea behind the sub-forum is to allow two things: 1. To allow some reinforcement to what Harvey and the moderators are putting up with the "Family Friendly" rule change. And 2. This allows a specific area of discussion on erotica and to have the opportunity to advertise such works without the pressure of worrying about whether the covers are in compliance to the forum's Family Friendly rules.

As said earlier, it's just a suggestion. And of course you're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> Wait. Hold on. I thought this whole thing was because family folk have the right not to be offended by nasty lady-bits...


No, it's because Google has a de facto monopoly on the internet ad market.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

SBright said:


> I feel like getting puppets out and explaining misogyny for people who don't seem to understand the term.


Can you include a pony? That would make me feel better.


----------



## 58907 (Apr 3, 2012)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> I'm sorry, but no one has an innate right not to be offended. Writing fiction of any kind should not be undertaken if you expect the world to completely agree with everything you ever write, the points of view expressed with them, or the content within those works. We're professionals. Suffering disagreement, even unfair disagreement, is what we should expect at times.
> 
> There was a prominent thread recently that never even touched on erotica a while back that discussed authors "preaching" in their books. Having people disagree with what we write or our ideas is part and parcel of being in the open court of ideas.
> 
> ...


THIS.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

The idea of sub-forums has come up several times in the past. It's never happened because, I think, it was thought that segregating wouldn't be good for the overall health of the boards. It would create cliques and that's seldom a good thing. I can see why erotica authors would want it, but would it be good for the board overall? I don't know.

Let me pose a question. Assuming the new rules for covers must exist, what would you *add* to them to make them more equitable?


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

Wow this thread exploded!  

Are there double standards between depictions of female anatomy and male? Of course. Go blame the Puritans or the Christians or the Muslims or pretty much all of American culture. That's not Harvey's fault, and if he's holding to the "American standard" of what's okay for public exposure, you can't really blame him. Go ahead and have a big discussion about how fearful America is about sex compared to places like Asia or Europe, but don't get all up in arms about a website policy. 

As for me, I've been enjoying the discussions here on Kboards. I plan on continuing to do so, and if I need to change a cover in my sig or have a post edited, I'll do so, but I won't worry about it until they tell me to do so. 

For those who like having the traffic to their books, you realize you can always just create links with no images, right? If I have an offensive cover, that's probably what I'll do. Problem solved. 

Anyways, thanks for the clarification, Harvey.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> Point of consideration: it's revealing how the same folks complaining of some sort of debasement of erotica authors are labeling those that don't agree with their points of view. Looking back over the last several pages, it appears those in favor of these standards--or at least expressing understanding for them--are:
> 
> Prudish
> Puritanical
> ...


I'm sorry. Everyone at Kboards is open-minded. I forgot about that. I got this forum mixed up with another one.

My bad.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

SBright said:


> I feel like getting puppets out and explaining misogyny for people who don't seem to understand the term.


Wait, popcorn, puppets AND a pony? Yes!


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> I'm sorry, but no one has an innate right not to be offended.
> 
> *and*
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how these two statements aren't completely hypocritical.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

StraightNoChaser said:


> This most certainly is a misogynistic policy. I'm not calling you sexist, I'm really not I swear, but this policy as it stands is exactly that, which I find very family unfriendly.
> 
> We aren't just comparing bare male chest to bare female breasts walking down the street. You are saying that a nude male in a provocative pose, that links to sexual material, is not titillating in any way, yet a clothed women with a certain look in her eye is obscene. If that isn't a sexist and misogynistic stance on the issue, what is?


That stance certainly would be sexist and misogynistic... but that's not our policy. Some are trying to interpret it that way, but I refer you to the OP. As it's defined there, a nude male in a provocative pose would not be considered acceptable. This applies to males and females.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Reminds me of reviews that start with "I'm not a prude, but <long explanation of my prudish responses here>."


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> I'm not sure how these two statements aren't completely hypocritical.


Here. Have one of my puppets and we can put on a show to explain it.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

And so it begins.... :::Theoden voice:::


----------



## Vermicious Knid (Apr 1, 2013)

those who agree with my position on this matter are reasonable, sensible people with strong morals and no need to prove anything. those who disagree are outlandish freaks that hold opinions that border on caricature and are too emotionally attached to the issue to offer civil discourse. 

my position on this matter is that pumpkin spice is disgusting.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Vermicious Knid said:


> ...
> my position on this matter is that pumpkin spice is disgusting.


Now you're really asking for trouble!


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> I 100% agree with this question. I find violence and gore (though not necessarily guns) extremely offensive, and if I had kids, I'd far rather they see positive portrayals of sexuality than have them come to view violence as an acceptable form of entertainment.
> 
> The problem with over-moderating for "family friendliness" is that your definition of what's "family-friendly" might not be the same as mine, by a long shot.
> 
> ...


I completely agree. I, too, am rethinking my participation here. My covers aren't involved, but that isn't the point. This offends me VERY much.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Vermicious Knid said:


> those who agree with my position on this matter are reasonable, sensible people with strong morals and no need to prove anything. those who disagree are outlandish freaks that hold opinions that border on caricature and are too emotionally attached to the issue to offer civil discourse.
> 
> my position on this matter is that pumpkin spice is disgusting.


I don't remember her. Was she the one who was always between posh spice and baby spice, or was she the other one?


----------



## blunch (Oct 22, 2014)

Vermicious Knid said:


> those who agree with my position on this matter are reasonable, sensible people with strong morals and no need to prove anything. those who disagree are outlandish freaks that hold opinions that border on caricature and are too emotionally attached to the issue to offer civil discourse.
> 
> my position on this matter is that pumpkin spice is disgusting.


Things are getting ugly in here.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

I'm truly astonished that anyone can seriously imagine that this is a "misogynistic policy". Honestly, you couldn't make up some of the stuff that's been expressed in this thread.  

Back to "Not Quite Kindle", for me.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

> ...I really am not happy about belonging to a community that thinks a woman's breasts are unfriendly to families, but blood strewn across the screen is something children should be exposed to.


Once again... I agree with you that children should not be exposed to blood strewn across the screen. I have no desire to see those, and we respond to member reports when something is posted that they are offended by. So I don't think we're as far apart in our viewpoints as you might like to think.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

I just want to say that since I pulled my sig my sales have completely cratered. Apparently my entire readership was made up of kboarders who can no longer find my work to get a quick smut fix.

The horror. The horror...


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Will be glad to remove any of my covers that are deemed offensive.  

I'm just glad they're not offensive for being gay!!!!!  

I don't think frank discussions of certain topics like pseudo incest and how close to the line you can get are misogynistic.  They could involve two men.    Neither are underage topics, many kink discussions, etc.    

The cover issue I can understand and I'll try to comply with whatever the rules end up being.  I would hate to have to remove all my sigs because I get sales/borrows from this site and I'm glad for them!!  All part of the path to earning a living.

Honestly, I may not stay forever, but I appreciate all I've learned here and all the time I've wasted avoiding writing.  (Yeah...maybe shouldn't have said that one aloud.)  ;-D


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

What is the male equivalent of a dressed woman who is kind of bending over and holding her hair with her lips parted? There is no male equivalent, because men don't do poses like that. They are considered feminine  poses, and god forbid a man feminize himself. You wan't even find male poses like that. A man would have to be grabbing himself to be equivalent.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

Dolphin said:


> And if KB can't survive without AdSense, then I guess it's dead for a lot of folks one way or another. Damned shame, but don't call it "Family Friendliness." Call it a painful decision that you had to make in order to keep KBoards around. Give folks a sense that you're not on the side of the censors and hypocrites. Tell them that you're sorry that a part of the community that you built with them--a community that they've come to love and enjoy--is being lost. It might go down easier.


You're making a lot of sense to me. I really don't care if I can't display my covers in my sig. I'd like that there weren't double male/female standards. And I'd like it if the family friendliness card was not used. Thank you Dolphin. 










SBright! This bloody avatar is offensive to me!


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

anderson_gray said:


> Can you include a pony? That would make me feel better.


Wait. Puppets AND ponies



Someone's sure to be offended now.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Kalypsō said:


> What is the male equivalent of a dressed woman who is kind of bending over and holding her hair with her lips parted? There is no male equivalent, because men don't do poses like that. They are considered feminine poses, and god forbid a man feminize himself. You wan't even find male poses like that. A man would have to be grabbing himself to be equivalent.


A man grabbing himself would be unacceptable. That is a good example. Another would be the standard underwear ad with a man lying back open shirted with his legs spread

As Harvey stated, covers with models, male or female, in provocative poses would fall outside the revised guidelines.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

KelliWolfe said:


> I don't remember her. Was she the one who was always between posh spice and baby spice, or was she the other one?


No, pumpkin spice was the one they used for Halloween gigs....or was that scary spice?


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Nathalie Aynié said:


> You're making a lot of sense to me. I really don't care if I can't display my covers in my sig. I'd like that there weren't double male/female standards. And I'd like it if the family friendliness card was not used. Thank you Dolphin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Other than the conversation around bare male and bare female chests, are there other standards you see as different between the genders? Do you support a move to restrict images of bare chests regardless of gender? I certainly think that goes a way to clarifying a more gender neutral stance in the policy change.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> Not everybody is childish enough to report everything that offends them, Julie.
> 
> Some of us are grown-up enough to realize that occasionally some things in this world will offend us, but that doesn't give us the right to scream and yell about them until the offensive person is silenced and the world becomes the Nerf-covered Utopia we wish it to be. Some of us are mature enough to realize that others have a right to express themselves, and that if we are offended by X, perhaps that's our issue, not the person who's doing X.


I'm not affected by this policy as I don't keep my books in my sig, but, this right here, pretty much sums up my thoughts on the entire issue and I agree with the earlier sentiments that said there is a fair bit of misogyny being displayed by the new policy. It'll be interesting to see where this leads.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Going Incognito said:


> Wait, popcorn, puppets AND a pony? Yes!





Colin said:


> No, pumpkin spice was the one they used for Halloween gigs....or was that scary spice?


Popcorn and pumpkin spice

Well, that settles it. We're all going to h*ll in gasoline drawers!


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

Geoffrey said:


> Other than the conversation around bare male and bare female chests, are there other standards you see as different between the genders? Do you support a move to restrict images of bare chests regardless of gender? I certainly think that goes a way to clarifying a more gender neutral stance in the policy change.


I don't mind seeing any kind of covers here. I don't feel the need to take them away. I think Amazon-approved covers are tame enough to be displayed. But people don't have to share my opinion, and I get that some other people may prefer not having bloody or sexy covers. That is their choice and their right, not to be exposed to them. Technically, there is no easy way to deal with this, though. Too many parameters.

Since I understand this is something the forum has to go through to keep earning revenue, it would certainly seem a lot fairer to me if there was not a distinction between male/female nakedness. But I'm a feminist and I don't like double standards. 

I'm not sure that would resolve everyone's problems, though. I can only talk for myself.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Geoffrey said:


> A man grabbing himself would be unacceptable. That is a good example. Another would be the standard underwear ad with a man lying back open shirted with his legs spread
> 
> As Harvey stated, covers with models, male or female, in provocative poses would fall outside the revised guidelines.


Yes. A man has to be in his underwear spreading his legs to be offensive, but a woman can be fully clothed and be offensive. Double standard? I'd like to see an example of a fully clothed male pose that is offensive where he isn't grabbing his junk. Please, I want to see this non-double standard.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> Yes. A man has to be in his underwear spreading his legs to be offensive, but a woman can be fully clothed and be offensive. Double standard? I'd like to see an example of a fully clothed male pose that is offensive where he isn't grabbing his junk. Please, I want to see this non-double standard.


This, too.
Thank you for pointing that out.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

> Make mine a pink unicorn...


Disgusting!


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/men-ups-manly-men-in-classic-pin-up-poses

Are these men posing in a feminized manner offensive?


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/men-ups-manly-men-in-classic-pin-up-poses
> 
> Are these men posing in a feminized manner offensive?


I'm pretty shocked with that one:












His moobs and crotch are so sexualized.


----------



## Patrick.S (Oct 8, 2013)

We all draw lines in the sand every day. I don't go to the grocery store in my alltogethers. Most of the time I shower with my clothes off though. Harvey has drawn his where he thinks it ought to be for this site. When my forum PBoards (try to say that without laughing) goes live, I'm going to insist that all covers use comic sans and MS Paint blood splatter.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I find the first one's beard extremely titillating. I need a fan.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/men-ups-manly-men-in-classic-pin-up-poses
> 
> Are these men posing in a feminized manner offensive?


I don't know. Those are some sexy boots in the second one, though.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

The pics are fine - but those duck lips have got to go.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

I guess I would be considered "Family Folk" but I'm certainly am not offended by what other people choose to write or whether they display their covers in the sig lines or wherever. When my kids walk in and there is the potential for them to view something inappropriate on the computer, I yell, "The cat puked in here! Somebody has to clean it up."

Clears the room in _nano_-seconds.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Kalypsō said:


> I find the first one's beard extremely titillating. I need a fan.


I suspect he's a bit too 'jihadi' for most tastes.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Donna White Glaser said:


> I guess I would be considered "Family Folk" but I'm certainly am not offended by what other people choose to write or whether they display their covers in the sig lines or wherever. When my kids walk in and there is the potential for them to view something inappropriate on the computer, I yell, "The cat puked in here! Somebody has to clean it up."
> 
> Clears the room in _nano_-seconds.


I use the same method to get my husband to leave the room when I'm wrapping his Christmas present. Works great and we don't even have a cat.....


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Well. Instead of getting my rocks off laughing at myself on Kboards, I should probably go make a sandwich or something. No seriously, I have dishes to wash and porn to write. It's all about the Benjamins baby. 

XOXO


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

Vermicious Knid said:


> those who agree with my position on this matter are reasonable, sensible people with strong morals and no need to prove anything. those who disagree are outlandish freaks that hold opinions that border on caricature and are too emotionally attached to the issue to offer civil discourse.
> 
> my position on this matter is that pumpkin spice is disgusting.


Look, can we be honest here? It's not pumpkin spice. There's no pumpkin involved. That's just what the oppressive conspiracy wants you to think.

It's nutmeg. Just nutmeg. Let's call it as it is.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Kalypsō said:


> I'm not sure how these two statements aren't completely hypocritical.


And I'm not sure what isn't clear about my point, but there you go.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

Nathalie Aynié said:


> SBright! This bloody avatar is offensive to me!


Not only that, I have that image on one of my favorite t-shirts. And I wear it in front of my children.

I'm a complete failure at being "Family Friendly" to my own family.

*hands head in mock shame*


----------



## Nihilist (Aug 9, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/men-ups-manly-men-in-classic-pin-up-poses
> 
> Are these men posing in a feminized manner offensive?


This made me think of the Hawkeye initiative. http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/


----------



## Alexis Adaire (Mar 20, 2014)

Nathalie Aynié said:


> I'm pretty shocked with that one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can totally see his balls!


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Oaklandish said:


> Look, can we be honest here? It's not pumpkin spice. There's no pumpkin involved. That's just what the oppressive conspiracy wants you to think.
> 
> It's nutmeg. Just nutmeg. Let's call it as it is.


On behalf of pumpkins everywhere I consider this racist. OK, I may not actually be a pumpkin, but I fully support them in their struggles.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> And I'm not sure what isn't clear about my point, but there you go.


I'm too busy surpassing my husband's income from running his AV business 60-80 hours a week, while I'm a full time mom and housewife and writing porn, to explain it to you.

Peace out brotha.


----------



## Vermicious Knid (Apr 1, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


>


guy oughta be wearin' them boots and his jeans on the floor


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

These are super tame actually compared to a lot of gay romance covers, much less the erotica ones...


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

Wow, Umm ok so let me get this right, if I write a book and the cover I want to go with that book is suggestive and such and I paid to have that cover done, I am now going to ALSO have to pay for a "family friendly" cover just to display here or not display that work at all? For erotica, romance and erotica romance authors starting out that is an added expense that may not be in the budget. 

You can tell them to use a family friendly cover for the book but then their book will NOT fit into the genre in sales channels.

I get were your going with this and i see the positive in it but I also see a negative as well.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Geoffrey said:


> If you need to vent, please, feel free and I'll let you vent all over me.





Kalypsō said:


> I don't consider it venting. I consider it political satire. But thanks for the underhanded flirtation. I'm soooo honored.


I feel so dirty.


----------



## M.G. Russell (Sep 23, 2014)

Well, I've stayed out of this debate up to this point but am finally forced to comment.


Alexis Adaire said:


> You can totally see his balls!


If we are going to have such sexual pictures as this on this thread then it is scandalous! ROFL

On a serious note, I'm so sorry to see this happening here on KBoards. It has been a good place to meet other authors who also happen to write erotica. However, in my opinion, there is no longer a welcome mat for any author who writes erotica here and that's sad. I sure don't feel welcome here and while I will continue to read the boards I don't suspect I'll be posting much in the future. The double standards of cutting out covers and discussions that have a sexual connotation and leaving all the gore and blood and guns and other horror stuff untouched says to me that this in *not* about being family friendly, it's about not wanting erotica. In my opinion, and from the posts in this thread I see in other's opinions also, the gore and blood are far more family unfriendly than a woman's breasts partially exposed or a woman looking like she might enjoy her own sexuality. So why is 'family friendly' only censoring erotica and not the gore?


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

SBright said:


> I feel like getting puppets out and explaining misogyny for people who don't seem to understand the term.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> On behalf of pumpkins everywhere I consider this racist. OK, I may not actually be a pumpkin, but I fully support them in their struggles.


I suspect it's "vegetablist" as opposed to racist.

Are you offended?

If you are, I take offense to your offense!


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

I got no dog in this fight since I neither read nor write erotica. (Not a judgment, just sticking to what I'm good at.)

I do have opinions on the underlying issue, but I come here for help on writing and publishing issues not to espouse my socio-political opinions.

And since my pole dancer got a hall pass, none of my covers are likely to fail muster. But if one did, here's what I'd do.

I the old days we used to joke that we hoped our titles would be "banned in Boston" because that would guarantee a lot more readers would at least look at them. If they got banned in KBoards, might as well take advantage of that. In my signature, I'd substitute this cover with the title and author filled in:










(You are welcome to download and use this image, although you can probably do it better.)

I would also retag the amazon link to my own affiliate account.

Just a thought, which I hope doesn't get me banned.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Kalypsō said:


> I'm too busy surpassing my husband's income from running his AV business 60-80 hours a week, while I'm a full time mom and housewife and writing porn, to explain it to you.
> 
> Peace out brotha.


Oh, good grief.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> Oh, good grief.


I thought you would appreciate that. 
    

Kisses.

PS. I breastfed all my children in public.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Kalypsō said:


> I thought you would appreciate that.
> 
> 
> Kisses.
> ...


There's a story in that...


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Nathalie Aynié said:


>


I give him an 8. He needs to pucker up just a bit more.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Kalypsō said:


> I thought you would appreciate that.
> 
> 
> Kisses.
> ...


As does my wife. Have a great day.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

EelKat said:


> OMG! I took my dad to run some errands and came back and...WOW! How did this thread get so long so fast?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know, looks like too much group...happiness...to me. Especially that bottom one.



Geoffrey said:


> The pics are fine - but those duck lips have got to go.


Ok, now that's funny.



Alexis Adaire said:


> You can totally see his balls!


Yep, I'm offended. 



LBrent said:


> I feel so dirty.


Me, too. But I like it!


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Crayola said:


> Hey, you changed your name and sig?


Lol, why yes, I did. 
And then the mods were kind enough to change it for me further, lol. (But that's fine  they have tough jobs. )


----------



## Patrick.S (Oct 8, 2013)

Kalypsō said:


> I thought you would appreciate that.
> 
> 
> Kisses.
> ...


Wanted to note that to me at least, there are breasts and then there are breasts. The images in question were chosen for erotica covers because they are sexual. That's actually the main reason they were chosen. It's not like people have women breastfeeding babies on their covers (that I know of) or medical diagrams of breasts. I don't mind erotic book covers but let's not pretend that sexualized covers aren't sexual.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

It's a good thing I write about farts. They're family friendly!

Wait...they're not


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

StraightNoChaser said:


> Sidenote: It's only completely illegal for a woman to be topless in public in three US states, and nudity is fine in many other cultures, including much of Europe where many Kboards members are from. There are a lot of different cultural norms to consider, even if you remain exclusively within the US. What 'Society' thinks or how 'our culture' reacts is very relative.


Including some parts of Canada, including where I am. Being topless, as a woman, is not illegal where I live.



StraightNoChaser said:


> We aren't just comparing bare male chest to bare female breasts walking down the street. You are saying that a nude male in a provocative pose, that links to sexual material, is not titillating in any way, yet a clothed women with a certain look in her eye is obscene. If that isn't a sexist and misogynistic stance on the issue, what is?


This is where I come down as well, I'm afraid.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Donald Rump said:


> It's a good thing I write about farts. They're family friendly!
> 
> Wait...they're not


If farts weren't family friendly they'd pretty much have to yank all the programming on Nickelodeon.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Patrick.S said:


> Wanted to note that to me at least, there are breasts and then there are breasts. The images in question were chosen for erotica covers because they are sexual. That's actually the main reason they were chosen. It's not like people have women breastfeeding babies on their covers (that I know of) or medical diagrams of breasts. I don't mind erotic book covers but let's not pretend that sexualized covers aren't sexual.


It's analogous, isn't it, to the argument that a gun on a cover makes a violent cover. The gun alone isn't the issue. If I've got a guy with a gun in mortal combat (cue music) with someone, then that's a violent cover. I don't think it's fair to assume that someone who didn't want graphic violence in front of their kids seized up at the sight of blood, or wanted to confiscate all firearms.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Going Incognito said:


> Yep, I'm offended.


I'll see your offense and raise you a defense and a picket fence!

(I was gonna add in a chain link fence, but I figured that might offend those offended by chain. See what I did there, being considerate and all?)


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

StraightNoChaser said:


> You are saying that a nude male in a provocative pose, that links to sexual material, is not titillating in any way, yet a clothed women with a certain look in her eye is obscene.


Where was this actually said?


----------



## Patrick.S (Oct 8, 2013)

For the record, I think that man boobies fall into the same category. Although I find them far more funny than sexy, they were chosen for their suggestive nature.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

LBrent said:


> I'll see your offense and raise you a defense and a picket fence!
> 
> (I was gonna add in a chain link fence, but I figured that might offend those offended by chain. See what I did there, being considerate and all?)


Oh no, a rising anything, especially a picket, isn't good here anymore.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Harvey said:


> That stance certainly would be sexist and misogynistic... but that's not our policy. Some are trying to interpret it that way, but I refer you to the OP. As it's defined there, a nude male in a provocative pose would not be considered acceptable. This applies to males and females.


I very much appreciate your response and your openness to discuss this issue.

I'm starting to think the problem is a misunderstanding of what heterosexual females and homosexual males find provocative. A guy shouldn't have to lay down with his legs spread to be considered sexualized.  A front on stance of a flexed, bare male torso is much more likely to ignite a sexual response. If this torso is headless, it's basically _screaming_ sex. A shot of lower abdominal muscles is roughly the equivalent of cleavage. Tugging the belt loop down on the jeans would be like adding sexy eyes. These things might seem subtle and non sexual to you, but they aren't to people who are attracted to men, and they definitely aren't family friendly as you're defining it.

That's why these images should be included in the ban. I was raised in a culture where bare male torsos in public were forbidden, and my family would not be able to participate in this forum because of these images. Ditto for the gory covers.

And are the covers the only problem? What about what they link to? I hate to say it, but if you're trying to be more family friendly perhaps it would be best to not allow covers linking to anything in the horror or erotica categories at all.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

HSh said:


> Will be glad to remove any of my covers that are deemed offensive.
> 
> I'm just glad they're not offensive for being gay!!!!!
> 
> ...


Actually, I hate to tell you this, but Google does NOT consider Gay books Family Friendly. We've been told so repeatedly. So ... I'm not sure what Kboards will have to do here. Seriously, Henry, we've been told that with The Artifact book in my signature (you know the guy in the suit coat). They disapproved an ad that used the word "gay" with that book so where do you draw the line? Because depending on which mods at Google look at your site you'll be surprised what they find not-Family Friendly.

Also, there was a person who listed HM Ward's covers and a few others that were quite racy (and beautiful! and I like!) who should certainly be culled even though they are listed as romance and not erotica under these new rules. Will you really do that?


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> I'm sorry, but no one has an innate right not to be offended.


A cogent point in favor of striking the new rules altogether.



Harvey said:


> That stance certainly would be sexist and misogynistic... but that's not our policy. Some are trying to interpret it that way, but I refer you to the OP. As it's defined there, a nude male in a provocative pose would not be considered acceptable. This applies to males and females.


The policy has already been enforced unequally upthread. A big part of the problem is that there's no equivalency between male and female sexuality in the cultures that are primarily represented on KBoards. The photos Kalypsō posted are a perfect example of this.

The rules themselves can be fair and egalitarian, yet still become misogynistic if they're enforced on the basis of the fucked up morality that says those pictures are okay just as long as the models are dudes.



Kalypsō said:


> Yes. A man has to be in his underwear spreading his legs to be offensive, but a woman can be fully clothed and be offensive. Double standard? I'd like to see an example of a fully clothed male pose that is offensive where he isn't grabbing his junk. Please, I want to see this non-double standard.


Absolutely right.



Geoffrey said:


> I understand the need for this decision and I support it, but I'm not personally offended by any of the images under discussion. I find many of them tacky but not offensive. I'm not sure if you're trying to pick a fight, or just let off some steam or what. If you need to vent, please, feel free and I'll let you vent all over me.


Ordinarily, remarks like the ones you've made in this thread might not be an issue. This isn't an ordinary thread. With your continued snark and your efforts to belittle and minimize the concerns of posters, you are causing irreparable harm to the reputation of the mod team as a whole.

I am extremely disappointed with Geoffrey's conduct, and I hope that it will not be allowed to continue, since I had nothing but respect for Harvey and the mods before this thread. He is making your PR issue that much worse each time he posts.



Monique said:


> Where was this actually said?


It's been demonstrated in the choices Harvey and mods were making between which covers are allowed and which aren't. Men without a stitch of visible clothing were fine, women in bras (and sometimes dresses) weren't. Probably comes down to the "provocative pose" thing, but that's horseshit (well played, expletive substituter...). I take it that a provocative pose for a woman starts with something like the classic boobs and butt pose. A provocative pose for a man apparently requires that he spread his legs or grab his junk, which doesn't strike me as remotely accurate. That's not even a thing.

The truth is that standing and staring is a provocative pose for a man (or standing bare-chested and headless). That's where you'd have to start your standards if you're going to have any equivalency in the treatment of male and female cover models. That's not how it's being enforced, though, and I think the examples from upthread have all been self-censored now.

Alright, I'm caught up. Ponies and rainbows, wheeeeeeeee, make mine a pony with butterfly wings and a mane of candy floss. I shall name her Butterscotchalupagus the Dread, and the beating of her wings shall be to our enemies as the tolling of Death's great bell. None shall look upon her save that they collapse, trembling, and rise no more....

Coroners will find that her victims expired from asphyxiation due to caramelization of the lungs. Complicated by acute chocophalanges.

P.S. Yeah, Google doesn't like any of that icky gay stuff. There will be more casualties if KBoards is trying to appease them.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

X. Aratare said:


> Actually, I hate to tell you this, but Google does NOT consider Gay books Family Friendly. We've been told so repeatedly. So ... I'm not sure what Kboards will have to do here. Seriously, Henry, we've been told that with The Artifact book in my signature (you know the guy in the suit coat). They disapproved an ad that used the word "gay" with that book so where do you draw the line? Because depending on which mods at Google look at your site you'll be surprised what they find not-Family Friendly.


Oh, wow, I did *not* know that. I remember Amazon trying to mess around like this a year or two back and getting slapped silly by the LGBT community. I can't believe they're letting Google get away with it.


----------



## Alexis Adaire (Mar 20, 2014)

Patrick.S said:


> I don't mind erotic book covers but let's not pretend that sexualized covers aren't sexual.


And let's not pretend covers featuring horror, gore or weapons aren't fetishistic in nature as well, specifically designed to titillate.

The problem isn't that erotica features covers created to excite people, because EVERY good cover should do that. The problem is that sex makes some people very uncomfortable.

I'm just thankful I'm not one of those people.


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

Dolphin said:


> The truth is that standing and staring is a provocative pose for a man (or standing bare-chested and headless). That's where you'd have to start your standards if you're going to have any equivalency in the treatment of male and female cover models. That's not how it's being enforced, though, and I think the examples from upthread have all been self-censored now.


Agreed. I'm quite surprised at some of the naked male-chest covers Harvey has okay'd, and therefore have a family-friendly stamp of approval.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> You realize that according to your logic a cover is only erotic if the couple on the cover are actually using their... parts. As long as she's not clenched in erotic combat, then the cover's just an innocent display of the lady-bits _that could become erotic_ at the drop of a hat. I don't think it's fair to assume that someone who didn't want their kids to see a couple doing the nasty on a book cover faints at the site of covered mammary glands. But then again, maybe they do.


I've had covers with women fully clothed rejected before. It's ridiculous. Not just "she's wearing sexy lingerie" clothed, either. Fully clothed in a dress that no one would look at twice at a club or party.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I don't actually know what pumpkin spice is. I apologise if anyone is offended by this.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Hmm... sounds like several of the recent posts here are saying that we didn't go far enough with our policy, and should prohibit any above-the-waist unclothed images. I think, though, that if we had put in additional restrictions, there would be even more outrage about it. Or the counter-arguments would shift to something else.

I can understand authors being displeased about not being able to show various covers in our forums. That has an impact on you, and I recognize that. But are you really saying you'd be happier if the restrictions were made even tighter? There are a lot of places one could draw the line, and our attempt to do so is based on (a) advertiser policies, and (b) are pretty consistent with how "family friendly" would be viewed in a lot of cultures. Maybe not all... but many. That might differ from how you'd like the world to be... but we're not there, yet.

Regarding Google's Adsense policies: I've read them and see nothing in there about restrictions on homosexual content -- or at least no restrictions that differ from what is applied for heterosexual content. So, once again... refer to the OP for the rules that we have put in place for this forum. Nothing against M/M or F/F there.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Disclaimer:  I read erotica, I review erotica.  I have no problem with sexuality in its correct place.  That can be pretty much anywhere that is fairly private.  Strip clubs don't bother me and neither do adult book stores. Disclaimer over.
First off, I think Harvey and the other mods are still deciding on the covers that should or should not be shown.
Secondly: I also think that it shouldn't be out in the public eye.  This is a public site.  A very public site that does rely on advertising.  I don't want my Aunt Sally to run across this site because of some of the signatures.  She would be screaming to her friends about how bad it is.  Now it may seem like they are hitting the erotic writers hard but in truth they are not.  It seems they are just going by the rules that were already established.  

Yes, Amazon allows those covers.  But most of the time you can only find the books by either typing in the book title or going to the erotica category.  So even Amazon has most of it behind closed doors.

Now personally I hope Harvey can come up with a way for those with graphic covers to promote their books without showing the covers.  That would be a help for those of us that read erotica.

Side note:  I am sure some people find my avatar annoying.

Oh and other interesting tidbit: in a topless club the woman has to wear a thong or g-string.  In a regular bar, a woman can go commando if she so chooses.


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

Harvey,

I understand Google and Google AdSense are your customers. They likely provide a significant part of your revenue. And 'the customer is always right' is a very common American business moto. But, have you considered another very common American business moto?: 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.' It's this addendum you post that allows you t refuse service to ***holes that want to dictate how you run your business. Who runs Kboards? You, or your customer(s)? Your suppliers want to stand with you and also help you generate revenue. Will you stand with them? Or does just one customer have you by the leash?


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Alexis Adaire said:


> And let's not pretend covers featuring horror, gore or weapons aren't fetishistic in nature as well, specifically designed to titillate.
> 
> The problem isn't that erotica features covers created to excite people, because EVERY good cover should do that. The problem is that sex makes some people very uncomfortable.
> 
> I'm just thankful I'm not one of those people.


+1


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

J.L. Dickinson said:


> Harvey,
> 
> I understand Google and Google AdSense are your customers. They likely provide a significant part of your revenue. And 'the customer is always right' is a very common American business moto. But, have you considered another very common American business moto?: 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.'


KB is doing that, but just not to AdSense. Also, I would imagine it's not an insignificant amount of money we're talking here or they wouldn't be taking these steps in the first place.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

J.L. Dickinson said:


> Harvey,
> 
> I understand Google and Google AdSense are your customers. They likely provide a significant part of your revenue. And 'the customer is always right' is a very common American business moto. But, have you considered another very common American business moto?: 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.' It's this addendum you post that allows you t refuse service to ***holes that want to dictate how you run your business. Who runs Kboards? You, or your customer(s)? Your suppliers want to stand with you and also help you generate revenue. Will you stand with them? Or does just one customer have you by the leash?


I don't regard Google as my customer.

We've always been somewhat careful about erotica content. For example, we've never included erotica in our promotions, because of the feedback we get from our readers, blog visitors, and mailing list subscribers. That's a site decision, not something driven by Google.

At the same time, we've welcomed erotica authors here, and have had many discussion threads around that genre. We've provided our various KBoards tools, like the Author Sig, Book Pages, Book Profiles, Authors Page, Yellow Pages, and Link-Maker, to all authors including erotica authors.

I think the content policies that Google Adsense has in place are kind of a heads up to me that the images in the forum itself have drifted to the point where the site content may be objectionable to a significant number of people. And one effect of that is that people turn off signatures. When they do that, that doesn't help our authors. So let's find a balance that makes most people comfortable with keeping those sigs on display out there. I believe that's better for pretty much everybody here.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Harvey, would you please address whether text links to covers or images that would violate the forum decorum are still acceptable?


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Drew Smith said:


> You realize that according to your logic a cover is only erotic if the couple on the cover are actually using their... parts. As long as she's not clenched in erotic combat, then the cover's just an innocent display of the lady-bits _that could become erotic_ at the drop of a hat. I don't think it's fair to assume that someone who didn't want their kids to see a couple doing the nasty on a book cover faints at the site of covered mammary glands. But then again, maybe they do.


Look, I'm brain-fried because it's been a long week, so maybe I didn't word that right, and please forgive me if I don't this time.

A gun on a shelf is harmless. But firing that gun at someone is an act of combat. Seeing the bullet wound on someone's skull that might result is a graphic cover. A woman's (or a man's) attributes are sexual, but they're not inappropriate by themselves by virtue of their mere existence, outside of the context of a sexual encounter, or a situation that could lead to such.

As adults it's pretty clear what constitutes sexuality, or at least I hope it is. People who write erotica, especially, know what erotica is--they write it for a living. As they've reminded us in this thread, many of them are okay with nudity and graphic sexual content everywhere they look, apparently. That's fine. The kboards mods aren't, and that's their decision to make. They're not instantly bad people for wanting to tone it down a bit.

If I'd chosen a graphic cover for my horror collection, I'd have expected pushback from someone out there, whether reader or website. If I write a book about evil [insert political party here], I couldn't expect to be welcomed over at [insert prominent blog here]. If I wrote a racist pamplet, something tells me I'm not going to be invited to the next NAACP rally. If I write a book about boiled eggs, the local vegan reading group would prefer I leave it home. That's life.


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

Harvey said:


> I don't regard Google as my customer.
> 
> We've always been somewhat careful about erotica content. For example, we've never included erotica in our promotions, because of the feedback we get from our readers, blog visitors, and mailing list subscribers. That's a site decision, not something driven by Google.
> 
> ...


You might want to change the foundation upon which this forum claims to stand then.


> KBoards is an independent resource for people who own or have interest in Kindle - Amazon's family of wireless reading devices, tablets, and content.


 It seems as though by your own admission, it is not independent any longer. Your advertisers now influnce the purity upon which you founded the site. And it is not for those of enthusiasm for Amazon Kindle's content. It is for those pre screened by advertisers, that happen to have content on Amazon... How far you have fallen astray from that foundation...


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

Alexis Adaire said:


> The problem isn't that erotica features covers created to excite people, because EVERY good cover should do that. The problem is that sex makes some people very uncomfortable.
> 
> I'm just thankful I'm not one of those people.


I think you are missing the problem. The problem is not that the sexy or provocative covers make us uncomfortable per say. The problem is we are uncomfortable with what might happen if our co-workers or kids see them.

I've always had a problem reading KBoards when my kids were around, but my take has always been: it's Harvey's board, he can do what he likes. I think that point still stands.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

J.L. Dickinson said:


> You might want to change the foundation upon which this forum claims to stand then. It seems as though by your own admission, it is not independent any longer. Your advertisers now influnce the purity upon which you founded the site. And it is not for those of enthusiasm for Amazon Kindle's content. It is for those pre screened by advertisers, that happen to have content on Amazon... How far you have fallen astray from that foundation...


Uh... no, I don't think so. I'll refer you to re-read my previous post.

For those who are offended by the new rules, let me borrow your signature quote:



> Some of us are grown-up enough to realize that occasionally some things in this world will offend us, but that doesn't give us the right to scream and yell about them until the offensive person is silenced and the world becomes the Nerf-covered Utopia we wish it to be. Some of us are mature enough to realize that others have a right to express themselves, and that if we are offended by X, perhaps that's our issue, not the person who's doing X.


----------



## Quinn Richardson (Apr 20, 2012)

I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, but I offer a technical solution. It's very complicated:

Pretend this is an erotica cover:



Spoiler



boobies



Why did you click that? You knew there was naughty stuff in there.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Zelah Meyer said:


> Yes - I wouldn't want to see tacky full-frontal nudity on book covers, but I'm even more put-off by say - a graphic horror cover. When non-family friendly horror images are allowed, but artistic and tastefully covered nudity isn't - that sends out a worrying message about the direction society is heading in.


Wow.

I've been silently following this thread and didn't think I'd have anything to add.

But now my "home genre," horror, is in the targeting sites, too? 

Now, I think my horror covers are moody and maybe even creepy, but who knows? Under Contract is certainly suggestive of blood (even though it's actually cherry juice in the context of the cover).

I guess it just goes to show, when the powers of censorship are unleashed, soon everyone will censor everyone else and there will be nothing left.

Except David Hasslehoff. Don't hassle the 'hoff. 

And it also goes to prove that old adage, which *might* have been written by Elie Weisel but is more traditionally attributed to Martin Niemoller:



> First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a Socialist.
> 
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
> 
> ...


The essential truth of this quote is making itself apparent in this thread...


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

Harvey said:


> Uh... no, I don't think so. I'll refer you to re-read my previous post.
> 
> For those who are offended by the new rules, let me borrow your signature quote:


Exactly correct. But, you don't see how you are refusing Amazon Kindle content on Kboards?!!! Really?!!!!!! Harvey? Think about it. Seriously, take a minute. Take a break, think about this choice. Please? I mean it. Please.


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

Harvey said:


> Hmm... sounds like several of the recent posts here are saying that we didn't go far enough with our policy, and should prohibit any above-the-waist unclothed images. I think, though, that if we had put in additional restrictions, there would be even more outrage about it. Or the counter-arguments would shift to something else.
> 
> I can understand authors being displeased about not being able to show various covers in our forums. That has an impact on you, and I recognize that. But are you really saying you'd be happier if the restrictions were made even tighter? There are a lot of places one could draw the line, and our attempt to do so is based on (a) advertiser policies, and (b) are pretty consistent with how "family friendly" would be viewed in a lot of cultures. Maybe not all... but many. That might differ from how you'd like the world to be... but we're not there, yet.


We're not there yet because people/organizations continue to apply these standards unequally to men and women (and their representations). And if they were applied equally here I most definitely would not shift my argument to something else. I continue to be shocked that a naked male torso - in what I'd consider to be a provocative pose with a provocative book title - passed muster with you in this thread. As a result, I don't believe you're applying your new policy equally, and it makes me quite uncomfortable.

And I'm totally in agreement with the notion that this is your place/your rules. Ultimately, nothing anyone says in this thread has to change your mind in any way - wrt to this issue or any other issue.

I am not an erotica writer, but I am offended by this. That doesn't have to mean anything, and I hold zero hope that anything I'm saying will change your mind, but I believe what I'm saying still falls inside what's acceptable to say in this forum, and as such, I will say it. I really would feel remiss if I let other people be the only ones to say that they feel uncomfortable with what's happened.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

J.L. Dickinson said:


> Exactly correct. But, you don't see how you are refusing Amazon Kindle content on Kboards?!!! Really?!!!!!! Harvey? Think about it. Seriously, take a minute. Take a break, think about this choice. Please? I mean it. Please.


Okay: "refusing Amazon Kindle content on Kboards." I'm not exactly sure what that means. If it means that we wouldn't allow on this board everything that is allowed on Amazon Kindle... that is true, and has been true ever since the board started in 2007.

I'm not sure either of us is making headway with this discussion... so let's agree to disagree.

I think there are legitimate and differing viewpoints to be heard about our policy. We are certainly not perfect and this is, after all, a human exercise. We are currently discussing whether to extend the restrictions to not allow nude male chests, based on the reasonable case that several have made. But the posts of unbridled outrage are getting kind of extreme and I'm not sure we're hearing each other well at the moment.

I'm off for a bit but will check back in later.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

elizabethbarone said:


> Some of my covers fall under questionable (the Upside Down novelette in my On the Edge series has a stripper on a pole, and the cover for my to-be-released The Nanny with the Skull Tattoos is a couple making out, half naked). I don't like the double standard, either. I understand the position that Harvey is in, though. This is exactly why I don't run forums anymore. You just can't keep everyone happy.
> 
> The advice that I've received from everyone in these forums has been invaluable. I don't want to see anyone go. But I totally understand, and I'll probably have to go soon, myself. (I've been working on redesigning the covers for my ESX series, and the new ones are quite sexier than what's in my sig now. I write New Adult, and though my books are romance and not erotica, I do write steamy scenes.)
> 
> I wish that advertisers didn't push their customers and their customers' users into corners like this.


Your title, Bridge, is a fully-clothed butt shot.

Your title, Coda, is a cover of a hot-looking kiss.

Pitch Pitch, it could be argued, is "strategically covered nudity."

Even with Amplified, it could be considered suggestive of what those two hands are actually grasping... (not necessarily a guitar).

Your genres don't seem to be targeted... but your covers? I wonder what justification will be made for the double-standard.

I'm not out to make trouble for you, Liz, or anyone else. But can we agree that targeting like this does indeed create a double standard?

But I'll say no more, for fear that certain outspoken non-mods don't start raging against me.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Harvey said:


> For those who are offended by the new rules, let me borrow your signature quote:


Not the first time that somebody's used the argument in that quotation in support of the policy. It's not getting any more sensible as it's repeated. If that's your actual position, then you'd renounce this whole absurd thing immediately instead of making flippant comments.

And no, I don't think it's right to ban sexy men along with sexy women. I just happen to think that banning exclusively sexy women is not only _wrong,_ but also hypocritical and misogynist. It doesn't make it any better that it's a societal norm. History is littered with societal norms that were and will forever remain unjust, despite being adhered to, enjoyed, and championed by many contemporaries.

I'm not surprised by the policy. It's not unusual, or anything we've not seen before elsewhere. I'm just disappointed. A lot of folks had come to expect much better things from KBoards, and I think we're all struggling to adjust our expectations downward so abruptly.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> But now my "home genre," horror, is in the targeting sites, too?
> 
> Now, I think my horror covers are moody and maybe even creepy, but who knows? Under Contract is certainly suggestive of blood (even though it's actually cherry juice in the context of the cover).
> 
> I guess it just goes to show, when the powers of censorship are unleashed, soon everyone will censor everyone else and there will be nothing left.


I've also avoided this thread, except for one smiley. But to your post: NO.

I don't think you're grasping the issue here. As a society, it's ridiculous that violence is a-okay, but sexuality is not. There is nothing inherently bad about sexuality, but violence, at it's core is terrible. So, when you have an army of pitchforks screaming the exact opposite - it's grating.

It's not about wanting to censor your genre, it's about not wanting to censor anything, and then pointing the finger to something that should actually be troubling.

I'm not going to get into the fight about the mods decisions, because it's THEIR board. We just visit. And yeah, it might be a screwed up policy, but popular boards aren't cheap to run and it has to be about the bottom line. I think there needs to be a little more reasoning here. We need to stop thinking about our individual selfs, and see the issues within the bigger frame.

We have a long way to go as a society with issues as it pertains to sexuality, especially in regards to gender roles. Let's work as hard as we can to change how others perceive these issues, so eventually, what's happening here will no longer be a problem.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Kalypsō said:


> That wasn't directed at you. Sorry. I was actually trying to make a funny. I am publicly apologizing if I offended you in any way.


No harm done. And likewise. Thank you.


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

Harvey said:


> I'm not sure either of us is making headway with this discussion... so let's agree to disagree.


Agreed, Sir. And ultimately it's your house. Get some rest, and I will too ( No: viewing audience at home, that doesn't mean there's going to be a round two). I'll respect your choice, however you should decide. Please though, look at options.

Thank you.


----------



## MsTee (Jul 30, 2012)

This thread is way overheated. I remember reading the first couple of posts when it just started and thinking, "Well, here's a popcorn thread in the making." Boy, was I right. To throw my own (unneeded) opinion in the ring:

1. Tensions are a bit higher now because we erotica authors are getting fed up of always being shunned. This may not be what Harvey intends, but this new 'family friendly' rule seems like yet another attempt at a once-safe place now telling us to take up our ball and go play somewhere else. 

2. I think the major point of contention is that on the 1st or 2nd page, an author with covers featuring bare-chested males were given the OK by mods, while another author with a fully clothed woman on their cover was told to remove their cover. I'm not a feminist or particularly have any deep devotion to 'women's rights' or w/e, but that really does smack of double standards. 

3. I really don't think it's wise to flounce off and make loud declarations that you'll never darken kboard's doorstep again when you're all riled up. Come tomorrow or a week from now when your head is cooler, you'll get the itch to read/post to a thread...and then you'll remember your Big Flounce and probably be too ashamed to post for a while. Lurker Land sucks balls sometimes.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Telling people not to browse at work, to turn off signatures, and to not report violations of a site's policy when the site asks people to report violations IS trying to control people.


Well, since you approve of reporting...

The cover for Foot Ways in your signature is suggestive of the primary female sex organ.

And the cover for Nancy Werelock's Diary shows a hand grasping in the area of a fully-covered crotch.

See how silly reporting can get?


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I have heard it both ways to mean you can talk my ear off.
> 
> *Can we all please calm down just a bit?* Since anything can be taken out of context.
> Thank you in advance.


1. Hey Cinna! Nice to see you around! 
2. BOLDED.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Monique said:


> ...It would create cliques and that's seldom a good thing...


Amused by the suggestion that KBoards isn't cliqueish already. How many of writers actually spend much time outside of the Cafe, mingling with ... readers!


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> Well, since you approve of reporting...
> 
> The cover for Foot Ways in your signature is suggestive of the primary female sex organ.


The cover of Foot Ways is a child's foot.



> And the cover for Nancy Werelock's Diary shows a hand grasping in the ares of a fully-covered crotch.


His arm is actually rested at his side and he's in the bed alone.

But you know, if Harvey said to remove the covers, I would. I wouldn't have a hissy fit in public about it. I wouldn't call him names. Ye gods know I've been smacked with a cattle prod enough times over the years. And I don't whine about it for twelve pages and accuse the mods of being misogynists. I deal with it and adjust. Sometimes I agree with them. Sometimes I don't. That's life. KB isn't always going to run the way ***** wants it to run. And that is fine with ***** because unlike a great many people in this thread, I don't expect KB to bow to me and bend to my will because I scream the loudest and throw around the most accusations.

A forum full of writers should be better at articulating their concerns without resorting to red herrings, false equivalences, Ad hominems, and temper tantrums.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Harvey said:


> Hmm... sounds like several of the recent posts here are saying that we didn't go far enough with our policy, and should prohibit any above-the-waist unclothed images. I think, though, that if we had put in additional restrictions, there would be even more outrage about it. Or the counter-arguments would shift to something else.
> 
> I can understand authors being displeased about not being able to show various covers in our forums. That has an impact on you, and I recognize that. But are you really saying you'd be happier if the restrictions were made even tighter? There are a lot of places one could draw the line, and our attempt to do so is based on (a) advertiser policies, and (b) are pretty consistent with how "family friendly" would be viewed in a lot of cultures. Maybe not all... but many. That might differ from how you'd like the world to be... but we're not there, yet.
> 
> Regarding Google's Adsense policies: I've read them and see nothing in there about restrictions on homosexual content -- or at least no restrictions that differ from what is applied for heterosexual content. So, once again... refer to the OP for the rules that we have put in place for this forum. Nothing against M/M or F/F there.


I'm afraid, Henry, its very much there though it may not be written out clearly. We have the emails from Google. Here's a blogpost and screenshots of proof: http://welcome.raythereign.com/raythe-reign-speaks-out-googles-gay-free-world/

I thought you were trying to conform KBoards to Googe's Adsense policy, which is VERY BROAD about what's NOT Family friendly as merely the word "GAY" is thought to violate that policy (seriously, read the blog post, and don't post BUT GOOGLE IS FOR GAY MARRIAGE, it is, but its contractors don't think its okay to advertise such things and seriously this is rampant through most big corporations like Google and Amazon who outsource their reviewers), but in later posts it sounds like you are conforming KBoards to your OWN feelings on what is and what is not family friendly. It's your site, fair enough. You say what goes and we have to lump it or leave it.

But I want to say one thing here: "family friendly" is a terrible euphemism and I would really suggest you drop it, because it doesn't have anything to do with families, i.e., SAVE THE CHILDREN, but it does have to do with what society as a whole thinks is "good" and "bad". Female sexuality = bad. Gay people = bad. Etc. Here, you are picking things that YOU feel don't belong on your website based on your own good and bad feelings. For you, my Artifact cover is FINE. M/M and M/F are FINE. Naked male torsos are FINE. Suggestive female poses in erotica (but evidently excluded from that ban are NA, romance, etc.) NOT FINE. But these things are not "fine" with Google's policy (again, read blog post) and I'm sure there are some on Kboards who don't find them FINE. I've had experiences with some of them. And that's a-okay, b/c everyone has an opinion. BUT THAT'S ALL IT IS. An opinion. Not a bright line rule.

You are going to offend people, because your decisions will be based on an internal judgment. AN OPINION of what offends you or steps over a line for your audience. It's not about families. It's about you. Because if you were going to be truly "FAMILY FRIENDLY" no romance or horror would be on this board. NONE. HM Ward's sexy covers would be gone just like Joe Smith's Erotica would be gone. But its not gone. It's erotica purely that seems to be targeted.

Just say, I'm not comfortable with the covers. I'm making the decisions. It's better for my business. And be done with it. No family friendly stuff, because that's just ... well, ick.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Without going back and re-reading the entire back and forth, I would just say give the mods a little time as they probably got hit with a dozen or more reports at once.

Not a mod, don't want to be a mod.  But why don't we all go have a nice glass of (your favorite beverage.)

At Julie, bowing down before your greatness.  LOL.


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

Are my covers okay? 

I have some erotic thrillers, but I have always had covers that are more thriller than erotic.  My short story covers are also more on the tame side as well.

From a business sense I understand the rationale. 

Hard decisions, but I respect the rules of the forum and still feel, as a writer of a variety of genres, there still is value here.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Hmm, that's interesting about Google. It seems that Google has different rules for Adwords (advertisers) than it does for Adsense (publishers). Or, maybe it has unwritten rules... I don't know. Thank you for providing that link.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Kalypsō said:


> PS. I breastfed all my children in public.


Careful there, or some creep will ask where, which would be... awkward.



I'm not saying particularly what I personally support and read, or what I don't.

But I've become a lot more liberty-centric in my thinking as of late, which is why this thread eventually pulled me into the morass.

But I'm generally about as family-friendly as a writer of horror and supernatural fiction can be, I guess.

Can I be offended at myself?


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Harvey said:


> We are currently discussing whether to extend the restrictions to not allow nude male chests, based on the reasonable case that several have made.


So, you're planning on going even beyond Google's ridiculous standards.

Why is this reasonable? "I beat women, but in the name of equality I also beat men?"

What is the reasoning behind this? A ridiculous rule becomes more palatable if it applies to even _more_ people?

I'm very disappointed.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Wow. I hope everyone remembers this thread the next time they hear the claim that Big Corporations (boo! hiss!) use advertising to deviously manipulate popular values. It seems that the opposite is true: that their perception of popular values usually manipulates companies into meek pandering to public tastes.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Harvey said:


> Hmm, that's interesting about Google. It seems that Google has different rules for Adwords (advertisers) than it does for Adsense (publishers). Or, maybe it has unwritten rules... I don't know. Thank you for providing that link.


You're welcome. I'm sorry it's true. And what's ironic about this is that if I wanted to advertise on KBoards (and you didn't do your own ads but just Google Adsense) Google WOULDN'T LET ME b/c unlike you they find the word "gay" not family friendly ...

It's absurd, but there it is.

I get the position you're in. I really, really get it. You seem like a thoughtful, kind person and I'm grateful that you created this place and I hope it grows. But I also think people have had some valid points about the hypocrisy that's happening with the cover approvals. You will hopefully think on those comment like you seem to do about other things on the boards.

I personally don't want more censorship so my suggestions about getting rid of stuff were just to show you the "family friendly" tagline is not really what you want to rest your hat on.

Good luck.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

just popping back in to say I swapped out my cover with the 2 bare-chested guys and put in my newest cover instead, which doesn't even have people on it.  So hopefully it feels a little less unfair to y'all.    

If anything else needs adjusted, I hope I'll be told.  Honestly there's a lot to think about in this thread and I'm reading it carefully, but I really don't get some of the responses.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Andrew Ashling said:


> So, you're planning on going even beyond Google's ridiculous standards.
> 
> Why is this reasonable? "I beat women, but in the name of equality I also beat men?"
> 
> ...


That is a valid point. My inclination was to impose the minimal level of restrictions that we could to get us in accord with some of our advertiser requirements. Several people in this thread have indicated, it would be better to have a higher level of restriction, in an attempt to be fair... so, it's under discussion. No decisions have been made on it.


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

So those photos a few pages back (forgive me, this thread moves fast) annoy me. The bearded hipster posing provocatively ones. I get that he's mocking the ways women pose on covers, but at the same time he's not really putting his heart into it. He's not seducing me with his eyes. I mean, I know it's cause we live in a patriarchy and all that, and he can't really give away his privilege just by making a silly pose, but we can do so much better when it comes to analyzing provocative male poses, yeah? Comparing him to the covers we are actually discussing is Apples & Oranges.

Like this. Is this okay?

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/7c/7a/31/7c7a313a40f92d2ae943edd51b0348b9.jpg


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But you know, if Harvey said to remove the covers, I would. I wouldn't have a hissy fit in public about it. I wouldn't call him names...
> 
> A forum full of writers should be better at articulating their concerns without resorting to red herrings, false equivalences, Ad hominems, and temper tantrums.


Umm, I don't recall doing any of those things.

I've called no one names. I've had no hissy fits. Other than UNDER CONTRACT, I doubt any of my covers will be affected. I'm pretty much "safe as houses" in terms of forum decorum.

But the two covers I pointed out can be (mis)interpreted in the ways I suggested. And I have no issues with you.

What does bother me is certain borderline aspects of the new policy, even though it doesn't currently affect me. Because I am liberty-minded and I have empathy for those affected by *some* aspects of the new policy.

For example, anything that's fully covered or clothed being deemed offensive seems very arbitrary and leads to double-standards.

I think that's a calm, reasonable point to make, and I've not called anyone a name in making it. 

And sorry, but for Foot Ways, the shape the shadows of those legs suggest is... suggestive.


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

Oaklandish said:


> So those photos a few pages back (forgive me, this thread moves fast) annoy me. The bearded hipster posing provocatively ones. I get that he's mocking the ways women pose on covers, but at the same time he's not really putting his heart into it. He's not seducing me with his eyes. I mean, I know it's cause we live in a patriarchy and all that, and he can't really give away his privilege just by making a silly pose, but we can do so much better when it comes to analyzing provocative male poses, yeah? Comparing him to the covers we are actually discussing is Apples & Oranges.
> 
> Like this. Is this okay?
> 
> http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/7c/7a/31/7c7a313a40f92d2ae943edd51b0348b9.jpg


Tee hee! For some reason that picture just makes me laugh.

I agree the bearded guy wasn't a good mirror, although I found it interesting to see him in the classic pin up girl poses. But it would be the same thing if I put a slightly overweight middle-aged woman in those poses. Not as sexy. It would be more equal if it was a young hot looking guy. Fascinating stuff, actually, how we can interpret the same positions in different ways. And then yes, I think the men could rival the sex quality of the females originally in those shots.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> Umm, I don't recall doing any of those things.
> 
> I've called no one names. I've had no hissy fits.


I didn't say you did. But really, have you READ all 17 pages of this thread? That is what I am referring to.

Again, in case it isn't clear. My comments are meant in the general sense. I'm not talking about you in particular. Within the context of this thread, I think my comments make sense.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Crayola said:


> I want this place to survive, but the mass exodus I've seen... Guys n gals... I won't lie... I'm worried.


We've had "mass exodus" before. methinks we get one every couple of years, actually. The site doesn't die. It evolves. People forget KB is bigger that WC. I'd go so far as to say the majority of members who don't come into the Cafe wouldn't even notice another mass exodus.

On the bright side, I haven't seen a dozen rage quit threads, so that is a bonus!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Harvey said:


> That is a valid point. My inclination was to impose the minimal level of restrictions that we could to get us in accord with some of our advertiser requirements. Several people in this thread have indicated, it would be better to have a higher level of restriction, in an attempt to be fair... so, it's under discussion. No decisions have been made on it.


Harvey,

Since you say everything is still open to discussion and have earlier asked for "what would you suggest" feedback, here's what a generally "family-friendly" horror writer would suggest:

Personally, I appreciate specifics, and your new policy has provided a set of specifics.

I would take issue with at least one of the specifics, as I feel it draws the lines a bit too tightly.

Banning things that are fully clothed, fully covered, but *suggestive* is where I think the new wording goes a bit off the rails, for me personally, even though I don't have any covers that are (I think).

So, I'd suggest revisiting that wording, specifically, and discussing whether it's a step too far. I think it just becomes too fuzzy then, and while it's not quite Amazon's "about what you'd expect" level of fuzziness, it is fuzzy just the same.

Fully clothed/covered but suggestive is where I diverge with the new standards, even though it doesn't affect my covers.

Policies on nudity itself seem more reasonable to me.

I think others have made valid points about having some sort of standard about how graphic covers of violent fiction ought to be. (I say this, realizing that Under Contract walks a thin line in this regard.)

I would not personally be on board with banning images of guns; that's more political, and since armaments play a key visual role in many types of genres (most of which I don't even write in), including mysteries, suspense, spy, etc., I think that would also be a step too far.

I'm not even sure what the standard would be, necessarily, but I would imagine it would focus on the extent of blood used on covers (which might bother vampire authors, admittedly) or they extent to which mutilation of humans and other living organisms is displayed (which might bother zombie authors, I guess).

Still, I think it's a valid point that "family-friendly" might take into consideration some excesses in terms of violence, not just sex.

I might not like or even agree with everything y'all come up with, but that's fine. I do think feedback on that issue ought to not be ignored, though. A valid point was made.

Respectfully to all,


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I didn't say you did. But really, have you READ all 17 pages of this thread? That is what I am referring to.
> 
> Again, in case it isn't clear. My comments are meant in the general sense. I'm not talking about you in particular. Within the context of this thread, I think my comments make sense.


Very close to the end of the thread now. I've been randomly commenting as I go. But yes, here from page 1 to... now, page 18.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

CraigInOregon said:


> Harvey,
> 
> Since you say everything is still open to discussion and have earlier asked for "what would you suggest" feedback, here's what a generally "family-friendly" horror writer would suggest:
> 
> ...


Thank you. That is helpful input.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

It's almost redundant replying as Julie keeps reading my thoughts and posting exactly what I was thinking.

This is getting Python-esque really.  A writer's forum (a forum for all writers, not any specific genre) has to tighten up their sig requirements to comply with someone else's rules and remain financially viable.  Suddenly people are erecting straw men (to the poster redacting their own posts - really? Really?) all over the place and pitching this situation as a general censorship issue.

Writer's are naturally sensitive about censorship as we have suffered more than our fair share of it throughout history.  It is right and fair that we should stand up for our rights to have artistic freedom, free speech and all that.  However, isn't there a risk that this all becomes a bit "the boy who cried wolf" whenever there is a minor incursion into these "rights" we love to defend?  Put another way, do we risk watering down our efforts when there is a genuine, large-scale censorship issue because we have got out the placards at the first sign of censorship?  About ten posts into this thread I received a message on my phone "Here we go, get ready for a 50 page thread on censorship".

If this is such an important principle I propose the following - Harvey announces the income they need to keep the site running without ads and anyone who wants to put their books in their posts pays an equal share to replace this income.  Then you can put whatever you like in your sigs and your "rights" won't be infringed.  That will be a good barometer of the depth of feeling around this issue.  Skin in the game is more telling than a free option.

This is a forum that generously allows posters to erect their own mini-advertisements at the end of their posts.  They have now tightened up the rules.  This still remains the most liberal forum (in terms of sig rules) of the main forums I visit.  The other one I mainly visit (non-writing) doesn't allow anything that could be construed as advertising.

Sure, let's have a calm, reasoned debate around the merits (or lack thereof) of this change in the rules.  However by calling this "censorship" and threatening to leave and never come back I don't think we are really discussing the topic at hand.

I understand this view may be in the minority however I thought it important to provide an additional opposing view.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Discussions about the nuances of gunshot wounds and violent covers are okay, but partially nude or even clothed women in seductive poses are not. I suppose you have to grow up in America for this to make sense. *shakes head* Sorry for the erotica authors, but it seems that what Google wants, Google gets. Ironically, whenever I seek "entertainment", I go to ... Google. But I get it, they want clean sites for their ads and maintaining a site like kboards costs money.


----------



## M.G. Russell (Sep 23, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The cover of Foot Ways is a child's foot.
> 
> His arm is actually rested at his side and he's in the bed alone.
> 
> ...


Wow! It must be nice to be such a perfect specimen of the human race! 

And isn't it nice to be able to say things like "A forum full of writers should be better at articulating their concerns without resonting to red herrings, false equivalences, Ad hominems, and temper tantrums"? Wow! That's really helpful in trying to create some common ground.


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

Mike_Author said:


> This is a forum that generously allows posters to erect their own mini-advertisements at the end of their posts. They have now tightened up the rules. This still remains the most liberal forum (in terms of sig rules) of the main forums I visit. The other one I mainly visit (non-writing) doesn't allow anything that could be construed as advertising.


I was under the impression that the books in our sigs were affiliate links that paid out money to keep this place afloat. Is that not accurate?


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

There was a post made earlier by one of our mods that was reported as objectionable. At the member's request, we have removed the post and any subsequent posts that reference it. I regret that this situation has occurred.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Yes. Fundamentally, this is an issue with the increasingly infanfilized and censorious cultures we live in, and complaining here won't solve that. The sad part is that much of it is coming from America, which is supposed to be a beacon of free speech.


If you drew a trend line from the dawn of man to present day, would the "free speech" trend be upwards or downwards for western society? Are we genuinely becoming "increasingly censorious"? What would happen if Lady Chatterly's Lover was released today?


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

At risk of generating an Orwellian "two minutes of Hate," let me pose a question.

Why is everyone going to the mat over illustrations of our book covers? 

I thought the point of this forum is the discussion of IDEAS relevant to indie writing and publishing. The motives for including cover illustrations in our signatures seem quite different. Advertising? Ego? What? Wouldn't just the titles of our books suffice?

If so many are upset about the difficult standards for inclusion or exclusion of images, why not just exclude them all, and have authors identify their books by title only? Problem solved.

Or is there another issue here of which I'm unaware?


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> At risk of generating an Orwellian "two minutes of Hate," let me pose a question.
> 
> Why is everyone going to the mat over illustrations of our book covers?
> 
> ...


It's because people click on those covers and buy those books.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Which means that their purpose is to advertise our books to fellow writers, rather than to our respective target readers. Is that dubious opportunity worth launching a civil war here?


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> If so many are upset about the difficult standards for inclusion or exclusion of images, why not just exclude them all, and have authors identify their books by title only? Problem solved.


That's very sensible.


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Which means that their purpose is to advertise our books to fellow writers, rather than to our respective target readers. Is that dubious opportunity worth launching a civil war here?


Writers are readers.
Readers browse here, too.
I have personally purchased over fifty books that I saw in sigs.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Fine. So, we list our books with links to online retail sites, and perhaps write a little blurb to describe/promote them. That should be sufficient to promote the books, don't you think? After all...we're supposed to be _writers_, not cover artists. If we can't use words effectively enough to intrigue even fellow writers to check out our books, maybe we should rethink this writing gig, huh?


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

In all the swirling emotion, pot shots, backhanded jabs, passive aggressive swipes, I think something is getting lost in this discussion.

Leave aside the discussion of horror and violence for just a moment because going back to the OP, that is not on the table.

The item on the table was cleaning up the erotica sigs/avatars. That's it. That's what this is about.

It was couched in terms of Family Friendly and I agree with Dolphin and other posters who have said that perhaps waving that particular flag is not very useful. That's already been covered better than I can address them.

When people ask who's really affected? Erotica writers. Possibly Romance writers as well. Western writers aren't. Women's fiction aren't. Thriller writers aren't. Mystery writers aren't. Suspense writers aren't. Children's writers aren't. Horror writers may be on the block further down the road but at the moment, they're not.

Only erotica and/or romance.

So if you're not an erotica and romance writer, you're not going to be affected by this. Do you think that perhaps if you're not affected by it, those who are might be a bit put off when you ask them what is the big deal?

Sure, maybe kboards won't lose revenue when erotica writers are forced to clean up/remove their titles from their sig lines. And certainly, if _you_ don't write erotica, then _you_ aren't either. Those erotica writers who used the sig lines for that reason will.

So it's all well and good to wave your hands and go 'what's the big deal' if you're not the one affected and you're not the one losing money/sales/visibility.

If no one can see the inequity in that, then, well, I'm not sure why we're still having this discussion.

After all, if the erotica writers don't like it, they can just go somewhere else, right? Will anyone be willing to show other writers the door when they start to question why they've been singled out? Because, like it or not, erotica writers have been singled out. Maybe not deliberately but it's the result of this new policy.

Please stop trying to say it's not.

I don't have a dog in this hunt really because I haven't put my titles in my sig line so I'm not losing visibility and I'm not losing sales. But this thread has brought out some nasty stuff from people and I find that sad.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Because I'm lazy, I've been waiting for somebody to post an opinion I could just quote and add "I agree". The closest I can come to is this and it didn't pop up until page 16.



MsTee said:


> 2. I think the major point of contention is that on the 1st or 2nd page, an author with covers featuring bare-chested males were given the OK by mods, while another author with a fully clothed woman on their cover was told to remove their cover. I'm not a feminist or particularly have any deep devotion to 'women's rights' or w/e, but that really does smack of double standards.


A lot of other reactions on all sides seem more knee-jerk or hyperbolic than helpful but the above feels reasonable and fair. I sorta hate to echo it, because I don't like to see a ton of covers getting pulled into something that originally applied to a smaller number. We'll see a lot more authors affected, if that happens, and this thread will grow even longer. But if a double standard is genuinely the #1 concern for many commenters, applying the same rules to both moobs and boobs may go a little way toward easing those worries.

I realize there are already rules addressing violent covers and I assume those weren't mentioned because the number of semi-nude covers on KB have been growing at a faster rate than the severed-head covers. But newer members may be honestly unaware of the restrictions on violent covers, so it wouldn't hurt to reiterate those. Again, in the interests of fairness. There've been restrictions on cover content on KB for as long as I've been a member (2011) but a lot of people are unaware of them, because they haven't been enforced much in the past.

And no, neither of the above suggestions will please everyone. But it would free us up from some legitimate concerns. I believe the mods are already trying to shape the restrictions in a way to please as many members, visitors, and advertisers as possible. But showing you're willing to meet in the middle may reassure some members. Or it may just give you a larger number of unhappy members, because general romance and horror writers probably won't be thrilled at this development. But it's at least something to think about.


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Fine. So, we list our books with links to online retail sites, and perhaps write a little blurb to describe/promote them. That should be sufficient to promote the books, don't you think? After all...we're supposed to be _writers_, not cover artists. If we can't use words effectively enough to intrigue even fellow writers to check out our books, maybe we should rethink this writing gig, huh?


I'm actually a cover artist and a writer. And let's not pretend that covers don't sell books, that they don't convey genre and tone.

And anyways, this isn't just about banning covers. The edict said erotica talk of any explicit sort was also right out. So how would those blurbs look in our photo-less sigs?


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

J.L. Dickinson said:


> Harvey,
> 
> I understand Google and Google AdSense are your customers. They likely provide a significant part of your revenue. And 'the customer is always right' is a very common American business moto. But, have you considered another very common American business moto?: 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.' It's this addendum you post that allows you t refuse service to ***holes that want to dictate how you run your business. Who runs Kboards? You, or your customer(s)? Your suppliers want to stand with you and also help you generate revenue. Will you stand with them? Or does just one customer have you by the leash?


I think this is a great suggestion and a worthy position to take however you need to go one step further. You would need to find out a rough amount of money that Adsense brings in and suggest concrete alternatives that would replace this income and preserve "freedom of speech" (/advertising).

Until such a solution is reached, this just looks like people trying to tell Kboards to reject paid advertising (that pays for bandwidth etc) so they can continue to enjoy free advertising and are using censorship as a straw man. This debate is tainted with moral hazard/conflict of interest. If censorship is the issue, those with affected covers should switch to generic, boundary-testing suggestive images (ie - not their own book covers) to remove self-interest from the argument.

Apologies if I seem insensitive however I can't help but read all this from the perspective of Harvey and the other mods who dedicate so much free time to give us such a nice forum. I would be reading all this in abject horror/disbelief.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

Sure they sell books, but the mods want a SFW site.


Spoiler



Personally, I don't buy the Adsense argument at all. But that's probably just me.


So, inasmuch as a bunch of smuttily-covered books get sold from here, KB is willing to give up the revenue. Should the erotica and romance writers be OK with that too? Well, why should they? And if there's not a lot of good erotica biz wisdom being tossed about here (and there's not), what's the value in slogging through the snark?

Robert's suggestion restores some of the value for people to participate in a fair way.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm saddened by a lot of things in this thread.

Harvey has been extremely ill for a long time, battling cancer while keeping this forum going and providing a place for authors to discuss the business of writing and publishing. I don't know what feedback Harvey's been receiving from advertisers about images and content here, but I'm guessing advertising revenue has been affected or will be.

I'm not personally offended by any covers here. I have two young boys who do see the images sometimes and I just say they are people's book covers. They see 'boobies' all the time (paradoxically) in the adsense advertising on the kids games websites they visit. 

I do agree the 'family-friendly' term is problematic. The new policy seems to say that anything for the male gaze (eg. boobies or sensual women) = no, while most things for the female gaze (eg. shirtless or sexy men) = yes. Basically, it's the opposite of misogyny. 
I can see why people are upset about the terminology and lack of clarity, and it probably needs reframing. I wouldn't like to see all the erotica writers leave over this. Am taking my books out of my sig for the moment, until a solution is found that suits everyone.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

LisaGloria said:


> Sure they sell books, but the mods want a SFW site.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


So you're saying Harvey is lying about the AdSense thing?

I don't think anyone expects erotica authors to be happy about the situation. But, as many others have said, Harvey's site, Harvey's rules. It's not a democracy. I'm sure some people will leave over this. I hope they find what they're looking for elsewhere.


----------



## WG McCabe (Oct 13, 2012)

Wish Harvey could create a "you must proofread your books before releasing into the wild" rule. But his power only stretches so far.


----------



## WG McCabe (Oct 13, 2012)

That exodus already happened.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I don't know. Big sellers (in all genres) have come and gone since I've been here for all sorts of reasons. The board has survived, even grown. I'm assuming Harvey understands that there will be some loss in traffic and affiliate income, but it's not as much as he might lose with other advertisers. *shrug* I'm not privy to that stuff.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

A.A said:


> I'm saddened by a lot of things in this thread.
> 
> Harvey has been extremely ill for a long time, battling cancer while keeping this forum going and providing a place for authors to discuss the business of writing and publishing. I don't know what feedback Harvey's been receiving from advertisers about images and content here, but I'm guessing advertising revenue has been affected or will be.
> 
> ...


I did not know that about Harvey and reading that has intensified the way I feel about this a hundred-fold. A tightening up of free advertising requirements to enable paid advertising should not become a lightening rod for valid, broader discussions around censorship and double-standards.

As far as I can tell, some people are essentially outraged that a shirtless man is acceptable by society by a shirtless woman is not. I am outraged that some parents choose not to vaccinate their children but hey, that's society. Hopefully in a hundred years both men and women can walk the streets shirtless, in a utopian world of pure equality and everyone vaccinates, but until then we live in a world of imperfections and double standards. And if Harvey needs to respect these double standards to ensure this site is viable and it doesn't alter the essence of the site (A discussion forum for writers, not an advertising forum) then I accept that.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> I was and am against ghettos and segregation in any form. I don't want cliques set up here please. As for signature pics, I think if the covers meet Amazon's often draconian guidelines, they should be okay for public viewing. However, this is about money, not people, and I would prefer sigs not disappear altogether. Why not just keep them so they are clickable, but have naughty bits greyed out or blurred?


Giving erotica writers a dedicated forum where they post whatever they want is not segregation. Segregation would be creating a separate forum and banishing them to that forum, no longer allowing them to post anywhere else. Telling them they must stay in their own forum and no longer welcome in the Cafe and other forums - _that_ would be segregation. But that is not what anyone suggested.

To give erotica writers, or any other genre writers, a dedicated "safe place" to discuss whatever they wish would be a gift, not a punishment.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

LisaGloria said:


> So, putting this into business terms, the value in participating in a forum is gaining knowledge and/or gaining exposure. Is HM Ward is going to be making a lot of time here if there's no way for us to see her new book covers? If you lose the big names in the biggest selling genres, you lose not only ad revenue but credibility as a forum with decent information.


Wow I had a completely different understanding of the purpose of this forum and the reasons for coming here...

If this is true, wouldn't it make the purpose of posting to advertise your product rather than adding to the discussion? If someone stops posting or visiting Kboards because they can't advertise in each post, is that a good thing or a bad thing?


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Mike_Author said:


> (A discussion forum for writers, not an advertising forum)


Does that mean removal of all book covers in sig lines wouldn't be out of line?

 or put another way, this!



Mike_Author said:


> If this is true, wouldn't it make the purpose of posting to advertise your product rather than adding to the discussion? If someone stops posting or visiting Kboards because they can't advertise in each post, is that a good thing or a bad thing?


----------



## Mahalo (Feb 7, 2014)

I took my books out of my signature. I don't really care all that much as I'm not here to advertise. I'm here to learn and to contribute.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Just as a reminder, Amazon's rules about covers aren't nearly as draconian as Apple's. Amazon tends to adult filter the more out there stuff, but they still pass a lot of it. There have been comments made in the 7 day erotica challenge thread about some of the covers people have seen get through. So the mere fact that the cover is out there on Amazon isn't any kind of guarantee that it isn't seriously NSFW.

I haven't seen anyone actually using covers like that in their sigs, but it's just not a good argument that Amazon is a sufficient gatekeeper to prevent outright nudity and such from showing up on covers.


----------



## Kathy Clark Author (Dec 18, 2012)

Nothing on our covers that haven't sat on book store and library shelves or at book fair signing tables so I'm not concerned.


----------



## T.K. (Mar 8, 2011)

Whether it's advertising or his own moral compass (or a combination of both) Harvey has spoken. We must remember we are guests here and Harvey has been gracious to have us. I mean think about  it - we're kind of a quirky eclectic bunch. I'm just happy he's letting everyone stay.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Harvey said:


> Hmm... sounds like several of the recent posts here are saying that we didn't go far enough with our policy, and should prohibit any above-the-waist unclothed images.


It's not that it didn't go far enough. It was just applied unequally in a way that sexualized women exclusively. Though, I'm not sure what family would be offended by a scantily clad, very cleavage-y secretary with a seductive expression, yet totally fine with disembodied naked man flesh on a flaming background with a title like "Taken by the Alpha WereSomethingOrAnother." Unless of course, that family's first name was Google and last name was AdSense.

Personally, I'm not offended by any of the erotica or romance covers and would prefer that neither hand bras nor man chest be banned. But since you can't do that, banning all nudity seems like the best choice. If not, you're basically saying that images are only sexual and provocative if they appeal to heterosexual males and images that appeal to other groups don't 'count'.

It's a crappy decision and I'm glad I don't have to make it. Good luck and best wishes.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Hmm... that shouldn't be happening, unless people are choosing to delete their posts. Earlier today, I deleted several posts at a member's request, but that was hours ago.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

T.K. Richardson said:


> Whether it's advertising or his own moral compass (or a combination of both) Harvey has spoken. We must remember we are guests here and Harvey has been gracious to have us. I mean think about it - we're kind of a quirky eclectic bunch. I'm just happy he's letting everyone stay.


This is exactly right. This isn't a government venue. Harvey gets to decide, and it doesn't matter if his decisions make sense to any of us or not. It's reasonable to give him feedback -- he might change his mind about something -- but nobody has the right to demand something different.

As for the idea of advertising: Mike Author is right. We're not here as spammers. I would have no objection whatsoever to text-only sigs. Many forums have rules about that, and it's a really great idea -- limiting sigs to two or three lines of text. Some don't even allow html or tags, but just a typed out url.

Personally, as a reader, I find that the number of covers in the forum is getting so cluttered that I don't buy books from sigs here any more. The images are so tiny, and there are so many of them. I just don't "see" them any more.

But in the end, it's KB's choice what standards to set. Harvey can see the affiliate data on the links here and judge for himself if it's worth it for KB.

As for people leaving.... I hate to see anybody leave, but it's an active forum. People leave for all sorts of reasons all the time. (I keep thinking of the Groucho line from Duck Soup: "You can leave in a taxi, or if you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff, or if that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff....") If all the people here stayed the same all the time, we wouldn't learn nearly as much. I've been in groups like that -- they become stale echo chambers.

The ones where people come and go tend to be continually renewed. I've gone away from this place and come back several times, and I'll tell you, it's a different place every time. I mean, it's the same, and yet it is always refreshed. A little turn over never hurt anybody. It's good for the group itself, and it's good for the people finding new pastures.

Camille


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Kalypsō said:


> Yes. A man has to be in his underwear spreading his legs to be offensive, but a woman can be fully clothed and be offensive. Double standard?


He didn't say a man has to be posed in his underwear with his legs spread before it becomes offensive. He was giving an example. One example. Why he didn't list more examples, who knows--maybe he just didn't think he had to spell out every last possibility.

Reading this thread has been really disheartening. Harvey made a simple and reasonable request. Tone it down. That's it. That's all he asked. As a result, we've had people removing their avatars in protest, stomping off, vowing never to return, referring to anyone who sympathizes with those who would rather not see provocative pics as _hung up, prudes, puritans,_ etc., as if there is something wrong with them. You want to talk about a double standard? How about this--it's perfectly okay to like reading erotica and looking at the covers, but it's not okay if you don't. Isn't that just a little hypocritical?

It's not the end of the world. We will survive this and Kboards will thrive even without booty pics. Many forums have managed to thrive in a family friendly environment.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

Harvey said:


> That is a valid point. My inclination was to impose the minimal level of restrictions that we could to get us in accord with some of our advertiser requirements. Several people in this thread have indicated, it would be better to have a higher level of restriction, in an attempt to be fair... so, it's under discussion. No decisions have been made on it.


No no no, I have pointed out the unfairness of censoring women and not men. *I certainly have not meant that I think you should censor more*. Just that the way you do it is unfair and misogynistic.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Well, to lighten the mood in this thread a bit, if my "cherry juice" cover for Under Contract is eventually deemed too "bloody" and therefore unacceptable, I think I've come up with an acceptable substitute:










Yes, this IS tongue-in-cheek and meant in a humorous tone.  Just in case Betsy's getting too cattle-prod-happy ... LOL


----------



## angel_graham (Mar 16, 2011)

1001nightspress said:


> Ah... so guns are OK, but a "provocative pose," even clothed, is not? Like my (former) avatar? I'm actually more disheartened by all the people chiming in to say that we've been bringing the tone of the place down, ruining the experience for decent folk. I'm quite used to images upsetting people (I work a lot in the Middle East), but ... I had formerly considered this a more open place. Amazon shows our covers; are parents of young children wanting Kboards to be more closed than Amazon? Why not just monitor what your kids' access? I did.
> 
> But in any case, I get the message, loud and clear.
> 
> I haven't disabled my account, so if anyone would like to stay in touch, send me a PM.


I know what you mean. I think it's ironic how people say they should not be subjected to the erotic covers "all the time", yet we are subjected to horror covers, romance, sci-fi, and more each time people post. Bare chested men can stay, women with bras on cannot. Interesting how the rules aren't equal to all. Why should erotic authors lose a chance to sell their books through their siggie lines, yet everyone else can keep theirs up and going. Again, the rules only apply to some, not all. Of course, this is Harvey's house; his rules. _I know how this works.
_
And people wonder why I chose not to keep my covers, or put any of my husband's covers up, even though they would pass the scrutiny. At least for now. I'm curious as to if the new pic I am going to be using for my husband's new covers would stand in the scrutiny. I just can't be arsed to bother to put it up, since someone will cry foul.

Btw, at least one cover in someone's siggie line, in thumbnail size looks like a girl blowing off a guy. It wasn't until I saw it in full size that I realized that wasn't the case. Maybe I should run around waving my hands over my head, screaming, "oh no, oh no" like some have done about erotic covers. If you don't like them...don't look at them. You can block signitures using an add on in nearly every browser. I know, I used to do it over at another forum that basically had no size limit on signature lines, and nearly an entire page could be one person's signature. Like he said above, monitor your kids time on the pc, know where they are. Use your kiddie filters. Use them for yourselves if you are so delicate that suggestive poses offend you.

I think it blows that it's erotic authors getting dumped on for what they write, for their covers, for apparently having the unmitigated gall to coexist with the "real writers" who come here. We're the red-headed step-child no one wants around, until it's time to dump on someone, then we're the perfect foil.

Not only do I get the message loud and clear...I'm giving a message loud and clear.


----------



## angel_graham (Mar 16, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> bare chested women vs. bare chested men, in public, one will get you arrested for indecency, one will not.
> It's those secondary sexual organs that get women in trouble all the time.


Actually, in many countries, so not true. America is a prudish country. Let's face it. Sorry, but double standards abound with this rule. As someone else said, it's the female population, the female covers, the females in suggestive poses, the females fully clothed, yet a possible suggestive pose, that are being disallowed, while the naked male torso's, and men with their hands close to their "personal gun" that are being allowed to stay. I call hypocrisy and double standards.

I am certain my posts will be removed shortly, I'm probably going to get a warning or get banned. whatever.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I highly doubt kids are coming to Kboards to look at erotica covers. I mean, there's a whole internet full of free porn out there.

The real answer is if you don't like the policy, don't have a sig. I think we all should turn off our sigs, frankly. One, it isn't worth the risk of being one-starred or downvoted to death when/if you say something people don't like. Two, our sigs have affiliate links in them. Don't like the policy? Vote with your wallet by not allowing sales of your books or even people clicking through to look at your books to make money for the policy makers. Put a simple website link in, instead, if you want.


----------



## angel_graham (Mar 16, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Telling people not to browse at work, to turn off signatures, and to not report violations of a site's policy when the site asks people to report violations IS trying to control people.


Oh, but censoring erotic authors covers, censoring posts that may possible describe, a normal act of nature between two people is not controlling? Saying how it makes "you" _(whoever is complaining about erotic authors, and YES, it's been happening lately. Remeber the "Moral Line in the Sand thread"?, hmm.)_ feel dirty, or squicky, or..whatever...that isn't passive agressive and controlling. 

There was a time I respected your opinion. The last few weeks have taught me otherwise.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of certain covers being banned, and even more uncomfortable with the idea of banning even more covers just to even things up. I'm not a ban fan at all. 

However (and I don't know if this can be done technically), would it maybe be possible to ban signatures from the thread pages altogether but let people put whatever covers they want under their profiles? Or maybe give everyone an author page under their profile in which they can put their links? You have to click deliberately into a profile so it's not like it's just there in front of you. Would that appease the advertisers, do you think? I look at and buy quite a few books from authors here, and I know lots of other people do too, so it seems a bit silly to lose that income by banning the covers altogether.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

CraigInOregon said:


> Yes, this IS tongue-in-cheek and meant in a humorous tone.  Just in case Betty's getting too cattle-prod-happy ... LOL


Who is Betty and why does she have my cattle prod?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Who is Betty and why does she have my cattle prod?


Oops. Here comes the prod!


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

ㅈㅈ said:


> I highly doubt kids are coming to Kboards to look at erotica covers. I mean, there's a whole internet full of free porn out there.


Absolutely. The idea that a 14 year old boy or girl will be shocked by the erotica covers found here is absurd. If they can use Google to find this site, there's a 99.99 % chance that they have already used Google to find even less family-friendly sites. That's the reality. Another fact: no child in the history of mankind has ever been harmed by seeing a naked woman (or clothed woman in seductive pose). What harms them in their development is giving the impression that natural sexuality is something to be ashamed of.

That said, the level of erotica that is deemed acceptable by the moderators (via Google) should be respected (with a note of protest). However, the sexism shouldn't. Allowing oily topless men in a seductive pose and banning fully-clothed women in the same pose is highly sexist. I understand that this sexism does not come from the mods, but rather from Google's christian conservative clients. Still, you can do such an erotica ban without the sexism. If you get rid of the fully-clothed naughty secretary, get rid of the oily topless man. Fair is fair. If I were a woman, I'd probably be pretty offended by this double standard and rightly so.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

books_mb said:


> Absolutely. The idea that a 14 year old boy or girl will be shocked by the erotica covers found here is absurd. If they can use Google to find this site, there's a 99.99 % chance that they have already used Google to find even less family-friendly sites. That's the reality. Another fact: no child in the history of mankind has ever been harmed by seeing a naked woman (or clothed woman in seductive pose). What harms them in their development is giving the impression that natural sexuality is something to be ashamed of.
> 
> That said, the level of erotica that is deemed acceptable by the moderators (via Google) should be respected (with a note of protest). However, the sexism shouldn't. Allowing oily topless men in a seductive pose and banning fully-clothed women in the same pose is highly sexist. I understand that this sexism does not come from the mods, but rather from Google's christian conservative clients. Still, you can do such an erotica ban without the sexism. If you get rid of the fully-clothed naughty secretary, get rid of the oily topless man. Fair is fair. If I were a woman, I'd probably be pretty offended by this double standard and rightly so.


This, thank you.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Can someone point me at these google adwords terms? All I can find is what you can advertise, which seems pretty liberal. I can't find anything about not allowing adwords on a site that very occasionally has a few R rated photos on it.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

EelKat said:


> Overall I think it's better to play be the rules then to fight them, usually. Depends on the rules and the situation. But here on KB and over on Amazon...I just think it's best to play by their rules. It don't think it's that much of a big deal.


I haven't ever suggested that anyone never play by the rules. I was just suggesting that maybe instead of people wagging their finger and tsking and saying 'well if you EROTICA writers would just settle down...' maybe consider that their livelihood/earning potential isn't being axed and that maybe if it were, they might be up in arms, too.

I don't have overtly suggestive covers on my stuff. One pen name I'm goofing around with has a brick wall. The ADULT tags I've been hit with on the zon have been over title and content/blurb and only once for a cover (even though I thought it was a tasteful one, they took exception, I changed it without complaint). And I have never once sought to use my sig line as a way to drive sales. I probably should have but now I'm glad I didn't. Low sales can't go any lower by losing visibility here.

But I am getting a little irritated that it seems little sympathy has been shown that what was once a lucrative income driver is being cut out from under many authors while others are and will remain completely untouched. Sure Harvey is well within his rights to do as he pleases. He is the one keeping the lights on and we are all grateful for that.

Erotica writers are already dancing to the tune of others in how their covers look, what their titles say (or don't say), what their blurbs say (or don't say), what their content is (or isn't). They already have to jump through hoops, twist around on the twister board, re-word, re-title, re-cover their works just to meet whatever guidelines the site they display on requires. No other genre has to do it to meet 'obscenity' rules (with the exception of horror). It's part and parcel of the genre, I get that. We all get that. Lest anyone forget, erotica writers understand it.

It's just a little bit of a bitter pill to swallow that a previously accepting board has clamped down on erotica writers again and no other writer is as affected by it as they are and now erotica writers are just expected to suck it up with no complaint and to be shouted down by other authors who want to wade in and say 'well it doesn't affect me so why not just do what is required of you and be glad you're still here'.

As has been stated throughout the thread, covers sell the genre. Many times through this board the discussion over covers given through feedback discusses _at length_ that certain genre requirements dictate a certain kind of cover. Covers sell. And now, one genre specific set of writers have to, once again, tone down their covers and most likely end up going against the genre conventions.

So I'll say it again. Harvey's board, Harvey's rules. No one is disputing that. Some many not like it, they will grumble, some will leave over it. Others aren't affected by it, they won't leave. I just wish a little more sympathy were shown that some writers are going to be hit hard by this, not just from a moral stance but from a financial stance. It's tough, it sucks, it's required for the continued survival of the board.

Just, maybe, a little empathy that what was previously accepted, isn't any more and that it would be better in the end to simply say 'no erotica covers or discussion on this board please, I have to keep the advertisers happy'. It beats having to constantly dance around every time the line gets shoved back until erotica writers get shoved into another ghetto until they're forced out. Then it's clear from the get-go, erotica writers, get your erotica needs fulfilled somewhere else.

But you go on with your unoffensive covers and your own plan for writing and success. Not everyone thinks that your way works for them and this decision is going to affect them.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

books_mb said:


> Absolutely. The idea that a 14 year old boy or girl will be shocked by the erotica covers found here is absurd. If they can use Google to find this site, there's a 99.99 % chance that they have already used Google to find even less family-friendly sites. That's the reality. Another fact: no child in the history of mankind has ever been harmed by seeing a naked woman (or clothed woman in seductive pose). What harms them in their development is giving the impression that natural sexuality is something to be ashamed of.


I agree with every word you just wrote.

However...that is not the topic at hand. This is about Google making broad brush stroke policies to prevent their customers' products being advertised on sites with proscribed content. Unfortunately this means that harmless stuff is occasionally collateral damage (ie - a person in a suggestive pose on the cover of a book).

I think every participant in this chain acts completely logically. I, for one, love boobies and have been known, on rare occasion, to view the odd couple enjoying each other's company in various videos on the internet. However do I, CEO of <insert non-sexual company here> want to see my products advertised on these sites I enjoy in my private time? No, of course not. Google knows this and so they are also logical in putting in place measures to ensure this doesn't happen. They also build in redundancy because there are more risks in terms of undercooking than overcooking this policy. This means that ostensibly non-sexual sites like this forum or maybe a site with information on sexual health (or something similar that isn't pornographic but might trigger alarm) get caught in the crossfire because Google has a "better safe than sorry" policy that is a bit overly sensitive.

And finally I think Harvey has also acted completely logically based on all of this information.

The passionate debate around Amazon's treatment of erotica and related issues of censorship I totally get. This seems like a worthy, principled fight to me. People being asked to tone down what is actually a comparatively generous sig rule, inhibiting their "right" to free advertising, I am less sympathetic with. In fact I am the opposite of sympathetic because all this talk of "bans" and "censorship" and "I am never coming back because of this heinous act" etc actually diminishes issues of genuine censorship.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

the thread has been going on awhile.  People have different opinions.  Not everyone is agreeing. That's allowed. We've been letting this thread have a little more free rein than we would a normal discussion thread because it was our call for comment.  But let's not call each other out for having different opinions, okay?  

The goal here is for us to hear, from those of you who want to post, your thoughts and feedback.  Some are okay with it.  That's their feedback.  Others aren't.  That's their feedback.  Some have suggestions.  Most of the suggestions we've received are worthy of discussion and almost all of them have been physically possible, thank you for that. 

As always, let's keep it civil.  We appreciate your thoughts on this.  All of them.

EDIT:  Started this post early this morning, but for various reasons, just got to posting it now...it's not aimed at anyone in particular, just a thought I had as I read through the posts made since turning in last night.  Not to say you can't debate a point made, just address the point, not the person.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Aw, forget it. This policy should have been applied fairly to begin with. A retroactive fix won't make the sexism any better because the damage to the culture of this community has already been done. At this point, actually banning more covers will probably just anger people further and affect more member's income (and deprive us all of delicious moob  ) so unfortunately, it's probably best to leave the double standards in place.

More censorship certainly won't make erotica authors feel welcome again. And they clearly aren't, not if they actually want to discuss and link to what they do, which happens to be a large segment of the ebook market and the only reason a lot of people even bought Kindles to begin with.

If this had been framed as an Advertising Friendly policy change, it wouldn't have stung nearly as much. You have to do what you have to do. But in the name of protecting 'the family' from obscene even when partially clothed lady parts? It just plain stinks.

I think Selena Kitt put it best at the beginning of the Pornocalypse.



> Erotica writers made the Kindle what it is today. Not mystery writers, not horror writers, not even romance writers. Certainly not big publishing, who have been brought kicking and screaming into the ebook world. It was erotica writers who provided readers with the titillating books that made this new device so convenient and advantageous. So you could carry 500 books at a time&#8230; big deal, who's going to read 500 books while you're at the doctor's office? But women everywhere realized they could read sexual fantasies, stories about BDSM, about dubious consent, about sex toys and infidelity, all those fantasies that we know women have been having since Nancy Friday wrote Secret Garden, and they could do it without anyone knowing, at the doctor's office or in line at the supermarket.
> 
> THAT is what sold Kindles. Porn. Face it, Jeff Bezos. You owe the success of Kindle to me, and to every erotica writer out there making a living writing "porn."
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

ㅈㅈ said:


> I highly doubt kids are coming to Kboards to look at erotica covers. I mean, there's a whole internet full of free porn out there.
> 
> The real answer is if you don't like the policy, don't have a sig. I think we all should turn off our sigs, frankly. One, it isn't worth the risk of being one-starred or downvoted to death when/if you say something people don't like. Two, our sigs have affiliate links in them. Don't like the policy? Vote with your wallet by not allowing sales of your books or even people clicking through to look at your books to make money for the policy makers. Put a simple website link in, instead, if you want.


+1


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

Here's a cover that can't be denied!


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Mike_Author said:


> I think every participant in this chain acts completely logically. I, for one, love boobies and have been known, on rare occasion, to view the odd couple enjoying each other's company in various videos on the internet. However do I, CEO of <insert non-sexual company here> want to see my products advertised on these sites I enjoy in my private time? No, of course not. Google knows this and so they are also logical in putting in place measures to ensure this doesn't happen. They also build in redundancy because c. This means that ostensibly non-sexual sites like this forum or maybe a site with information on sexual health (or something similar that isn't pornographic but might trigger alarm) get caught in the crossfire because Google has a "better safe than sorry" policy that is a bit overly sensitive.
> 
> And finally I think Harvey has also acted completely logically based on all of this information.


Well, I will respond to any post saying "I love boobies". And I too have done my share of ... let's say "internet research" 

You are right, the mods and Google are acting rationally. The mods are complying with Google's requirements because running this forum costs time and money and they need the ad revenue. That's absolutely fine. Google sets these requirements so that ads by conservative clients will not end up on sites with sexual content. This is understandable. But somewhere in this chain (or before that) the element of sexism is introduced and it is everyone's duty to oppose this. It is okay to say we have little tolerance for erotica overall, but it is not okay to have a different standard for women than for men. All I'm asking is to apply the same principles to both genders. Yes, there are differences, a topless man is not as sexually suggestive as a topless woman, but I'm talking about allowing topless men on the one side and banning fully-clothed women on the other. This says to me: women who are sexual in any way are dirty (a.k.a. not family friendly).

My request to the mods: please allow fully-clothed women in seductive poses to get rid of this inequality.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Donald Rump said:


> Here's a cover that can't be denied!


Suckup. And I'm not sure that image meets the new guidelines... *saves to computer*

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

Donald Rump said:


> Here's a cover that can't be denied!


Too cool! Donald, you should tweak it so that Betsy can use it as her avatar.   Just remove your name and leave "Betsy the Quilter."

(This thread has gone on for pages and pages. LOL! I published another erotica book last night while you guys were arguing. LOL!)


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Donald Rump said:


> Here's a cover that can't be denied!


If I'm not mistaken, that is an image of a female in skin-tight clothing reclining on a quilt which we can only assume is covering a bed..and she's wearing kinky blue boots.

Filthy!


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

books_mb said:


> My request to the mods: please allow fully-clothed women in seductive poses to get rid of this inequality.


Hear hear. I am posing seductively right now in my pyjamas in support of this motion.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

This is probably irrelevant to the discussion, but I know that I get some extra sales from my sig. For authors who care about that, but maybe can't display their covers here anymore, could Harvey conjure up some kboards approve generic genre covers... or maybe make an option for text only sigs in the signature tool?


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Eclectic Authoress said:


> (This thread has gone on for pages and pages. LOL! I published another erotica book last night while you guys were arguing. LOL!)


This thread encouraged me to finish a story to get up for sale next week. Nothing like high emotion to fuel writing.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> Hear hear. I am posing seductively right now in my pyjamas in support of this motion.


Is it weird if I'm doing the same?  Anyways, I hope your ankles are properly covered otherwise the mods might have to ban you! ^^


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

books_mb said:


> Is it weird if I'm doing the same?  Anyways, I hope your ankles are properly covered otherwise the mods might have to ban you! ^^


Yes, because we CAN see all of you. Though I've always tried to ignore the nekkid ones. Just sayin'.

Betsy


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Yes, because we CAN see all of you. Though I've always tried to ignore the nekkid ones. Just sayin'.
> 
> Betsy


  Oh, you poor things.


----------



## Catnip (Sep 7, 2013)

books_mb said:


> It is okay to say we have little tolerance for erotica overall, but it is not okay to have a different standard for women than for men. All I'm asking is to apply the same principles to both genders. Yes, there are differences, a topless man is not as sexually suggestive as a topless woman, but I'm talking about allowing topless men on the one side and banning fully-clothed women on the other. This says to me: women who are sexual in any way are dirty (a.k.a. not family friendly).
> 
> My request to the mods: please allow fully-clothed women in seductive poses to get rid of this inequality.


I agree with this.

Most people aren't complaining about not being able to show topless women in sigs. Amazon doesn't allow covers with those images anyway (I think they should, but that's another argument). I wouldn't like to see the shirtless men banned. It's just unfair that topless men are okay, when clothed women in even slightly suggestive poses aren't.

I also agree with those who've said that these changes would be more palatable if framed in terms of advertiser-friendliness, not family-friendliness.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Yes, because we CAN see all of you. Though I've always tried to ignore the nekkid ones. Just sayin'.
> 
> Betsy


Well, then you are in luck, because I always wear socks when browsing kboards. Also, please consider making me a mod asap. I will then take over the difficult and unrewarding job of monitoring the nekkid users (and the ones posing seductively in pyjamas).


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Too cool! Donald, you should tweak it so that Betsy can use it as her avatar.   Just remove your name and leave "Betsy the Quilter."


I will do this later this evening.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

"Family Friendly" is a code word. And that's what gets the erotica writers slightly miffed here. Because, let's face it, most of us do not write "Family Friendly" books, and most of us engage in non-Family Friendly discussions, but it isn't aimed at us.

I don't write Family Friendly. One of mine deals with the line between self-sacrifice and suicide, using war as a background. It's a fantasy book, but in no way is it "Family Friendly". There's no gore, no sex scenes, and very little actual battle. Nevertheless, it ain't family fare. When I discuss that book in the Book Bazaar, what am I supposed to say about it that might not disturb children? I write for adults, though I hope those in their late teens might find my books acceptable. I don't write for families.

Three of my Sci-Fi books deal with war. War is hardly "family friendly". One novella is basically a Sci-Fi murder mystery. Murder-mysteries aren't family fare. A couple of mine might be sort of included in the Romance category, though they aren't specifically written as such and any sex scenes are very, very lightly described.

Romance is nowhere near "Family Friendly". Discussions of the so-called Alpha Male would hardly qualify as being "Family Friendly". Those guys are, when it comes right down to it, rather nasty pieces of work. And the Romance novels I've read -- and I've read a fair few -- don't qualify in that regard, either.

Horror? Well, I don't write it, though one of my short stories might be considered such -- in a very mild way. It deals with insanity. It's more in the vein of "The Twilight Zone" than anything else. But, not "Family Friendly".

I'm writing an apocalypse Sci-Fi novel now. Shall we all discuss the end of the world with children? Give them pleasant dreams? Heck, I probably would have had nightmares had I seen the movie adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy back when I was a child. Even reading some of the scarier chapters when I was 15 bothered me. LotR isn't Family Friendly.

Most Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Horror, Murder-Mystery, Suspense, Romance, War, Action-Adventure, Paranormal, Noir, etc. are not "Family Friendly". But all of those -- and discussions of same -- will probably be most welcome to remain, mostly unfettered. Why? Because "Family Friendly" doesn't mean what it says. And all erotica writers know that. It's a loaded term, and it's aimed squarely at those among us who write erotica, while leaving everyone else free to ask: "What's wrong with a Family Friendly site? Kids shouldn't have to look at or read discussions on this sort of stuff, after all."

No, they shouldn't. And they shouldn't be subjected to other adult themes like suicide, war, murder, hauntings and other scary stuff. But this isn't a children's site, and adult themes are everywhere. In the Not-Quite-Kindle section I participate in the thread that deals with the TV series "Castle". The show is about murder. There's at least one murder per episode. That's a very adult theme. Should we stop talking about it because it isn't Family Friendly? Should those who are discussing "The Blacklist", which is even worse, as the show depicts a lot of torture and brutal killings, try to avoid writing anything which might disturb a child?

As many others have said: This is Harvey's site, and he makes the rules. That's fair enough. And Harvey gets to define what is or isn't acceptable. We, as adults, understand this though we might not like the results of any changes. Tough luck on our part; as others have said, those who don't like it can stay or leave as they choose.

However, although any of you may pretend that the use of "Family Friendly" with regards to the new definitions means only what the dictionary defines those two words to be, we all know better and know just at whom it is aimed.

Oh, and guess which of the two photos below will no longer be acceptable on a cover here.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Kat S said:


> Can someone point me at these google adwords terms? All I can find is what you can advertise, which seems pretty liberal. I can't find anything about not allowing adwords on a site that very occasionally has a few R rated photos on it.


These are the policy docs that Google has cited:

http://adsense.blogspot.ie/2011/08/policy-tips-keeping-network-family-safe.html

https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/4410771


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

anderson_gray said:


> It's just a little bit of a bitter pill to swallow that a previously accepting board has clamped down on erotica writers again and no other writer is as affected by it as they are and now erotica writers are just expected to suck it up with no complaint and to be shouted down by other authors who want to wade in and say 'well it doesn't affect me so why not just do what is required of you and be glad you're still here'.
> 
> As has been stated throughout the thread, covers sell the genre. Many times through this board the discussion over covers given through feedback discusses _at length_ that certain genre requirements dictate a certain kind of cover. Covers sell. And now, one genre specific set of writers have to, once again, tone down their covers and most likely end up going against the genre conventions.
> 
> ...


 First, I have a request. Can we stop talking about "erotica writers" as if they were some kind of separate alien species please? There are people that write erotica and there are people that don't, and there are people that write erotica and a whole lot of other things as well. There are also people that don't write erotica now but will in the future, or have in the past. All just people trying to make a living. So let's stop talking like it's the writers that are targeted. Because they aren't. Are the books targeted? sure, I can see that argument, but no one is saying that any person is unwelcome or that they should "go elsewhere." That said, I do have empathy for people that are going to be hardest hit, and I do have a problem with unequal treatment of covers. The only obvious solution to me, is to turn everyone's cover image off. So yeah, I'm voting more censorship, because it's fair. In fact, I'm turning off mine right now, to stand with the people that are hardest hit.

As far as the thread discussions being censored, I've actually seen filthier comments from people that don't have any erotica in their signatures and on random threads than on any erotica focused thread. The censorship there is far more worrying to me than the covers, and I hope it will be done with as light a hand as possible. Look, I haven't written erotica (but someday maybe I will, eh?) but I do write horror. I wouldn't expect to be allowed to start a thread asking how best to eviscerate someone any more than I would expect to see a thread on the latest bedroom techniques, but if Amazon ever got around to putting in a violence filter, I'd sure as heck want to know what was allowed and what wasn't, so I hope those threads (for all genres) will stay. I get why this is needed, and I appreciate that this place is here for people. Harvey is making the best business decision that he can, and I'm sure we, as other business people, can understand that. I'd just advocate for evenness in the rules, even if it means more things change and everyone is affected.


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

I'd just like to say that I am COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY OUTRAGED.

I'm not sure about what, but this seemed to be the thread for me to express it.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

D.A. Boulter said:


> "Family Friendly" is a code word. And that's what gets the erotica writers slightly miffed here. Because, let's face it, most of us do not write "Family Friendly" books, and most of us engage in non-Family Friendly discussions, but it isn't aimed at us.
> 
> I don't write Family Friendly. One of mine deals with the line between self-sacrifice and suicide, using war as a background. It's a fantasy book, but in no way is it "Family Friendly". There's no gore, no sex scenes, and very little actual battle. Nevertheless, it ain't family fare. When I discuss that book in the Book Bazaar, what am I supposed to say about it that might not disturb children? I write for adults, though I hope those in their late teens might find my books acceptable. I don't write for families.
> 
> ...


Absolutely brilliant and yes, spot on.

One thing that I wanted to add is that "Family Friendly" is NOT even when Henry thinks it is for Google. I don't know if he got a specific complaint from Google that he needs to tone down the stuff on here or not. But if not ... he will NEVER be able to comply. Because the things he "thinks" are objectionable are not the only things that are. For example, I write gay romance, the word "gay" was termed not Friendly Family. So whoops, we're out of compliance right there!

You can't win playing that game. You simply can't. It won't work.

Great example is fanfiction.net. They allegedly said all stuff that was above M (Mature, whatever that means) was not allowed. If you've ever read stuff on that site its all sex, sex, sex, underage sex, etc. But Clorox still advertises there, because NO ONE from Clorox reads the content or from Google evidently. Therefore, I say to Harvey if you haven't gotten a specific complaint from Google, why are you worried about it? You can't meet their arbitrary, capricious requirements AT ALL if they would apply to you what they apply to advertisers.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Personally I think we should all change to text only sigs in a gesture of solidarity and then be OUTRAGED if the mods DARE to object to Banged By My Identical Cousin and the Man of the House While At A Biker Bar: an XXX-Rated Adventure of Family Fun!  After all, that's the same as censorship (and fatwa).  And I'm outraged.  Or we could all show a little class and calm down, also.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

HSh said:


> Personally I think we should all change to text only sigs in a gesture of solidarity and then be OUTRAGED if the mods DARE to object to Banged By My Identical Cousin and the Man of the House While At A Biker Bar: an XXX-Rated Adventure of Family Fun! After all, that's the same as censorship (and fatwa). And I'm outraged. Or we could all show a little class and calm down, also.


This is a flagrant exemple of argumentative mould that is known as a red herring.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

I know I'm taking the mickey a bit.  I do think there are some good points in this thread.  But I also think the mods will be a little calmer than you guys think and not remove sexy cowgirls.  

I'm curious to see what's happening here next.  But I also thought up a terrible (I think) erotica title and wanted to use it.  Since I'm not writing it, I shared it here.  Sorry if that offends, was hoping it would make somebody giggle.


----------



## Oaklandish (Oct 30, 2014)

HSh said:


> I know I'm taking the mickey a bit. I do think there are some good points in this thread. But I also think the mods will be a little calmer than you guys think and not remove sexy cowgirls.
> 
> I'm curious to see what's happening here next. But I also thought up a terrible (I think) erotica title and wanted to use it. Since I'm not writing it, I shared it here. Sorry if that offends, was hoping it would make somebody giggle.


But they already asked people (on page one?) to remove fully clothed women from their sigs.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I've read through this whole thread. I thought it might be useful to collect some of the ideas people have offered as work-arounds or solutions. None of these are my invention, but I'm afraid I've lost track of who suggested most of these. Apologies to those not being given credit!

Things we can do:

 Don't reference books in your signature. Some KBers have already made this change in order to protect themselves from retaliatory reviews and down-voting. This solution also deprives KB of Amazon Affiliate income, so going this route could function as a protest against the tightened policy.
 Put a link in your signature that will take interested parties to an outside webpage that lists all your books. I do this on another forum that doesn't depend on Affiliate income. I know from my website stats that people do click on that link, every so often. If you're a member of the Affiliate program, you can transfer Affiliate income from KB to yourself by taking this route.
 Put links to KB book profiles in your sig. KB book profiles have been available for quite a while. They're really nice -- including links to all the Amazon stores, Amazon.com reviews, social media links, and the book's LookInside sample in a scrolling window -- but they're not easy to access. You have to know about the book you're looking for so that you can copy its ASIN to create the URL for the book profile. Once you build the URL, the forum software manufactures the profile page. The one for _Nolander _looks like this. There's no Google advertising on the book profiles, so I assume no one will mind if people use that function to generate profiles for books with disallowed covers. Here's Harvey's thread on how to create book profiles. Using book profiles would be a way to preserve the Affiliate income KB generates from your books, if supporting the community financially is important to you.
 Replace disallowed covers in your sig with image-free placeholders, like the one Craig made. Well, maybe a bit less prod-worthy than that one, but along those lines.  Using the real cover but blurring the image would probably work, too. Downside: if you wanted these linked covers to generate Affiliate income for KB, you'd have to insert the Affiliate code into the link by hand. Constructing signatures would become more challenging in general, since people wouldn't be able to use KB's Link-Maker, which imports whatever cover is up on Amazon.

Things KB could do:

 Create ad-free author pages where people are permitted to post any book cover that passes muster at Amazon. One easy way to do this might be to add a "show signature on posts" toggle to the profile-editing page. That way people could create their signature exactly as they want it, but if it contains disallowed material, choose not to append the signature to their posts. The signature would still be viewable as part of the person's profile. But profile pages do show Google ads, at this point. That would probably have to change.
 Add an ad-free, password-protected, adults-only subforum where people could discuss more freely and share disallowed cover images. The risk here, I suppose, is that the ad-free subforum could take so much traffic from the main Writers' Cafe that KB becomes financially unsustainable. (My impression is that the Writers' Cafe is by far the busiest section of KB, though I could be wrong.)

I hope everyone agrees that KB needs to generate income, whether through the Affiliate program, its own ad sales, or Google advertising. (And it could be that Affiliate income is not workable for KB, due to the limitations the program places on free ebook downloads.) As someone mentioned upthread, the hosting costs for such a large site may be substantial. Harvey should not be expected to run the site out of his personal/family income. He may find a great deal of satisfaction in having built this community for us, but I suspect we benefit from KB's existence a lot more than he does.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Oaklandish said:


> But they already asked people (on page one?) to remove fully clothed women from their sigs.


I guess I wasn't in time to see the offending (?) covers. I was under the impression people were rushing to remove their covers before being asked.


----------



## M.G. Russell (Sep 23, 2014)

HSh said:


> I guess I wasn't in time to see the offending (?) covers. I was under the impression people were rushing to remove their covers before being asked.


No, they were not. There were covers that the mods requested be removed and some of them were fully clothed women. That is why so many of us see this as a double standard. When bare-chested men are find but a fully clothed woman is not, how sexist is that? Plenty, in my opinion.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Yep, and there are many sexist things in society and I think they suck.  I mean, I think they're bad.  I hope the mods can work out something that allows them to have the issues they need to deal with dealt with, without removing too many covers or making the people with women on their covers self-conscious all the time about how they look.  Personally I'm very aware that my covers may offend some people and have tried to remove the ones that are sexiest , but I'm open to being told otherwise.  I hope that everything will turn out fair and good, but honestly I do not think everyone will be pleased no matter what the solution is.  

And it's none of my business and I should shut up now before I'm cattleprodded.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

The bottom line for me is that even though it's Harvey's house, and Harvey's rules, Harvey is wrong. It's the wrong position to take, and it's harming a lot of people who've contributed to KBoards in good faith and come to value the community. It doesn't help that this came out of the blue and with so little empathy for the folks affected.

You can censor even more content to eliminate some of the inconsistencies in the policy, but that doesn't make it right. The issue I have is that the "Family Friendly" values animating the policy are immoral. Thus, we reach an impasse.


----------



## Joel R. Crabtree (Aug 6, 2012)

Google ads may not be placed on pages with explicit text or extreme profanity. Examples include, but are not limited to, pages containing: *erotic or sexual forums, bulletin boards, and/or discussion groups*

Does this wording mean that the protected sub-forum idea can not be utilized according to Google's policy?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

HSh said:


> I guess I wasn't in time to see the offending (?) covers. I was under the impression people were rushing to remove their covers before being asked.


Some people removed all of their covers either to beat the rush or in protest. Others asked about theirs and we responded based on the guidelines that were provided (and linked to in here a few posts ago). We have not provided feedback to anyone who did not ask for it.

Betsy


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Just to clarify: our wording, which mirrors the current Google Adsense working, calls out that provocative poses, even if clothed, are not appropriate. That applies to both sexes. Obviously, it will require some judgment calls from us on what is considered "provocative." That's part of the difficulty and probably something we'll do better and learn as we go along.

In terms of nudity, it does specifically call out "breasts, buttocks, and crotches." That does imply a different treatment of men and women. I empathize that some people consider that sexist. It may be the cultural norm as Google sees it, but obviously some people consider it misogynistic. We're discussing how best to handle it.

In the meantime, I've temporarily disabled our Google ads while we get this sorted out. I appreciate those who can talk civilly about this issue. And I suggest to those who are quick to call me, our mods, or our society in general as misogynistic... it's hard to get past the name-calling, and I think that doesn't help you in terms of having your valid points heard.

As we've done many times in the past, we'll work through this together. It's unlikely there'll be a broad consensus, but I will try to come to a decision that is workable for most.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Joel R. Crabtree said:


> Google ads may not be placed on pages with explicit text or extreme profanity. Examples include, but are not limited to, pages containing: *erotic or sexual forums, bulletin boards, and/or discussion groups*
> 
> Does this wording mean that the protected sub-forum idea can not be utilized according to Google's policy?


The way I read it, it could be utilized as long as those particular pages did not contain Google Ads.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> For authors who care about that, but maybe can't display their covers here anymore, could Harvey conjure up some kboards approve generic genre covers... or maybe make an option for text only sigs in the signature tool?


The Link-Maker already allows that. It's the first option. Look under "TO MAKE A TEXT LINK." Here's an example:

Diabetics Behaving Badly: Confessions of a Type 2 Insulin Junkie


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Joel R. Crabtree said:


> Google ads may not be placed on pages with explicit text or extreme profanity. Examples include, but are not limited to, pages containing: *erotic or sexual forums, bulletin boards, and/or discussion groups*
> 
> Does this wording mean that the protected sub-forum idea can not be utilized according to Google's policy?


No it doesn't. As long as the subforum is free of Google adverts Harvey would be compliant. It is a wellknown problem and all larger forum softwares cater to this need.


----------



## Joel R. Crabtree (Aug 6, 2012)

Thank you both for the clarification/interpretation. I did notice the terms used the wording 'page' rather than 'site.'


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Just as this is settling down.....

I do feel the need to say the whole issue of clothed or unclothed is a red herring.  It really isn't about what skin is shown, it's about how erotic it is.  There was a spammer on Twitter a while back who was spamming a picture of a fully clothed couple engaged in simulated sex that was, frankly, way more explicit than any pornography cover.

We're getting into playground lawyer stuff when we start complaining that THAT cover had clothes and this cover didn't.  That's purely a technicality.  The question is whether it's provocative or not.  It's the spirit and intention of the rule, not the letter of the rule.

And that's up to the mods. 

Camille


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Whoever decides the appropriateness of a cover in question is faced with a conundrum.

"...I know it when I see it."
  -- Justice Potter Stewart

Clothes, bare, bras, whatever, the test is whether the image appeals to the viewer's "prurient interests," and that is a subjective determination, with the result being highly dependent on the perspective of the judge du jour. It adds another gatekeeper and another set of vague guidelines to our industry.

Heck, a headshot of the youthful Bridget Bardot appeals to my prurient interests.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> Put a link in your signature that will take interested parties to an outside webpage that lists all your books. I do this on another forum that doesn't depend on Affiliate income. I know from my website stats that people do click on that link, every so often. If you're a member of the Affiliate program, you can transfer Affiliate income from KB to yourself by taking this route.



I'm sorely tempted to do this, as it is what I already do on most sites.

I try to put very little or no original content on those sites and drive as much traffic as I can to my own website, where I decide what decent values are.


----------



## Alexis Adaire (Mar 20, 2014)

daringnovelist said:


> We're getting into playground lawyer stuff when we start complaining that THAT cover had clothes and this cover didn't. That's purely a technicality. The question is whether it's provocative or not. It's the spirit and intention of the rule, not the letter of the rule.


My problem is that the word "provocative" is being used as a stand-in for "sexually provocative." There are many, many provocative covers that have nothing to do with erotica. In fact, if your covers are not provocative, you're likely leaving money on the table. A good cover should provoke a response.

So what this boils down to is that _erotica_ authors are the only ones affected. Just like in TV and movies, implied violence is family-friendly but implied sex should be be hidden from the kids. This is so backwards it makes my head hurt.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

I've received PMs from people who remind me about some past KBoards times that were controversial and triggered responses similar to what we've seen in this thread.

1. Several years ago, we made the decision to allow and to welcome authors into our forum. While this seems like a no-brainer now, at the time it was highly controversial. Several major writing forums at that time were banning indie authors. And even within our forum it was controversial -- with people concerned that this would change things for the worse, that it would essentially be the end of the boards. Some members left. But we felt we could make it work, and I think that now most would agree it was a good move for the community.

2. Shortly afterwards, we made the decision to restrict the size of signatures. We were seeing large, 400-px high graphics in signatures, or dozens of book covers. We decided to enforce size limits. There was quite an outcry at that time, and many authors felt we were being draconian, that we hated authors, that we were affecting the ability of authors to sell books, etc. Some authors left. But we felt that it was fairest for everyone to have a siggy size limit, and that having those limits made for a better discussion experience in the boards. Most people would now look back on that as a good and reasonable decision.

3. As our author community grew, we decided to break the author discussions out of the Book Bazaar board, and into its own area: the Writers' Cafe. There was a significant hue and cry about this. Many authors felt we were trying to disenfranchise the authors from the rest of the board. Our motives were questioned and some nasty charges were thrown about. Some authors left. For those who remained, I think most would agree that this was a sound decision for our community of authors.

The point is, we've been through difficult times before. And generally the decisions we've come to have been good ones for the board and our community overall. So... despite some of the personal charges and strong reactions in this thread, my view is that our boards will be okay. You're not in the hands of raving maniacs making rash decisions... I think we've demonstrated over the past seven years our sincere motivations and our willingness to course-correct when needed. 

Despite claims to the contrary in this thread, over 90% of our forum signatures would require no changes under this policy. And only a small handful of threads would be affected. 

For those who feel that our forum policies are immoral, I am respectful of your right to determine your own morals. 

For those who choose to stay, I'm quite sure it'll continue to be a useful discussion board. And, as I've said before, all authors remain welcome here.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Alexis Adaire said:


> Just like in TV and movies, implied violence is family-friendly but implied sex should be be hidden from the kids. This is so backwards it makes my head hurt.


"Just like on TV and movies" is exactly right.

"Just like in most aspects of everyday life" wouldn't even be a huge exaggeration.

Which is related to why I feel so bad for Harvey that some people here have effectively given him a real mouthful over this, and said they're leaving a forum with "misogynistic policies". 

I have every confidence that Harvey and his staff will continue to handle this necessary issue both sensibly and sensitively, and with the minimum censorship they can, in the circumstances.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

zoe tate said:


> "Just like on TV and movies" is exactly right.
> 
> "Just like in most aspects of everyday life" wouldn't even be a huge exaggeration.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Harvey said:


> You're not in the hands of raving maniacs making rash decisions...


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Harvey said:


> 1. ...Some members left.
> 
> 2. ...Some authors left.
> 
> 3. ...Some authors left.


Looks like you've found a working way to...nah, that can't be it.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Joining in the dead horse abuse here but...

Violence IS more kid appropriate/family-friendly than porn. Example: walk down the street dressed as a zombie. Walk down the street naked. One will get you arrested.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

I have been trying to stay out of a debate that does not concern me as I am willing to bow to any offence taken over the volcano, coffee mug, and partially clad skyscraper on my avatar and covers. But this talk of misogyny cannot go unchallenged. Misogyny is the hatred of women, but if you want to complain about the double standards of Adsense that is sexism. Whatever American cultural norms about male torsos might be they are not misogynist. Allowing David Michael Hasselhof to appear on prime time TV without a leotard to hide his pectoral muscles is not an act of hating women. To call all double standards misogynist is an insult to all women who are the victims of actual misogyny e.g., FGM.

As Zoe says above these are the standards of American culture and Google's notion of a family safe webpage is not going to change because of anything done or said on kboards. Google's American cultural values may be different to those in Sweden or Afghanistan but they are what they are. You might think that they are sexist values, just as I think that a high proportion of the comments in this thread have been heterosexist. I have not seen any homophobic comments, but there has been a lot of heterosexist assumption about what on a cover gets a woman all hot and bothered - I am far more intrigued by the woman on Russell Blake's JET - Ops Files. Not all heterosexism is homophobic and not all sexism is misogyny.


----------



## heyhannajames (Jun 1, 2014)

For the record, it's legal in *New York City,* the largest city in America, cultural bastion of our American society, *for women to walk down the street topless.* If a man can be topless in New York City (or state) then a woman can be topless as well. *Legally, all the beaches in NYC are topless beaches and no woman can be arrested for going topless in any public place.* There is a topless book reading group that gathers in Central Park every summer.



> In the cold of February, as New York City police officers gathered for their daily orders at roll call, they were given a rather unusual command, for both its timing and its substance: If they happened upon a topless woman, they were not to arrest her.
> 
> The command was read at 10 consecutive roll calls. Each of the city's 34,000 officers, in theory, got the message: For "simply exposing their breasts in public," women are guilty of no crime.
> 
> The state's highest court ruled more than two decades ago that baring one's chest in public -- for noncommercial activity -- is perfectly legal for a woman, as it is for a man.


*It is also legal in the state of Texas, the reddest of red states, for a woman to breastfeed in any place she is authorized to be - without additional clarifications re: how much of her body is exposed or if children are around.*

That's right, folks: the biggest city, and the almost-biggest state in America have laws allowing partial or full topless female nudity.

So no, it's not a "cultural American thing" for women's breasts to be sexualized universally. Just to clarify for all the people saying that if women walk around topless they're gonna get arrested - *not in every state, or every situation.* So if the answer is "I personally believe that women's breasts are sexual and inappropriate," then fine. But it's not a universal law.


----------



## heyhannajames (Jun 1, 2014)

That's not to say that I don't get why these rules are happening - I just don't like "but women's breasts in public are illegal/wrong/unheard of!" rhetoric. It's just not true.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I have been trying to stay out of a debate that does not concern me as I am willing to bow to any offence taken over the volcano, coffee mug, and partially clad skyscraper on my avatar and covers. But this talk of misogyny cannot go unchallenged. Misogyny is the hatred of women, but if you want to complain about the double standards of Adsense that is sexism. Whatever American cultural norms about male torsos might be they are not misogynist. Allowing Michael Hasselhof to appear on prime time TV without a leotard to hide his pectoral muscles is not an act of hating women. To call all double standards misogynist is an insult to all women who are the victims of actual misogyny e.g., FGM.
> 
> As Zoe says above these are the standards of American culture and Google's notion of a family safe webpage is not going to change because of anything done or said on kboards. Google's American cultural values may be different to those in Sweden or Afghanistan but they are what they are. You might think that they are sexist values, just as I think that a high proportion of the comments in this thread have been heterosexist. I have not seen any homophobic comments, but there has been a lot of heterosexist assumption about what on a cover gets a woman all hot and bothered - I am far more intrigued by the woman on Russell Blake's JET - Ops Files. Not all heterosexism is homophobic and not all sexism is misogyny.


I haven't read the entire thread but this makes a whole lot of sense. Misogyny implies hatred for women (misos = the Greek word for hatred) and should not be thrown around lightly.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I'm confused about something that I've seen several people allude to.

Are people equating the privilege of showing female breasts with feminism, and, conversely, the banning of said pictures of breasts as an imposition on the rights of women?

Funny, there are a lot of famous people who call themselves feminists who are adamant that


Spoiler



a woman's cans


 * being flashed all over the place is the opposite of feminism.

The right to show a bare male torso on a cover is an example of male privilege?

I can understand some of the arguments in this thread, but for me, this particular one is a real stretch. I understand the resistance to censorship (although there have never been more reasonable people on the planet than Harvey and his mods), but I don't think feminism, rights, and misogyny are concepts that belong in this debate. It's about standards. Yeah, we're a bit uptight in this country, and have uneven rules (violence okay, sex bad), but let's not make this into more than it is.

* using this term to make a subtle point.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

daveconifer said:


> I'm confused about something that I've seen several people allude to.
> 
> Are people equating the privilege of showing female breasts with feminism, and, conversely, the banning of said pictures of breasts as an imposition on the rights of women?
> 
> ...


Feminism has a lot of variety, Dave. There are feminists who are deeply opposed to men ogling and getting off on portrayals of women's bodies -- in _Playboy_, for instance, or in porn -- as a form of objectification. But there are also feminists for whom going down to the local strip club and participating in amateurs' night is a body-positive celebration of female sexuality. And there are plenty of intermediate positions, too, as well as interest in using sexual material to undercut assumptions about sexual orientation and gender identity. Feminism a complex, multicultural, and mature movement, so you will find people with a lot of different views trying to find common ground -- and sometimes failing to do so.

But I think modern erotica steps outside the binary I set up above, at least to some extent. It's a genre largely aimed at female readers, so it's hard to argue the women on the covers or in the books are being objectified for male consumption. It's much easier to defend the other position -- that erotica is a celebration of female sexuality and that frankly sexual cover images are participating in that celebration. Men may look at the covers or read the books, but it's not made for them.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

The issue is that it's apparently OK to have naked male torsos, while pretty much ANY female skin between legs and arms is at risk of being banned.

That is a very obvious double standard, and quite a sexist one at that. Misogyny is a word people use to show off that they can spell it. It has no place in a discussion like this, as Mercia pointed out above.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Misogyny doesn't exclusively mean hatred of women anymore. It also means "Dislike of, contempt for, or *ingrained prejudice* against women."

"Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and *sexual objectification* of women." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

I personally didn't mean to imply that anyone, especially the mods, were hateful people, and apologize if my comments were taken as that. I don't throw the word around lightly, I just agree with it's modern, expanded definition. But a lot of you are right, just plain sexism would have covered it and bringing the M word into the discussion made it more confusing and heated.

Yes, I do realize that this definition could be interpreted to include all erotica, especially the covers. It's a very complicated subject. I personally appreciate Harvey and the mods allowing this discussion and _requesting_ everyone's input. There's not really a good solution here and I'm glad it's been made relatively clear that this is more about advertisers than families.



Becca Mills said:


> erotica is a celebration of female sexuality and that frankly sexual cover images are participating in that celebration. Men may look at the covers or read the books, but it's not made for them.


This, more or less.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Al Stevens said:


> Whoever decides the appropriateness of a cover in question is faced with a conundrum.
> 
> "...I know it when I see it."
> -- Justice Potter Stewart
> ...


KB isn't a gate keeper. They don't stop you from putting your books out there. Like it or not, we're holding a conversation in Harvey's backyard, and he has the right to decide what goes or doesn't here. It doesn't matter if it's suggestive images, or if he just doesn't like the color orange; his house, his subjective opinion, his rules.

The old "know it when I see it" rule is exactly the right one here. This is not a court or a government agency deciding what KB can allow on this site, it's KB, deciding based on whatever factors they choose.

Camille


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

I just wanted to quote anderson gray's post below and single it out as the best post I have seen from those taking the opposing view to the ones I have expressed. This is an honest and logical position that I empathise with.

I also get the double standard thing in terms of male/female. However this double standard in endemic across the globe and has nothing to do with Harvey or his necessary compliance with Google. At my local beach, I can wear no shirt yet a woman cannot. In some countries in the Middle East, a woman can only show her eyes through a slit, whereas men can swan around showing skin (Actually to combine these two, nothing makes me more angry than seeing Saudis on holiday at the beach where the man is in swimming trunks and the woman is in a burqa). Are people angry with Harvey because of this endemic double-standard or because he has been required to comply with it? This is part of what made me a little upset with some of the heat he has taken in this thread. Essentially what some people are doing is asking Harvey to give up his income that helps keep this site running, so that they can continue to advertise for free.

This is why I think it is disingenuous to start hurling around terms like "censorship" and "misogyny". A better question to ask is - With all the sexual double standards encountered on a daily basis by everyone here, why is this particular double standard making everyone so upset? That is why I found Anderson Gray's post so refreshing and clear. I can tell you that if I found an unrelated example of genuine, upsetting and unfair misogyny that had no relation to either publishing erotica or advertising in my sig, it wouldn't become a twenty-something page thread of heated debate. So the question is - What is actually being debated or defended here?

If we can clarify what the true essence of this debate is, we can then just focus purely on workarounds and solutions. There have been some really helpful suggestions already.



anderson_gray said:


> I haven't ever suggested that anyone never play by the rules. I was just suggesting that maybe instead of people wagging their finger and tsking and saying 'well if you EROTICA writers would just settle down...' maybe consider that their livelihood/earning potential isn't being axed and that maybe if it were, they might be up in arms, too.
> 
> I don't have overtly suggestive covers on my stuff. One pen name I'm goofing around with has a brick wall. The ADULT tags I've been hit with on the zon have been over title and content/blurb and only once for a cover (even though I thought it was a tasteful one, they took exception, I changed it without complaint). And I have never once sought to use my sig line as a way to drive sales. I probably should have but now I'm glad I didn't. Low sales can't go any lower by losing visibility here.
> 
> ...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Harvey said:


> Just to clarify: our wording, which mirrors the current Google Adsense working, calls out that provocative poses, even if clothed, are not appropriate. That applies to both sexes. Obviously, it will require some judgment calls from us on what is considered "provocative." That's part of the difficulty and probably something we'll do better and learn as we go along.


Just a note of reality here:

I generally do think, as I've posted, that fully-clothed stuff ought to be okay.

However, to point out what Google and Harvey are potentially concerned about, I point you all to the recent controversy over Marvel Comics' Alternate Cover for Spider-Woman #1:










Marvel got a lot of heat for it and even eventually pulled the alternate cover (thus making it *even more* collectible, LOL).

So when Google and Harvey are talking about "provocative shots, fully clothed," this is the sort of thing they probably mean.

Just Google "Marvel Spider Woman Porn Shot" ... for the full story.


----------



## busywoman (Feb 22, 2014)

> I don't know about the host KB uses, but the host I use on my site, allows me to turn off the Google Ads for specific pages. Google does send you a list of pages that don't pass their guidelines and tell you to either change those pages to comply or disable the ads on those pages.


I believe you were lucky to get that kind of detailed notice. Glad you got that kind of assistance.

Most of the time, I've seen webmasters get such a vaguely worded notification of violation that they are left literally guessing as to the violation and how to fix the issues. (Until relatively recently you didn't even get advance notification- you just got shut out of AdSense. Period.) And if a webmaster goes to the public AdSense Google Groups for guidance, 9 out of 10 times the webmaster will get useless or wrong advice via ludicrously misinformed opinions (e.g., "Kitten's avatar was not covered, you idiots! You should have known better than to let a kitten's avatar be uncovered. And another thing, your color scheme is blue. That also violates Google's TOS").

I've been on AdSense since 2004, and it's gotten a bit better over the past decade. But it's still a risky thing for a webmaster because you may or may not get what you consider a fair hearing. So a smart webmaster is going to pay close attention to the AdSense TOS.

The other thing some people don't realize is how expensive a site is to run when you get high traffic like KBoards. Hosting is the tip of the iceberg. It's special security scanning and services you must pay for, and fighting spammers who attack the site in droves I am quite certain, and at industrial strength levels. It's troubleshooting issues like the malware complaints that came up last week. It's dealing with support inquiries. The list goes on. It takes extraordinary amounts of time involved to run an active site like this.

I'm all for free speech, but Harvey also needs to make the business decisions right for his site.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Free speech works in a regulated society. Usenet proved that anarchy of discussion does not succeed.


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

Google Adsense is not the only pay-per-click contextual advertiser. There are others that would pay to make use of KBoards' real estate as well.


----------



## Catnip (Sep 7, 2013)

I've also been an Adsense publisher for several years, and I must admit, I'd be nervous if it was a major part of my income. I've heard so many horror stories about Google pulling accounts for minor violations. It seems to be next to impossible to get back into the program if you lose your account. I've also tried similar programs like Kontera and Chitika, but they don't perform nearly as well. So while I don't like the new policies, I don't blame Harvey for being cautious.


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

Catnip said:


> I've also tried similar programs like Kontera and Chitika, but they don't perform nearly as well.


Perhaps a trial of Microsoft's(Bing's) and Yahoo!'s joint contextual advertising effort: MediaNet could be beneficial?

As for the signature lines: What about a mouse rollover script coded into the forum's signature field? Maybe a blur of signature lines by default requiring rollover to view, or something akin to this. It would provide signature visibility on demand, but solve the issue of visibility with unwanted eyes present.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

J.L. Dickinson said:


> Perhaps a trial of Microsoft's(Bing's) and Yahoo!'s joint contextual advertising effort: MediaNet could be beneficial?


Thank you. I haven't tried MediaNet, although I have experimented with Chitika and one other ad network. It's been a few years now, but at least at that time the results were underwhelming, and some of the ads that were presented gave me even more concern than I have over some of the ones we get from Adsense. (We currently have over 100 advertisers blocked from Adsense because of unwanted instaplay video ads, and basically unappealing ads like questionable dating services.)

I have a background concern as well: being out of sync with Google's Adsense policy makes me concerned that the site might be penalized in other ways by Google, e.g. it will affect our SEO or our participation in their Analytics and Adwords services. As far as I know, that isn't their policy, but it makes me a bit paranoid, and there's a lot at stake for the site.



> As for the signature lines: What about a mouse rollover script coded into the forum's signature field? Maybe a blur of signature lines by default requiring rollover to view, or something akin to this. It would provide signature visibility on demand, but solve the issue of visibility with unwanted eyes present.


It's a good suggestion. We're looking into what we can do that would be acceptable to Google, and have a dialog going. If we do something like this, we'll build it into the Author Sig tool so that it's easy for authors to put into place.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Catnip said:


> I've also been an Adsense publisher for several years, and I must admit, I'd be nervous if it was a major part of my income. I've heard so many horror stories about Google pulling accounts for minor violations. It seems to be next to impossible to get back into the program if you lose your account. I've also tried similar programs like Kontera and Chitika, but they don't perform nearly as well. So while I don't like the new policies, I don't blame Harvey for being cautious.


I've run websites since 2007 that include adsense ads. I've heard the horror stories, but as far as I can tell, if you do the right thing, you're okay. Last year, they contacted me because both my text ads and content were black, and I was unaware it's become against program policies to have both in the same colour (it didn't use to be). So I changed them and all was good again. So I'm suspicious when people say Google has pulled their account for a minor violation. When you think about it, it would be weird for google to pull an account that's making them lots of money just because the website owner made a minor mistake.
Adsense has been great all along, even contacting me personally to give me suggestions for my sites. And they've taken it well when I've gone crazy at them for the kinds of ads they used to run on my sites that had lots of kids visiting, despite all my efforts to keep inappropriate ads off.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

EelKat said:


> 2 records, both in number of books owned, by type of books owned


In fact, the record for private individual who owns the most books is held by John Q. Benham

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/8000/largest-collection-of-books-owned-privately


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Let's stay on track--thanks.

Betsy


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

OK, I had time to mess around today so I pulled the four covers Harvey requested from my sig and repopulated with covers that I *think* are okay. If there's still a problem please let me know and I'll fix it right away.


----------



## skyle (Oct 13, 2014)

This is a very long thread and I may have missed it while wading through, but I don't think I ever got an answer on mine? Obviously they are meant to be humorous and tongue in cheek erotica as opposed to "provocative" and don't seem to cross any of the guidelines as far as I can see, but I don't want a wrist slap (or a cattle prod up the bum   )
Thanks!


----------



## Catnip (Sep 7, 2013)

J.L. Dickinson said:


> Perhaps a trial of Microsoft's(Bing's) and Yahoo!'s joint contextual advertising effort: MediaNet could be beneficial?


I haven't tried that -will look into it. Although I don't do much with those sites these days. They just kind of sit there...



A.A said:


> I've run websites since 2007 that include adsense ads. I've heard the horror stories, but as far as I can tell, if you do the right thing, you're okay.


That's good to know.  I was sceptical of many of the stories, but when there were so many, I started to wonder.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

As I said earlier:



Betsy the Quilter said:


> Let's stay on track--thanks.
> 
> Betsy


Thanks.


----------



## T.K. (Mar 8, 2011)

> KB isn't a gate keeper. They don't stop you from putting your books out there. Like it or not, we're holding a conversation in Harvey's backyard, and he has the right to decide what goes or doesn't here. It doesn't matter if it's suggestive images, or if he just doesn't like the color orange; his house, his subjective opinion, his rules.


I agree.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> KB isn't a gate keeper. They don't stop you from putting your books out there.


Given a strict usage of the metaphor, you are right. I tend to think of gatekeepers as whatever impedes the achievement of my goals. In this case, authors of erotica want to sell books, and their covers are designed to appeal to folks who read erotica. When the gate is closed on their use of those covers in a promotional arena where books are advertised, their sales can be affected. That's probably too liberal an interpretation of the metaphor in a writer's community. I should have called it something else.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Al Stevens said:


> Given a strict usage of the metaphor, you are right. I tend to think of gatekeepers as whatever impedes the achievement of my goals. In this case, authors of erotica want to sell books, and their covers are designed to appeal to folks who read erotica. When the gate is closed on their use of those covers in a promotional arena where books are advertised, their sales can be affected. That's probably too liberal an interpretation of the metaphor in a writer's community. I should have called it something else.


Yes, it is a bad definition. It basically says that everybody owes you a living -- because it defines anyone who is unwilling to help you as "impeding" you. (And let's be clear here: KB is not impeding anyone in their quest to run a business -- any more than a customer who isn't interested in your book is impeding your business by not buying it.)

It's the old civil rights addage: your right to throw a punch ends at my nose. By insisting that Harvey sponsor every book that his guests should choose, you are actually infringing on his rights of expression. It would be like if I were to give you a ride in my car, and you insisted that I must also put your political bumper stickers on it while you're in it.

Camille


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

I always think of Thidwicke the Big-Hearted Moose in these situations.

Although it was written by Dr Seuss about social welfare programs, it applies to so many situations. People taking advantage of a service they are paying nothing for start insisting that their rights should be the overriding concern, to the detriment of the host.

I also find it interesting that there don't appear to be any covers actually removed by the mods or posts for that matter... people just went to extremes and did it themselves. But it doesn't look like any actions have actually been taken by Harvey and team other than announcing guidelines.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

StraightNoChaser said:


> Misogyny doesn't exclusively mean hatred of women anymore. It also means "Dislike of, contempt for, or *ingrained prejudice* against women."
> 
> "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and *sexual objectification* of women." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny


Okay, help me out here--wouldn't a big chunk of erotica covers actually be misogynistic if one of the criteria was sexual objectification?


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Yes, it is a bad definition. It basically says that everybody owes you a living -- because it defines anyone who is unwilling to help you as "impeding"


I don't agree with that. Declining to help and impeding are two different things. Nobody here is asking for proactive help selling their books of erotica. Only to be allowed the same access to their marketplace that others enjoy.

The stranglehold that Google exerts on websites that want to run Google ads is an anomaly. Some of the things they forbid in the name of some vague sense of morality can be seen every night on prime time television.

It's a tough call for folks such as Harvey who wish to provide public forums of free exchange. He has to weigh the demands of his advertisers against the implied rights of his membership, who are not only the consumers of his content but the providers of it as well. If it's just about the money, he has to compare revenues -- click through income from ads vs click-through income from his affiliate program. But he takes a chance. Whichever way he goes, he risks losing some of the other, and that's a difficult outcome to predict accurately. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and my heart goes out to the players.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

MyraScott said:


> People taking advantage of a service they are paying nothing for start insisting that their rights should be the overriding concern, to the detriment of the host.


This analogy has a flaw. Welfare recipients do not typically contribute resources to the welfare base. And "rights" are rights irrespective of their consequences. The common good is not always the linchpin.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Al Stevens said:


> I don't agree with that. Declining to help and impeding are two different things. Nobody here is asking for proactive help selling their books of erotica. Only to be allowed the same access to their marketplace that others enjoy.
> 
> The stranglehold that Google exerts on websites that want to run Google ads is an anomaly. Some of the things they forbid in the name of some vague sense of morality can be seen every night on prime time television.
> 
> It's a tough call for folks such as Harvey who wish to provide public forums of free exchange. He has to weigh the demands of his advertisers against the implied rights of his membership, who are not only the consumers of his content but the providers of it as well. If it's just about the money, he has to compare revenues -- click through income from ads vs click-through income from his affiliate program. But he takes a chance. Whichever way he goes, he risks losing some of the other, and that's a difficult outcome to predict accurately. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and my heart goes out to the players.


I'm sorry but you're still not saying anything different. You're just redefining the entire internet as a venue you have a right to. Just because KB is big, and there are readers here you'd like as your customers doesn't mean you get unfettered access to them. If I invite you to a party at my house, you don't get to annoy my other guests. And for that matter, even if all the guests want to do the same thing that annoys ME, they still don't have the right to do it. It's ethically wrong for you to try to overrule my will for my own house.

I get why you want to call this a gate keeper, but as there is no wall, there is no gate. The "market place" you want to get to is not through KB. The marketplace is point-of-sale -- and there are no gates to prevent that any more. You can sell off your own website, or from Amazon, or from Smashwords, etc.

It's a worse misnomer when people call book bloggers and reviewers "gatekeepers" -- it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a gate keeper is, and what book bloggers and reviewers do. They do not provide access to the market place. They aren't a portal. They are CURATORS. They provide the service of sorting through everything available for their customers/audience. The whole point of their existence is that they don't select everything. They are useless to their customers if they select everything. The narrower their selections, the more useful they are.

However, we are so used to the excessive control that publishers and distributors had in the past, that we don't realize that they had a cartel. You couldn't get past if you didn't get past them.

But Amazon and for that matter KB, are not cartels. They just have devoted audiences that they got through serving that audience. They owe nothing to the suppliers who want to access that audience. They only owe the audience -- and even then, they don't really owe the audience either. They can choose to go after a different audience or to shut down business or whatever they want.

But they aren't gatekeepers. You can attract that audience outside of those venues.

Because in this world of no gates and no fences, everyone is a curator, gate-keeper, provider and customer. You don't get to leverage a gate keeper to force people's attention any more. You just have to earn their attention yourself. Do it right, and people will -- voluntarily -- help you. Do it in ways that only help you, and they will regretfully have to say no.

Camille


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

We've slipped into a discussion of the metaphors and analogies instead of the issues, and it's probably my fault. I'll yield to your persistence.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> Okay, help me out here--wouldn't a big chunk of erotica covers actually be misogynistic if one of the criteria was sexual objectification?


You could argue that M/F erotica objectifies men. The headless moob covers certainly seem in that vein to me (not that I don't enjoy looking at them ... guilty as heck on that front!). Since M/F erotica is aimed at women and written for their pleasure, I suspect it doesn't strike most people as objectifying women. A longer reply on a related question from upthread:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,198417.msg2797277.html#msg2797277


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> Okay, help me out here--wouldn't a big chunk of erotica covers actually be misogynistic if one of the criteria was sexual objectification?


This is a salient point. On the other hand, erotica, as opposed to porn, has a history of being more female-centric. I'm not saying it all is, since I don't read the stuff these days, so I don't know, but erotica's boom has a lot to do with graphic/explicit sexuality being presented by females for female audiences.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Someone please explain the difference between erotica and porn.  It is all s e x.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

cinisajoy said:


> Someone please explain the difference between erotica and porn. It is all s e x.


That's been discussed elsewhere -- there's probably a fat gray line between the two -- and very possibly everyone puts the line in a slightly different place.

Regardless -- that's not a topic for this thread. But any further feedback on the guidelines is welcome.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Well since you asked, I agree that the explicit covers should not be shown.  The reason is so I can read k boards from anywhere and not have to worry about accidently violating someone else's rules or sensibilities. 
I am no prude and I like erotica but I am sure that a solution can be found,  maybe alternative covers or a tame cover with your signature being a link to the author page at Amazon.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Someone please explain the difference between erotica and porn. It is all s e x.


Porn: the pizza delivery guy shows up and gets banged by the three horny co-eds.

Erotica: the inexperienced freshman coed explores her sexuality with her two older bi roommates, and they help her seduce the cute pizza guy she has a crush on to introduce her to M/F sex

Erotic romance: the inexperienced freshman coed spends all semester donating plasma to buy pizzas so she can see the cute pizza guy she has a crush on, until he catches on and asks her out and eventually declares his undying love for her and she has the most incredible first time experience EVAR and they live HEA. The two older roommates are there to dispense advice and as shoulders to cry on.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Drew Gideon said:


> Erotica: the written word.
> Porn: visual media (photography, videos).
> 
> (But I love Kelli's detailed explanation too, lol.)


That's not really true, I don't think. Porn can be written or visual.

I love Kelli's explanation, too. In the end, it's all subjective which is what makes enforcing these sorts of rules so troublesome.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Monique said:


> Porn can be written or visual.


Not according to most countries' laws, I think? Obscenity can be written or visual: I don't think pornography can.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

zoe tate said:


> Not according to most countries' laws, I think? Obscenity can be written or visual: I don't think pornography can.


Every definition I've found (granted, I'm in the US) is that it can be either pictures or words.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Update: 

- We are in some discussions with Google Adsense about some alternative ways of us implementing these changes. More to come shortly on that.

- We are designing some tools that will make any changes to sigs as easy as possible, and with minimal changes to the overall look of author sigs.

- We have had several off-line discussions (PMs and emails) with authors, including erotica authors, and those have been helpful in having us come closer to a way forward that (a) puts our site in alignment with advertiser policies; (b) makes KB an acceptable place to view for most home/family/work settings; and (c) does so in a way that retains much of the free KB visibility that authors have enjoyed in the past. I thank those authors for having a good discourse with us. 

As noted before, a small fraction (less than 5%) of signature images will be affected by this. I know there are authors who have announced their departure from KB, and deleted their posts, in protest of the rules and/or my handling of them. For those who remain, I thank you for bearing with us and not being too quick to label us as insensitive or worse. I think most of you will be pleased, or at least accepting of, our administration of this policy and will continue to reap benefits from your participation with KBoards. Thank you for helping us shape this path going forward.


----------



## nellgoddin (Jul 23, 2014)

Alexis Adaire said:


> And let's not pretend covers featuring horror, gore or weapons aren't fetishistic in nature as well, specifically designed to titillate.
> 
> The problem isn't that erotica features covers created to excite people, because EVERY good cover should do that. The problem is that sex makes some people very uncomfortable.
> 
> I'm just thankful I'm not one of those people.


Right with you.

Generally, I just don't get offended. Almost never. People think some crazy bs, say some crazy bs, have ugly covers, whatever, I just...don't care. Not my business.

One thing I'm not totally clear on: is this about Google, or not? Would Adsense go away if these changes weren't made?


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

nellgoddin said:


> Right with you.
> 
> Generally, I just don't get offended. Almost never. People think some crazy bs, say some crazy bs, have ugly covers, whatever, I just...don't care. Not my business.
> 
> One thing I'm not totally clear on: is this about Google, or not? Would Adsense go away if these changes weren't made?


Yes, it would. We've always had content rules on KBoards, even before we had advertising. But these latest changes are triggered by Google Adsense, which notified us of concerns about adult content on the boards. We've pulled all Adsense ads from the site while we tend to it.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Harvey said:


> But these latest changes are triggered by Google Adsense, which notified us of concerns about adult content on the boards.


Which brings a question to mind. Were those concerns coming directly from Adsense, or were they informing you about complaints they received about KB?

You're saying this only affects 5% of signatures. In my opinion, the vast majority of the images that I saw asked to be removed could hardly be considered 'adult content'. Family un-friendly, maybe, but certainly not 'adult content' in the sense of how that phrase is normally used on the web.

Would the situation that existed at KB rise to the level where AdSense would see 'adult content' on KB and notify? Or is it more likely that they received complaints about the site, and responded to the complaints instead of the actual content on display here?


----------



## M.G. Russell (Sep 23, 2014)

swolf said:


> Which brings a question to mind. Were those concerns coming directly from Adsense, or were they informing you about complaints they received about KB?
> 
> You're saying this only affects 5% of signatures. In my opinion, the vast majority of the images that I saw asked to be removed could hardly be considered 'adult content'. Family un-friendly, maybe, but certainly not 'adult content' in the sense of how that phrase is normally used on the web.
> 
> Would the situation that existed at KB rise to the level where AdSense would see 'adult content' on KB and notify? Or is it more likely that they received complaints about the site, and responded to the complaints instead of the actual content on display here?


Great question. I'd like the answer to that one too.

I realize that according to Google et al anything with a sexual connotation is offensive. However, for me and I know for many others, what is offensive is blood, gore, guns, skulls, etc. etc. And none of those are being touched and don't seem to fit under the not 'family friendly' category. This is the part that offends me more than anything. If Google wants the place cleaned up they need to address those offensive covers as well.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

swolf said:


> Which brings a question to mind. Were those concerns coming directly from Adsense, or were they informing you about complaints they received about KB?


I don't know if there were complaints... the notice I got came directly from AdSense, and from what I've heard from other site owners, is that they periodically scan AdSense sites looking for various keywords (and images, presumably... not sure how that works).



> You're saying this only affects 5% of signatures. In my opinion, the vast majority of the images that I saw asked to be removed could hardly be considered 'adult content'. Family un-friendly, maybe, but certainly not 'adult content' in the sense of how that phrase is normally used on the web.


It's a fair observation. I was trying to apply my understanding of Adsense's guidelines to the sig covers we got asked about. I would probably do that a little differently now, and it's something where I'm learning as I go.



> Would the situation that existed at KB rise to the level where AdSense would see 'adult content' on KB and notify? Or is it more likely that they received complaints about the site, and responded to the complaints instead of the actual content on display here?


I think Adsense may triage their reviews of sites, by starting at high-traffic sites... so we were probably in their middle or middle-to-high traffic groups to get looked at. I'm speculating, though.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

M.G. Russell said:


> Great question. I'd like the answer to that one too.
> 
> I realize that according to Google et al anything with a sexual connotation is offensive. However, for me and I know for many others, what is offensive is blood, gore, guns, skulls, etc. etc. And none of those are being touched and don't seem to fit under the not 'family friendly' category. This is the part that offends me more than anything. If Google wants the place cleaned up they need to address those offensive covers as well.


I appreciate your objection to the violent content. When we see stuff that seems objectionable, we review it and moderate it. But the reality is: we have received almost no concerns or reports about violent content on KBoards -- either from our members or from our advertisers; we regularly receive reports of concern about sexual content.

I respect that different things affect different people differently, and if the content on KBoards (sexual, violence, or otherwise) is unacceptable, I can see that as a legitimate reason for leaving the boards. If you've been with us for a while, you know we work pretty hard to try to make this a place where most people will feel reasonably comfortable.

In my limited experience, when people choose to leave KBoards, they choose to leave it for forums that have fewer (or no) rules, not more rules.


----------



## M.G. Russell (Sep 23, 2014)

Harvey said:


> I appreciate your objection to the violent content. When we see stuff that seems objectionable, we review it and moderate it. But the reality is: we have received almost no concerns or reports about violent content on KBoards -- either from our members or from our advertisers; we regularly receive reports of concern about sexual content.
> 
> I respect that different things affect different people differently, and if the content on KBoards (sexual, violence, or otherwise) is unacceptable, I can see that as a legitimate reason for leaving the boards. If you've been with us for a while, you know we work pretty hard to try to make this a place where most people will feel reasonably comfortable.
> 
> In my limited experience, when people choose to leave KBoards, they choose to leave it for forums that have fewer (or no) rules, not more rules.


I understand what you're saying, Harvey, but I still find it unfortunate that this is the way it is. I realize you can do nothing about it and I don't expect you to. As far as the covers I find objectionable goes, I don't complain. It's someone else's means of making a living and I need to keep my nose out of that. I just ignore the covers I don't want to see.

For me, the challenge is that this is such a double standard, and again, I'm not pointing my finger at you. It makes me sad to think we live in a society where a woman's bare leg or arm is objectionable but guns, guts and gore are not.

I have not left KBoards nor do I intend to. There is often some very helpful information posted here and I want to be able to access that. However, I will be here much more as a reader than a poster. I will and have taken my discussions of erotica to a forum where those discussions are welcome and the covers are not a problem.

I don't envy you having to deal with this but I also think that there must be some sort of solution that doesn't penalize only one segment of the members here.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

LBrent said:


> Um. Wow.
> 
> [checks for year & country & planet]
> 
> ...


I'm going thru the threads and just hafta' give this one it's due.
You
NAILED
it.
(back under the radar for me... but I can't help think of a Mad magazine thing from the 60's or early 70's)
Don't worry... I'll be back. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Admin Update: *Since this thread, we've had several other threads, and a chat discussion, related to our KB Content.

Update: After those interactions, we've updated our policy language, and provided a FAQ. http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,201268.0.html

Locking this thread so that discussions going forward are consolidated in that FAQ thread.


----------

