# Erotica Pictures in People's Signatures



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

A fellow author mentioned to me the other day that she can't look at this forum while at work because of all the erotica pictures in people's signatures.

This got me thinking - is this something people should avoid because of a) Restricting some people's ability to view the forum in certain environments and b) Conservative/Religious authors who would love to participate but are not comfortable with all the erotica in people's sigs?

This is certainly not for my benefit.  I am probably the least conservative and possibly naughtiest person I know.  I am all for boobies (not so much into the pectorals and abs though to be frank).  But just wondering if this is an issue for people and whether it is a topic worth of discussion.

Also curious as this is a forum for authors, what the benefits are of including your erotica titles in your sig.  Is there some kind of google algorithm benefit?

Anyway, just curious...


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

Anyone who couldn't look at my signature couldn't look at the main Amazon site, either; none of the titles in my signature are dungeoned. Some people aren't suppose to look at retail sites while at work. Those people would have to access them off-hours or off-site.

I guess if you're really uncomfortable by the sight of pecs or abs, then you could just train yourself not to look. I don't care for images of guns and weapons, so I don't look at those sorts of covers. But I wouldn't expect thriller writers not to post them. I think there are ways to exclude all posts by certain posters, too, so you could just block everyone whose book covers you didn't care for.

I display some titles for the same reason other authors do (I presume) -- to show the kinds of books I'm publishing. Authors communicate with other authors by talking about their books. I'm not sure what "google algorithm benefit" there could be. I've never been aware of such a possibility.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

As a reader, I appreciate authors who post their books in their sigs--I've bought many a book because I saw it here in a sig. In fact, sigs here is the number one way I discover indie books to buy.

As Drew said, you can turn off sigs. Another alternative, though not as attractive but handy if you don't want to turn sigs on and off is our mobile version

http://www.kboards.com/?wap2

Betsy


----------



## J.B. (Aug 15, 2014)

b) Conservative/Religious authors who would love to participate but are not comfortable with all the erotica in people's sigs?

It's difficult for me to have a lot of empathy for the plight of these individuals. The internet is a broad and scary place. We all have to learn how to navigate it.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I am neither conservative nor religious (neither not in the slightest), but there are times that I don't want nekkid bodies on my screen (such as: when I'm in the room with younger or older family members--my mother!), and there are sometimes covers which I find tasteless and would prefer not to see. Fortunately, these really bad covers don't happen so often anymore, but I remember some occasions where I felt I had to be careful when browsing in the living room if certain members had posted.

Urgh. I would prefer that I didn't have to do that for such a useful forum that's overall extremely PG.

I do like seeing people's covers. I'm totally fine with the vast majority of covers, erotica or no. Just some of them... Ew.

I'm not sure what the solution is.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

Patty Jansen said:


> I am neither conservative nor religious (neither not in the slightest), but there are times that I don't want nekkid bodies on my screen (such as: when I'm in the room with younger or older family members--my mother!), and there are sometimes covers which I find tasteless and would prefer not to see. Fortunately, these really bad covers don't happen so often anymore, but I remember some occasions where I felt I had to be careful when browsing in the living room if certain members had posted.
> 
> Urgh. I would prefer that I didn't have to do that for such a useful forum that's overall extremely PG.
> 
> ...


Yeah. I know what you mean.

But on the other hand, all authors have the right to display their covers in their signatures (it's good marketing!), and it doesn't seem fair to discriminate against some based on genre.

I don't like tasteless covers for the same reasons that I don't like tasteless banner ads in other websites I visit. (Like, say, Mail.com.) But it's not really my choice what somebody else posts in their signature, and it should not be.

Perhaps if there were a way to mark whether a signature were NSFW or not, there could be an option to turn off NSFW signatures only. That would fix the problem, and allow people to see all the rest. It would be pretty neat.

I think that would be an awful lot of work for the people in charge of the forums, though, and I'm not sure if there are enough people who care to make such a thing worth it.


----------



## Will C. Brown (Sep 24, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Another alternative, though not as attractive but handy if you don't want to turn sigs on and off is our mobile version
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/?wap2
> 
> Betsy


Thanks for that, Betsy.
I sometimes browse during work, so this is a good alternative for me.


----------



## K. D. (Jun 6, 2013)

Tapatalk also doesn't show sigs.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

I understand the problem, though erotica covers don't bother me personally, I come from a country where nudity is no big deal and I've never browsed KBoards at work anyway.

But luckily, erotica covers have become a lot more tasteful in the past two years large due to Amazon cracking down on the more extreme stuff. I can still see why some covers might bother the more sensitive folks, but I guess the only solution is turning off all signatures, if it bothers you.


----------



## MissingAlaska (Apr 28, 2014)

I did not know that you could turn off signatures and will be doing so. Thanks for the tip!!!

This issue has nothing to do with someone's religious beliefs, whether someone is a prude, or whether they believe the human body is beautiful and should be displayed.

It has to do with the law.  Displaying even slightly objectionable photos in a workplace can lead to a sexual harrassment lawsuit, with the perception that a hostile work environment has been created.  For that reason, I have refrained from reading this forum during breaks when anyone is in my office.  Do I personally agree with this law?  That's a different issue entirely - but U.S. courts have ruled repeatedly for complainants in such cases.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

I have never read erotica and never will. Not because of any moral judgement, but because it just isn't my thing. That said, I am not bothered by the photos in people's titles. I just don't click on them. It's nice to have the option to disable viewing sig lines, but I'd rather just ignore those that don't interest me. I'm afraid I would miss out on a great book if I disabled viewing sigs, as I have purchased a lot of books as a result of seeing the cover here.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

I hate to turn off all the signatures, but that is an awesome solution.  I often find myself scrolling up or down to position some of the book covers off screen when kids are in the room.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

It also isn't a one time thing, they can be turned on or off as needed/wanted.


----------



## SarahWritesSometimes (Aug 18, 2014)

This is a slippery slope of censorship IMO that should not even be entertained as an idea on a board frequented by writers, of all places.  The OP said he/she? doesn't like to see male bare chests...well that counts out hundreds of romance novels at the moment, and they are not erotica.  

Remove the sigs from your own screen but please, let's not start a "down with erotica covers' theme on a writers board.


----------



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

> Conservative/Religious authors who would love to participate but are not comfortable with all the erotica in people's sigs?


Why do they get a privileged position though? I've been offended by books that I feel advance abhorrent political or regressive gender relations ideas. That's my feeling and I'll definitely express my feelings about those ideas where it's appropriate, on political sites and on my own blog. But I'm not going to say they shouldn't be allowed to promote their book or display it. if we're coming here as authors to talk about the experience of being an author, we're either including everyone or we're making people second class citizens or unwelcome.

The forum lets you turn sigs off. I have. There's another forum that is pure romance, most of it non-erotic, and I've not only turned off sigs, but I've changed the theme because it's an explosion of pink and really obvious that it's not work related.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

SarahWritesSometimes said:


> This is a slippery slope of censorship IMO that should not even be entertained as an idea on a board frequented by writers, of all places. The OP said he/she? doesn't like to see male bare chests...well that counts out hundreds of romance novels at the moment, and they are not erotica.


Kind of an extreme reaction. No one has called for censorship, the OP simply asked people's thoughts on the topic in a fairly reasonable way.

And in response, he got a useful suggestion to manage the signatures.

Burn the straw man! Censorship is evil!


----------



## SarahWritesSometimes (Aug 18, 2014)

MyraScott said:


> Kind of an extreme reaction. No one has called for censorship, the OP simply asked people's thoughts on the topic in a fairly reasonable way.
> 
> And in response, he got a useful suggestion to manage the signatures.
> 
> Burn the straw man! Censorship is evil!


He asked for a discussion. I gave my opinion. I don't think it's extreme considering it was focused on only one genre of books - erotica. He also asked what is the benefit of having erotica titles in sigs...well what is the benefit of having books from any genre in sigs. The answer is the same for all genres but only erotica was named.

BTW I come from this as a lawyer. I am particularly sensitive to what I see as the slippery slope of censorship - and no, that isn't a pun.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

1001nightspress said:


> Anyone who couldn't look at my signature couldn't look at the main Amazon site, either; none of the titles in my signature are dungeoned. Some people aren't suppose to look at retail sites while at work. Those people would have to access them off-hours or off-site.


That actually isn't true. I had a problem about a year ago when KB's site was actually blocked at work and flagged as "explicit content." Fortunately, I have a good relationship with IT and I was able to talk to someone and get the site whitelisted, but the original trigger had specifically been the erotica covers. The way it was explained to me is that the anti-porn software used looks for concentrations of images combined with certain keywords. So while any individual cover may also be visible on Amazon, it is the combination of multiple covers on a page that triggers a warning. Yes, all of your covers are on Amazon, but Amazon's total site has a billion bits of data on it. As a matter of scale, it is minor. Whereas the concentration of erotica authors on a small site like KB represents a larger amount of data points.

To be fair, most of these anti-porn software programs are dumb as wood. I also had to get the Colgate website whitelisted while looking up MSDS sheets. I went to Colgate's "Oral care" page and got an erotic content warning and the page was blocked. It was obviously using a very different definition of the word oral than I was! 

It is fairly well established that 50% of casual browsing occurs at work or school, and these institutions are the most likely to employ filters or blocks to control what people download or access across their networks. So if you want your work to be accessible to people who are browsing from work on their lunch breaks and whatnot, it is something to keep in mind. In reality, I think most of the erotica authors around here have tasteful covers that don't cross any lines. But yes, there have been covers that even I have reported because they were simply NSFW. It isn't a censorship issue. It is a marketing issue. If you want to maximize the ability of people to visit and use a site, you have to consider the limitations on 50% of those users. I think KB does a good job of balancing the needs of all writers, erotica included, with the need of the casual visitor to be sure the site is safe for work.


----------



## EllisaBarr (Apr 22, 2014)

Mike_Author said:


> This is certainly not for my benefit. I am probably the least conservative and possibly naughtiest person I know. I am all for boobies (not so much into the pectorals and abs though to be frank). But just wondering if this is an issue for people and whether it is a topic worth of discussion.


It's an issue for me sometimes - like when I'm in the living room on my laptop and kids climb onto the arm of my chair to watch what I'm doing. Naughty covers typically don't even blip my radar until that happens. I'm just glad they're thumbnails.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> As a reader, I appreciate authors who post their books in their sigs--I've bought many a book because I saw it here in a sig. In fact, sigs here is the number one way I discover indie books to buy.
> 
> As Drew said, you can turn off sigs. Another alternative, though not as attractive but handy if you don't want to turn sigs on and off is our mobile version
> 
> ...


I read this forum all the time on my iphone and never once has a mobile version appeared. I didn't even realize there was one.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Some of the titles and covers are definitely NOT family friendly. Since "


Spoiler



Cum on My Daddy's Ass


" or similar seems to be ok here, maybe they can loosen up the word filters and discussion censorship as well? 

_Edited to add spoiler block as that title is NOT family or workplace appropriate. --Betsy_


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

1001nightspress said:


> I don't care for images of guns and weapons, so I don't look at those sorts of covers. But I wouldn't expect thriller writers not to post them.


How about we compromise with more covers with guns _and_ boobs?


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm almost positive I know several people who had covers removed last year or the year before because they were too risque. I'm sure it was this place. So the most egregious ones _aren't_ allowed, or at least weren't.

I'm pretty sure one cover was removed from here because the woman was kneeling in front of a man, eye level with his crotch, based on the fact that it "portrayed a sex act." Remember that fast food ad with the really long sub sandwich pointing toward the "o" mouth of a woman? Bet more kids and employers saw that.

If somebody showed up with a naked boobie cover or a really raunchy title, I'm sure it would be removed.

If it wasn't this place, I apologize, but I'm pretty sure it was. I do admit I find it silly that erotica covers and titles are fine for the most part, but you can't say d*mn without asterisks interfering.


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

SarahWritesSometimes said:


> This is a slippery slope of censorship IMO that should not even be entertained as an idea on a board frequented by writers, of all places. The OP said he/she? doesn't like to see male bare chests...well that counts out hundreds of romance novels at the moment, and they are not erotica.
> 
> Remove the sigs from your own screen but please, let's not start a "down with erotica covers' theme on a writers board.


Exactly.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> I do admit I find it silly that erotica covers and titles are fine for the most part, but you can't say d*mn without asterisks interfering.


This.

You can't have it both ways.


----------



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

Monique said:


> Some of the titles and covers are definitely NOT family friendly. Since "Cum on My Daddy's Ass" or similar seems to be ok here, maybe they can loosen up the word filters and discussion censorship as well?


I laughed--hard. And also, I agree, particularly when it comes to word filters.


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

Writing is an art form. While I don't read erotica, personally, I do consider it to be another facet of the art. Would those who find erotica covers to be offensive also find an ancient Greek statue offensive? Same difference.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Wayne Stinnett said:


> Writing is an art form. While I don't read erotica, personally, I do consider it to be another facet of the art. Would those who find erotica covers to be offensive also find an ancient Greek statue offensive? Same difference.


You don't see a difference between that and Cum on My Daddy?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

My bet is that no one is supposed to browse for fun at work. I admit that I used to, and I stopped when some of the covers raised eyebrows. I am relieved of my KBoards addiction now for the few hours a month I still go in!


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2014)

Cherise Kelley said:


> My bet is that no one is supposed to browse for fun at work.


What's the point? From a purely marketing viewpoint, do you really want to dictate to your potential customers when they are "allowed" to view your site? Is the correct customer service response to the concern "Oh well, don't visit us at work?" Particularly when for many people, maybe their lunch break IS the only time they have "time" to visit the site? 20% of Americans have NO internet access at home. And over 30% don't have access to high speed internet. So the local library, work, school are the only options a large portion of the population has.

I think instead of telling one group or the other they are never allowed to do something, it is better to find a happy medium that accommodates the most people. If the goal is to encourage Kindle use specifically and ebooks in general, I don't know if telling 50% of the people when they are allowed to 'safely' visit KB is the answer, particularly when large numbers of them may not have other options.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

There we go - I knew the right answer would emerge - turn off signatures! Easy.

And wow there is a bit of straw man going on in this thread.  There is a core, non-hysterical ("they're coming to burn my books!!") and interesting discussion here about the trade-off between someone's right to free speech and another person's desire to utilise this valuable forum in certain contexts where their screen is visible.  No one is crying down with erotica for crying out loud.

And to the person who tried to link erotica books coming up on someone's screen at work versus David...dear god - really?

I have genuine sympathy for those whose ability to read this forum (until they have now heard about turning off sigs) is impeded by erotica books on the page.  Less so for conservative types offended by boobies.  Nonetheless I think it is an interesting discussion point regarding scenarios where two groups of people's rights are at odds and where you find a balance.

Now, I'm off to buy that books about cumming on daddy.  Sounds like a cracking read!


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Since the latest erotica crackdowns on Amazon and elsewhere, the covers have become a lot tamer (and e.g. bare breasts were never allowed anyway) so that there is really nothing on erotica covers that you couldn't see in a lingerie catalog or a perfume ad in a magazine. In fact, perfume ads are often more explicit. And the erotica crackdown has also hit titles like _Cum for Daddy_, so those shouldn't be a problem either.

And coming from a country which is a lot more relaxed about nudity, I'm quite surprised that a thumbnail sized fairly tame erotica cover on someone's computer screen would be considered grounds for a sexual harrassment lawsuit in the US. I'd have thought that a far bigger problem would be surfing non-work-related sites from work.

As for Wayne's Venus, I've actually had to cover up bare breasts on historical paintings (often dating from much more prudish ages) on some of my covers to satisfy the demands of e-book vendors. There have also been cases where I came across a stunning stockphoto and still couldn't use it for a cover, because the person is naked, even though it's an artistic photo and you can't really see anything potentially risque.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Mike_Author said:


> And to the person who tried to link erotica books coming up on someone's screen at work versus David...dear god - really?


Wrong bits for David.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> What's the point? From a purely marketing viewpoint, do you really want to dictate to your potential customers when they are "allowed" to view your site? Is the correct customer service response to the concern "Oh well, don't visit us at work?" Particularly when for many people, maybe their lunch break IS the only time they have "time" to visit the site? 20% of Americans have NO internet access at home. And over 30% don't have access to high speed internet. So the local library, work, school are the only options a large portion of the population has.
> 
> I think instead of telling one group or the other they are never allowed to do something, it is better to find a happy medium that accommodates the most people. If the goal is to encourage Kindle use specifically and ebooks in general, I don't know if telling 50% of the people when they are allowed to 'safely' visit KB is the answer, particularly when large numbers of them may not have other options.


I took the comment to mean that the employer may have a policy against using their computers for personal use. A lot of companies have such policies.


----------



## devalong (Aug 28, 2014)

HSh said:


> Wrong bits for David.


Just keep the delta of Venus hidden behind a falling toga...


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

HSh said:


> Wrong bits for David.


haha that shows how much attention I pay to the naughty bits!! (And also my complete lack of culture!)


----------



## SarahWritesSometimes (Aug 18, 2014)

Mike_Author said:


> And wow there is a bit of straw man going on in this thread. There is a core, non-hysterical ("they're coming to burn my books!!") and interesting discussion here about the trade-off between someone's right to free speech and another person's desire to utilise this valuable forum in certain contexts where their screen is visible. No one is crying down with erotica for crying out loud.


I've had a bad day so I'm willing to admit that my emotions might be in play here, but this is the 2nd time in this thread that I have been accused of using a straw man argument and I really resent it. You asked for discussion. With discussion comes opinions. I gave mine. I did not misrepresent anything you wrote. But you misrepresented mine - I never said "they're coming to burn my books" or anything of the sort.

ETA: you also imply that I was hysterical. Not cool. Also, you wrote "No one is crying down with erotica for crying out loud". I never said anyone was. What I wrote was let's not start a down with erotica *covers* *theme* *on a writers forum*. One little word makes a big difference.

If I post a thread here I know I'm going to get varying opinions, some of which I may not agree with. But I know I won't insult those people simply because they have varying opinions. For crying out loud.


----------



## J.B. (Aug 15, 2014)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Since the latest erotica crackdowns on Amazon and elsewhere, the covers have become a lot tamer (and e.g. bare breasts were never allowed anyway) so that there is really nothing on erotica covers that you couldn't see in a lingerie catalog or a perfume ad in a magazine. In fact, perfume ads are often more explicit. And the erotica crackdown has also hit titles like _Cum for Daddy_, so those shouldn't be a problem either.
> 
> And coming from a country which is a lot more relaxed about nudity, I'm quite surprised that a thumbnail sized fairly tame erotica cover on someone's computer screen would be considered grounds for a sexual harrassment lawsuit in the US. I'd have thought that a far bigger problem would be surfing non-work-related sites from work.
> 
> As for Wayne's Venus, I've actually had to cover up bare breasts on historical paintings (often dating from much more prudish ages) on some of my covers to satisfy the demands of e-book vendors. There have also been cases where I came across a stunning stockphoto and still couldn't use it for a cover, because the person is naked, even though it's an artistic photo and you can't really see anything potentially risque.


I think to imply that because erotica covers are policed now by Amazon and thus safe for work is a mistake.

If you go to the DVDs and search keywords, such as porn, sex, gangbang, etc, you'll find plenty of offensive DVD covers, which if seen at work could get you into trouble. Many of these porn videos are 'unavailable,' but the covers are still there, so visual damage is done. Up until yesterday, there was a particularly shocking DVD cover with 4 male appendages and a woman's face. It's gone now, but I still spotted at least one unsheathed fully erect penis, and it wasn't a sculpture, it was a picture.


----------



## Andrew Broderick (Aug 6, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> It's easy enough to fix if a member doesn't want to see the covers in signature lines.
> 
> All you have to do is go to Profile>>Modify Profile>>Look and Layout and then click "Don't show users' signatures."
> 
> Problem solved.


Thank you! You just made my life on kboards much easier.


----------



## cazakara (Aug 24, 2014)

I'm conservative and the covers don't bother me. I get if it's a work issue or you have kids who like to sit at the computer with you but then you can just turn signatures off.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

devalong said:


> Just keep the delta of Venus hidden behind a falling toga...


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

To be honest, almost all the covers here on KB are fine, especially since they're small and the rules for ebook covers on Amazon are quite strict anyway.
My FB on the other hand... I don't dare to browse that when people are around...


----------



## JessieSnow (Jul 25, 2014)

Bare man chests alert! I'm guessing some people might mean covers like mine. That's fine. Hey, what you see is what you get...


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

JullesBurn said:


> b) Conservative/Religious authors who would love to participate but are not comfortable with all the erotica in people's sigs?
> 
> It's difficult for me to have a lot of empathy for the plight of these individuals. The internet is a broad and scary place. We all have to learn how to navigate it.


+1


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Mike_Author said:


> And to the person who tried to link erotica books coming up on someone's screen at work versus David...dear god - really?


I think it's the Venus de Milo.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2014)

SarahWritesSometimes said:


> This is a slippery slope of censorship IMO that should not even be entertained as an idea on a board frequented by writers, of all places. The OP said he/she? doesn't like to see male bare chests...well that counts out hundreds of romance novels at the moment, and they are not erotica.
> 
> Remove the sigs from your own screen but please, let's not start a "down with erotica covers' theme on a writers board.


Amen, sister.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

vlmain said:


> I took the comment to mean that the employer may have a policy against using their computers for personal use. A lot of companies have such policies.


Yes, that is what I meant.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

JullesBurn said:


> I think to imply that because erotica covers are policed now by Amazon and thus safe for work is a mistake.
> 
> If you go to the DVDs and search keywords, such as porn, sex, gangbang, etc, you'll find plenty of offensive DVD covers, which if seen at work could get you into trouble. Many of these porn videos are 'unavailable,' but the covers are still there, so visual damage is done. Up until yesterday, there was a particularly shocking DVD cover with 4 male appendages and a woman's face. It's gone now, but I still spotted at least one unsheathed fully erect penis, and it wasn't a sculpture, it was a picture.


I totally accept that porn DVDs with ultra-explicit covers on Amazon might be a problem (and also coincidentally show a nice double-standard, because a book with such an explicit cover would be completely gone by now), but no one here at KB has porn DVDs in their sig.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> But again, all they have to do is shut signatures off. So it's not like anyone is telling them they aren't "allowed to do something" just that they need to make a small adjustment to accommodate their particular situation. I'm not sure why we would need to find any sort of "happy medium" when the people needing special accommodation have already been given easy tools to accomplish what they need.


But I can't shut off "just" explicit erotica covers. I have to shut off ALL covers. Which in effect means that authors with NON-erotica covers or erotic covers that aren't explicit lose me as a potential customer because I can't see them either. Now you are restricting the ability of authors with non-explicit covers to promote there work.

Now if you want to give me a tool that will explicitly allow me to block erotica covers, and can guarantee that erotica authors will properly flag their works so that the filter works, that is another story. But if I have to chose between "You have to block EVERYONE from your screen" versus "Hey, can you not put naked asses and women who look like they are about to give oral to a guy on your cover?" I think it is more fair to ask people to tone down the cover so that everyone can be seen.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But I can't shut off "just" explicit erotica covers. I have to shut off ALL covers. Which in effect means that authors with NON-erotica covers or erotic covers that aren't explicit lose me as a potential customer because I can't see them either. Now you are restricting the ability of authors with non-explicit covers to promote there work.
> 
> Now if you want to give me a tool that will explicitly allow me to block erotica covers, and can guarantee that erotica authors will properly flag their works so that the filter works, that is another story. But if I have to chose between "You have to block EVERYONE from your screen" versus "Hey, can you not put naked asses and women who look like they are about to give oral to a guy on your cover?" I think it is more fair to ask people to tone down the cover so that everyone can be seen.


I'm sure erotica authors will have no problem potentially compromising their earnings potential so you don't have to shut off all covers. Like it or not, suggestive covers sell better in that genre, and erotica authors have as much right to display an Amazon-approved cover as you do. I say Amazon-approved, because they've already caused authors to tone down covers. If it's acceptable for Amazon, presumably a group of adults can handle scrolling past them. The onus is on the user to pick an appropriate place and time to browse Kboards if they want to keep covers on and protect the children.

Or maybe they should make separate covers that are okay for everyone to display in their signature? And then people can complain that they clicked on an icky erotic book, because the cover didn't make it clear it was more than a sweet romance.

The other option would be for everyone to ignore covers they don't like.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

tunskit said:


> I'm sure erotica authors will have no problem potentially compromising their earnings potential so you don't have to shut off all covers. Like it or not, suggestive covers sell better in that genre, and erotica authors have as much right to display an Amazon-approved cover as you do. I say Amazon-approved, because they've already caused authors to tone down covers. If it's acceptable for Amazon, presumably a group of adults can handle scrolling past them. The onus is on the user to pick an appropriate place and time to browse Kboards if they want to keep covers on and protect the children.


Amazon doesn't "approve" covers. Amazon doesn't "approve" anything. They allow anything to be uploaded until such time as they get complaints. Claiming they are "Amazon-approved" is a mis-statement. They are there until people report them. And there have been plenty of threads here on KB about this very point. Amazon plays whack-a-mole with issues. They don't approve anything in advance.

In addition, read what you just said. You have NO PROBLEM cutting off the earning potential of ALL authors so that EROTICA authors don't have to make adjustments. That is selfish. KB is NOT an erotica site. Its a community of Kindle users. Some of them read erotica. Others don't. It is selfish to say that non-erotica authors and non-erotica readers just have to suck it up so erotica authors can do whatever they want. If this was an erotica site and people were complaining, your argument would be valid. But telling people on what is supposed to be a general interest Kindle site to just deal with it is selfish.

I don't know. Maybe for me it is about common courtesy. I publish horror. But I don't put explicitly violent scenes on my covers. When I post excerpts on *non-horror* sites, I make sure to post excerpts that don't include foul language or graphic scenes. Because I have courtesy. It is what you do when you enter a shared space in which not everyone shares the same comfort level. And I most certainly do not possess the hubris to tell people who don't want to read foul language or graphic scenes, "Well, go away, because I am more important than you and...CENSORSHIP!"


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

I must not be reading the right threads. 

Where are all these offensive naked-bits-showing covers that is offending people?


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

Julie, and where does that put authors who publish in more than one genre, and thus have both in their sig?  (I like to think that mine are tasteful, but yes, there is skin.)

I'm sorry, but if sexy book covers are a no-no at the location where a person is browsing, they probably need to not browse that site at that location. Or just turn off sigs. I've seen horror covers on here that make me go "ick!" (not yours, but I've seen some. Zombie fiction, splatterpunk, etc.) Should I be able to turn those off?  

An algorithm might learn to filter erotica, but I've seen romance covers that are pretty full of skin too. And paranormal. And horror. And fantasy. And science fiction. So where's the limit? 

Otherwise I guess we could all start writing books about landscapes. That should be safe.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

anderson_gray said:


> I must not be reading the right threads.
> 
> Where are all these offensive naked-bits-showing covers that is offending people?


KB actually does a good job of trying to moderate sigs, so it really isn't an issue recently. There was a time, however (as I mentioned up thread) when KB was blocked by my workplace anti-porn filters and I had to get it whitelisted. And it was triggered by sigs.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

judygoodwin said:


> *****, and where does that put authors who publish in more than one genre, and thus have both in their sig? (I like to think that mine are tasteful, but yes, there is skin.)


This is the disconnect. YOUR covers really aren't the issue. There is nothing going on skin wise on your covers I don't see when I drive home and the shirtless guys are jogging down the street (though I do wish they wouldn't jog during rush hour. The rubber-necking slows traffic to a crawl lol). There is this all-or-nothing vibe permeating this thread as if we are talking about throwing burkas over your models. Somehow this thread has become "either I can show naked ass on my covers or we all have to use landscapes." Your covers, however, are firmly within the tasteful and effective range. Your covers aren't going to trigger anything. And as I said earlier, most of the erotica authors on KB DO have tasteful and effective covers. That wasn't always the case, but it is now. People have found the happy medium that lets everyone play in the pool.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

judygoodwin said:


> Otherwise I guess we could all start writing books about landscapes. That should be safe.


I tried that once. It turned into erotica. *sigh*


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Monique said:


> This.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


Well, yes, we can.  As has been pointed out, people can do their own filtering by turning off sigs and avatars or using the mobile site or Tapatalk. They can't set up their own language filters.

We strive for a PG-13 board, in general. Harvey wanted his kids to be able to read the forum. Others do browse at work (presumably during lunch. ) Erotica covers pushed the envelope for awhile, but have gotten better. Shelley's right. We used to screen covers a lot. We still will ask for covers and titles and blurbs in the Bazaar to be edited. We miss some occasionally as we do not read every post--even in the Bazaar.

I don't see things changing. It's worked pretty well for the last six plus years. It hasn't really seemed to have hampered discussion in the Writers' Café. Just sayin'. 

Best,

Betsy


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

Anderson--LOL.  I love it. 

Julie--thanks for the clarification. I like that Amazon has some standards in their erotica titles (okay I'd allow hand bras but other than that I like it). I just know that filters can be complicated and restrictions can be a slippery slope. What I REALLY wish Amazon would do is become a responsible company and put a nice clear checkbox on their web site to filter adult products and materials, so that they wouldn't get all uptight and indie authors would have the freedom they crave. But yes, I know. Pigs will fly first.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

If naughty language is allowed in covers, why not allow it in the board in general? The only thing that offends me is that there is one rule for covers and another for posts. 

You can (and do) whatever you want, but the board is hardly PG-13 as is. I'm okay with R, personally.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

judygoodwin said:


> I'm sorry, but if sexy book covers are a no-no at the location where a person is browsing, they probably need to not browse that site at that location. Or just turn off sigs. I've seen horror covers on here that make me go "ick!" (not yours, but I've seen some. Zombie fiction, splatterpunk, etc.) Should I be able to turn those off?


Yes, if you want to. Some people turn off sigs because they find any covers distracting. You can turn them off for any reason you want. And we have asked people to change out non-erotica images in posts or avatars that were disturbing, such as horror images.

Betsy
From a rest stop on the M4....


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Monique said:


> If naughty language is allowed in covers, why not allow it in the board in general? The only thing that offends me is that there is one rule for covers and another for posts.
> 
> You can (and do) whatever you want, but the board is hardly PG-13 as is. I'm okay with R, personally.


We have asked people to change out covers or titles with naughty language when we've noticed it. However, the difference is people who have concerns can turn off sigs and avatars. They can't do that with language in posts.

Betsy


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> We have asked people to change out covers or titles with naughty language when we've noticed it. However, the difference is people who have concerns can turn off sigs and avatars. They can't do that with language in posts.
> 
> Betsy


True. However, this is a public board that can be seen by members and non-members (who have no control, si?). Or are sigs not visible by the unsuspecting public?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Just so we're clear, stabbing implements are okay as long as they're for murder instead of pleasure, yes?


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Just so we're clear, stabbing implements are okay as long as they're for murder instead of pleasure, yes?


And so long as they are not actually implanted in the victim...


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Kudos to Harvey and the mods for taking a consistent case-by-case common-sense solution to this issue rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Most people can recognize when a cover goes over the line, and also when someone is taking offense without good reason.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

> Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.
> 
> If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
> 
> -Salman Rushdie


As for people reading KBoards at work, why aren't you working? If you have legit downtime, use it to write, edit, or brainstorm for your WIP.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

genrehopper said:


> As for people reading KBoards at work, why aren't you working? If you have legit downtime, use it to write, edit, or brainstorm for your WIP.


So you reserve the right to dictate when people are "allowed" to visit Kboards AND what they do with their downtime, but others are out of line for asking a (small) subset of erotica authors to tone down their covers on a general audience forum?

You DO know that the majority of KB members aren't writers? This isn't a writer forum. It is a Kindle forum. Most users are simply readers. Which makes you telling them what they should be doing with their "legit" downtime even more nonsensical.

_edited to comply with Forum Decorum. Thanks. --Betsy_


----------



## STOHara (Feb 23, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon doesn't "approve" covers. Amazon doesn't "approve" anything. They allow anything to be uploaded until such time as they get complaints.


That's not true. Amazon absolutely does check erotica covers before they go live, and they block anything too suggestive. Plenty of erotica authors have had books rejected due to 'Zon's prohibition against hand-bras in covers.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Vaalingrade said:


> Just so we're clear, stabbing implements are okay as long as they're for murder instead of pleasure, yes?


We have asked people to remove violent avatars in the past that we thought crossed the line. It's a case by case basis.

Betsy


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

I too wish KBoards would put some restrictions on erotic covers. I have two small kids and don't feel comfortable using the site when they are around.

Several years ago I complained about how explicit some of the covers were and got a nicely worded message saying KB preferred not to censor covers.

Although I don't like it, I respect KB's decision not to censor them. If someone feels strongly enough about it, they don't have to visit the site.

For me, it just means I visit less.



Drew Smith said:


> It's easy enough to fix if a member doesn't want to see the covers in signature lines.
> 
> All you have to do is go to Profile>>Modify Profile>>Look and Layout and then click "Don't show users' signatures."
> 
> Problem solved.


Great suggestion. I do love seeing (most) everyone's covers, but I might do this on my home PC.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Monique said:


> True. However, this is a public board that can be seen by members and non-members (who have no control, si?). Or are sigs not visible by the unsuspecting public?


Well, non-members can become members and get control. We're happy to have more members.  Or there's the mobile version. And I think I can set my browser to not automatically display images, though I may be thinking of my email program. . There are options. 

Really, we try to walk a line...which means not everyone will like where we've drawn it. Let us know if there's an image or title you think goes too far and we'll look at it.

We look at our filters from time to time and reconsider. Discussion is good, as is understanding. 

Betsy
From Heathrow Express....


----------



## heyhannajames (Jun 1, 2014)

Simple solution:

1) Install Adblock on your browser.

2) When you see offensive content, cntrl+click (or right click) the pictures in question and block it. You'll never see that photo again.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

^^ there you go. Very sensible.


----------



## EmmaS (Jul 15, 2014)

> I don't know. Maybe for me it is about common courtesy. I publish horror. But I don't put explicitly violent scenes on my covers. When I post excerpts on non-horror sites, I make sure to post excerpts that don't include foul language or graphic scenes. Because I have courtesy. It is what you do when you enter a shared space in which not everyone shares the same comfort level. And I most certainly do not possess the hubris to tell people who don't want to read foul language or graphic scenes, "Well, go away, because I am more important than you and...CENSORSHIP!"


My husband and I had an interesting conversation about this idea of shared space the other day. He'd read an article decrying the trend of people using cell phones in public and subjecting others to their private conversations. His first instinct was to agree with the author and think that this trend was horrible; my first instinct was to vehemently disagree and think that the author needed to chill.

After discussing, we boiled our views down to some assumptions.

The author and my husband were making the assumption: "Public space is open to everyone. The chances are good that many individuals in shared space will be offended by different things; therefore, everyone in public space should go out of their way not to do anything that might inconvenience or offend others. If you want an environment where you can behave however you want, you should stay in your private space, since subjecting others to your ideas of what's acceptable is rude and inconsiderate." To sum up: You should control your comfort by controlling the environment around you, since everyone _should _behave a certain way.

The version for this discussion might be: "KBoards is open to everyone. You should go out of your way not to make anyone else here uncomfortable."

I was making the assumption: "Public space is open to everyone; therefore, you should expect to run into a wide variety of individuals, customs, and attitudes -- if you want a controlled environment that doesn't risk offending you, you should stay in your private space, since requiring everyone in public space to conform to your ideas of what's acceptable is unrealistic and self-absorbed." To sum up: You should control your comfort by controlling the way you direct your attention, since people have different ideas of what's appropriate public behavior and have a right to their opinions and behavior just as you have a right to yours.

The version for this discussion might be: "KBoards is open to everyone. You should expect that some people's comfort zones will be different from your own and plan accordingly."

Neither of these assumptions is right or wrong. My husband realized he believed more like I did, after we'd broken it down to this level, but I imagine some people would look at the first assumption and go "Yes, exactly!" It just boils down to how you think people should conduct themselves in public space. For what it's worth, I think KBoards has been managing pretty well. And the AdBlock solution is brilliant. I use it during election season to keep myself from hating everyone I know... It works brilliantly.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

> Tone and culture of KBoards. KBoards is our home. To make it an overall enjoyable place to be, we have to set expectations about the behavior of everyone who enters our home.
> 
> The tone of conversation in our forum is important to us. If you are a new member, browse around the boards for a while to get a feel for our culture. Look at the flow of our conversations to get a sense for what we consider to be acceptable in posts and topics.
> 
> ...


Quotes from the KBoards Forum decorum (Bolding by me)


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> So you reserve the right to dictate when people are "allowed" to visit Kboards AND what they do with their downtime, but others are out of line for asking a (small) subset of erotica authors to tone down their covers on a general audience forum?
> 
> You DO know that the majority of KB members aren't writers? This isn't a writer forum. It is a Kindle forum. Most users are simply readers. Which makes you telling them what they should be doing with their "legit" downtime even more nonsensical.
> 
> _edited to comply with Forum Decorum. Thanks. --Betsy_


I reserve the right to suggest that people have better things to do than go to an Internet forum at inappropriate times. I don't presume to dictate to anyone.

I realize KBoards is for Kindle-related discussion, in general, but it seems a reasonable assumption that regulars of the Writers' Cafe might have potentially profitable or otherwise noteworthy pieces of literature to work on.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I think the members of the KBoards community and of the Writers' Café in particular are of an age that they can determine when their surfing time is appropriate.  Let's make that assumption anyway and move on.  

Thanks. 

Betsy


----------



## angel_graham (Mar 16, 2011)

heyhannajames said:


> Simple solution:
> 
> 1) Install Adblock on your browser.
> 
> 2) When you see offensive content, cntrl+click (or right click) the pictures in question and block it. You'll never see that photo again.


Thank You! A solution that doesn't involve censoring anyone's covers.

It sounds like some think it's okay to censor the erotic covers, because, erotic. So, what is to stop the next person from wanting the Horror genre covers to be censored. Some of them can be downright graphic. Or how about...and after those, the... See, exactly where is it going to end? Once we censor the book covers that might offend someone, we will end up with no book covers at all.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

This is great - this thread has triggered just the discussion we have been having in real life on this issue.  I thought it was in danger of veering off into a completely different discussion at the start there...

I was initially sitting on this fence however based on some great posts I am now leaning towards one side.  One person summarised this perfectly by kind of saying there are two groups of people - 

1. "It is YOUR problem if you are offended by anything you see on here - the internet is full of "adult" content so get used to it"
2. "If you are in a public space or shared area, assume that some people may get offended by nudity, gore, violence and try to avoid offending those with a more sensitive disposition"

(I should point out that neither of these are correct in absolute, objective terms - this is completely a matter of opinion)

There seems to be a great degree of empathy in the second option so I am leaning towards that as being where I sit. (Again I should point out that I neither write erotica, buy erotica, hate erotica or otherwise).  However even inside my head this is not clear cut as I have a few different opinions creating a kind of cognitive dissonance (or whatever psychologists call this).  I think this is the first time, ever, I have come down on the conservative side of any debate.  And I think it has nothing to do with conservatism and much to do with being considerate.

Julie hit the nail on the head for me.  I think quite a few people reading this thread have now disabled the viewing of sigs (unless you do that tapatalk thing that Betsy mentioned which I don't quite understand anyway - is that to do with viewing on a device?) which means non-erotica writers are losing visability because of erotica.  Everone's moral compass is set at a different point so this is where it will be completely subjective as to how you view this.  For example, if I was an erotica writer, I could just as easily say "I am losing visibility because of prudes/people who want to go on this forum in the workplace".

But to the person suggesting we shouldn't be looking at Kboards while at work...really?  You haven't heard of lunch breaks?  People don't work in Dickensian factories any more (Well, sadly, many still do in third world countries but that is another story).  My boss (and many bosses) doesn't give a hoot what I look at while at work as long as I do my job.  

Sometimes God (or whomever/whatever you believe in) sends you a message.  Just after I posted this thread a few days back, I was on Kboards and, I kid you not, for the first time EVER, a co-worker walking past stopped, noticed someone's erotica cover in their sig and said "What the hell are you looking at?" (laughing).  I have now disabled signatures.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

There's a lot of attempts to shame people on the opposite side of the issue, but the harder a person attacks the other side, the more they feel they need to take an extreme point to protect their position. 

Here's the thing to remember: 

Kboards is not a public space.  It is a private business and therefore, the only person who decides right/wrong/policy is the owner of the business.  

If his business loses visibility/traction because erotica authors leave in a huff or people stop visiting because they feel they are exposed to indecent content (or they turn off signatures and ultimately, buy less books through the affiliate links) it affects the bottom line of this business.

Not a human rights or public decency or prudes vs smut issue... a business decision. 

While everyone here has their own opinion on their "rights" the bottom line is that you vote with your patronage or lack of it.  

Even in a public space, when the rights of the few override the desires of the many, people will find ways to avoid that space.  Regardless of right or wrong or any variation in between, people don't go places where they are not comfortable. 

I have to say, I don't see anyone threatening to leave over the current covers but an awful lot of people who would stalk away angry if the policy became more restrictive, so my guess is that this is a moot point.  From a business standpoint, the current policy seems to work.


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

I have nothing to say, except to make a post so my covers show.  If that annoys someone who is not in charge of Kboards, too bad.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Well I took off my slightly risque kissing cover after reading this thread.  I guess if the ones I have left offend people, it's not because there's too much sexiness showing.  I could be wrong?


----------



## angel_graham (Mar 16, 2011)

AndreSanThomas said:


> I have nothing to say, except to make a post so my covers show. If that annoys someone who is not in charge of Kboards, too bad.


_*slow clap*_


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Drew Smith said:


> So to be completely fair and cater to the particular hang-ups of everyone we should all self-police and not post any of these covers in our signatures? Fair is fair after all and I'm sure that nobody would posit that conservative folk who don't like hand-bras on covers are any more important that the Klan leader who doesn't want to see black folk.


When you give hand bras the same consideration as *an entire race of people*, you lose an argument.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When you give hand bras the same consideration as *an entire race of people*, you lose an argument.


I think he was making a comparison between the sensibilities of the people being offended in his scenario, not the things which offended them. Are the mindsets required to be offended by hand-bras and/or images of black people similarly deserving of ridicule? I think so.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Mike_Author said:


> But to the person suggesting we shouldn't be looking at Kboards while at work...really? You haven't heard of lunch breaks? People don't work in Dickensian factories any more (Well, sadly, many still do in third world countries but that is another story). My boss (and many bosses) doesn't give a hoot what I look at while at work as long as I do my job.


That's great that you have that kind of boss, but just keep in mind that not all companies share that philosophy, and not all employees limit their Internet surfing to break time.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

AndreSanThomas said:


> I have nothing to say, except to make a post so my covers show. If that annoys someone who is not in charge of Kboards, too bad.


I love your covers. Beautiful and tasteful. 

However, it was your covers that raised my coworker's eyebrows and caused me to stop looking at KBoards the few days a month that I still go in to work.

My workplace's policy is we are not to be on their computers for personal use. Shame on me. (Besides, log-ins are tracked there, so I wouldn't be able to block signatures without them knowing I was on a non-work-related website!)


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> I love your covers. Beautiful and tasteful.
> 
> However, it was your covers that raised my coworker's eyebrows and caused me to stop looking at KBoards the few days a month that I still go in to work.
> 
> My workplace's policy is we are not to be on their computers for personal use. Shame on me. (Besides, log-ins are tracked there, so I wouldn't be able to block signatures without them knowing I was on a non-work-related website!)


I don't follow what her covers have to do with anything if you're the one breaking the rule.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

EelKat said:


> That was my favorite cover in your sig! I liked that one. Now it's gone.  (I like your books btw, I've been slowly getting around to reading all of them, in between writing.)
> 
> {{{Hugs}}}


Thank you, darling!!  Words to make my day.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

genrehopper said:


> I think he was making a comparison between the sensibilities of the people being offended in his scenario, not the things which offended them. Are the mindsets required to be offended by hand-bras and/or images of black people similarly deserving of ridicule? I think so.


No. A person who is offended by partial nudity is not remotely the same as a person who is offended by the presence of black people. One is a person who was raised in a conservative environment. The other is a racist. The mindsets are not remotely similar, and any attempt to claim otherwise is both insulting to people who have conservative moral values and to people who have actually been on the receiving end of real bigotry. The comparison makes as much sense as saying people should be allowed to walk around in the mall in the nude, because black people are allowed to walk around in the mall.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Dennis Chekalov said:


> Only a Sith deals in absolutes...
> 
> Don't you see the difference?...


The point stands if I say "People should be allowed to walk around the mall in hand bras because black people walk around in the mall" Attempting to equate complaints about images that may not be safe for work to people don't wanting to see black people is simply wrong, no matter how many witty ways people try to be cute about it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I think we're getting pretty far afield from the original discussion here...perhaps it's time to move on.

Thanks.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------

