Jump to content
YeEternalTuna

Bias and hypocrisy

Recommended Posts

Admins In-Game Name: [xG:A] Krampus

Admins STEAM-ID: STEAM_0:1:88632487

Your In-Game Name: YeEternalTuna

Your STEAM-ID: STEAM_0:1:56604228

What server did this happen in?: TF2 Surf

What exactly did the abuser do?: Showed bias towards sprays

Did it affect other players?: Yes

Explain the entire situation here:

So around 10 on June 8th, I was playing on surf like normal and there were some sprays that got my attention that were somehow allowed to be sprayed, even though it broke the  spray rule.

With this in mind I thought ''why not test something out'' and decided to find a picture of my own in order to test the bias of this whole spray thing. (with editing help from @NitNat ).

experiment_1.png?width=221&height=331unknown.png?width=318&height=331

First picture is mine and the other is one that was allowed by plenty of staff. As you can see the areola is quite large and visable while my image has the barbie doll censoring. My image was allowed by Frostyboigrim but denied by Krampus and I had thought it was really odd that they allowed butts to be shown and stuff like the spider oc pic but not my image so this is where my second experiment comes in with the help of @LemonVolt which involved a image found and edited by him.

51f2a616929d4602a00fe5da59f8b72d--beauti

Again, going by the way Krampus worded his previous warning, butts were allowed so no problem right? Matt sprayed the shown picture and was immediately told to remove it. Krampus had stated that it wasn't allowed because ''its obvious that its a pornographic picture and you can tell whats under the sticker''. Matt had argued with that quoting krampus on how butts were allowed and was kicked for ''trolling''. He had explained it showed the entire body as well and too much of the butt. So my two brain cells sparked and I had remembered something from a few days ago that Precious slutboi had sprayed which means it HAD to be allowed right?

precious_spray_1.png?width=245&height=33

This image was obtained from my tf2 files (where you find all the sprayed images within your tf2 game) and I had Lemonvolt spray it down to get Krampus's thoughts on it (I'm pretty sure you already know the outcome of this) and something quite odd happened...

Now how is it that our spray (the image with the lemon censoring which I will refer as experiment #2) isn't allowed but the one of Kass is? It makes absolute no sense what so ever because its virtually the same exact thing but one is depicting a anthropomorphic bird man and the other is of a human female. It just screams hypocrisy and bias and as you can see when confronted he runs out of the little common sense he had left in him. Apparently ours is ''clearly taken from a pornographic image'' and just ''censored with a sticker'' even tho just by looking at the Kass picture you can TELL its cropped. The blind biased pass for the (kass) spray gets a pass when it’s clearly cropped nsfw. The (lemon censored) spray is set up exactly the same besides the fact that it’s a real person instead of a furry.

Also Aegean has given me permission to put it in TF2 Discussion due to there being an error in the report abuse thread application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The editing on the first one isn't done particularly well enough imo, I think I can still see the lips through the blur, the second one should be fine though imo fair is fair. 

I was on surf when this was going down but sprays were not working for a while for me, (I couldn't even see my own for a bit) so I had no idea what the issue was I only heard about it secondhand. 

I can't actually tell what the fudge is going on in the spider one because it seems to be merely lineart, but if it is indeed an areola that should be a no-no from what I remember from my brief stint as mod, but idk it also looks like it could just reasonably be part of a larger stomach pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LAN_Megalodon said:

The editing on the first one isn't done particularly well enough imo, I think I can still see the lips through the blur, the second one should be fine though imo fair is fair. 

I was on surf when this was going down but sprays were not working for a while for me, (I couldn't even see my own for a bit) so I had no idea what the issue was I only heard about it secondhand. 

I can't actually tell what the fudge is going on in the spider one because it seems to be merely lineart, but if it is indeed an areola that should be a no-no from what I remember from my brief stint as mod, but idk it also looks like it could just reasonably be part of a larger stomach pattern.

by second I should clarify "the second irl 3d woman" not the spider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might I just say, that Kass spray wasn't cropped like you believe, at least not much. I only cut a tiny bit off the bottom so I could remove an iFunny watermark and make the spray work for the spray format. What you see there is basically the full spray, no exposed donut hole or genitalia. However, I myself was confused by Krampus's decision to condemn your previous sprays and not mine. I was told by other staff that as long as a spray does not show exposed genitalia or exposed breasts, or properly censors those things, then it was allowed. That's why when Krampus told me no explicit nudity was allowed, I changed my spray immediately.

While there probably was some bias and confusion in this situation, I think there's a bigger problem at large here. What really counts as an 'explicit spray'? Like I said, when I first became staff, I was told that as long as a suggestive spray was properly cropped and censored, it was allowed, but I've also been told by others, not just Krampus, that explicit nudity of any kind is not allowed, which is why I changed my spray. Frosty says your sprays were okay, and I didn't really have a problem with them (though your first spray is definitely pushing it), but Krampus said they weren't okay. I don't think bias is the only problem here, I think there needs to be more clarification on what kind of nudity can be allowed. 

If someone takes a pornographic image that normally would not be allowed and properly censors it, is it still against the rules or not? I don't think this is something we can just leave up to staff discretion anymore, because that's how confusion like this happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it was any ill intent from Krampus, but I definitely think that either both sprays should follow the same guideline as the only difference is just one is cartoon and the other isn't. It's still lewd + censored (even though the first image isn't a great censor lol)

+1 for rule clarification

-1 for any punishment on kramp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aegean said:

I don't think it was any ill intent from Krampus, but I definitely think that either both sprays should follow the same guideline as the only difference is just one is cartoon and the other isn't. It's still lewd + censored (even though the first image isn't a great censor lol)

+1 for rule clarification

-1 for any punishment on kramp

So can we get a detailed rule clarification here and now? (Just like in general not necessarily from you or anything) Because "no explicit nudity" isn't really a great explanation and if I were just an outsider or new mod reading this I would end up interpreting it as "individuals in sprays can't not have clothes". If we're making a new line where do we draw it, or if not, are we just back to "if you don't show any part of genitalia or tiddy nipples you're good" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we can definitely have it sorted out in this thread, I just want to have the opinion of the other TF2 higherups instead of rewording it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Precious said:

What really counts as an 'explicit spray'?

"All sprays cannot contain nudity or derogatory content. This includes any spray that depicts sexual content or anything else that may be deemed inappropriate by Staff."

As found here.

Meaning,

4 minutes ago, Precious said:

told that as long as a suggestive spray was properly cropped and censored, it was allowed

This was just for clarification sake, correct me if I'm on wrong on that.

 

 

 

I'm gonna bring up one example IN PARTICULAR that I think would be a good comparison. 

QqNVaGa.png

 

So with this one, the argument was that on the left side, its just putting a sticker over it, and on the right side its showing "just a bit" of it.  You could argue that both are relatively similar in a sense if we are comparing them in terms of what they show, by how Krampus was enforcing the rule, both shouldn't have been ok to be sprayed.

 

Now do I think it is a bit of bias? Yes. Do I think he should get punished? No.  I think the main solution to gain out of this is mainly just to clarify the spray rule so EVERY staff is on the SAME page, not one staff saying one thing and two others saying another. 

 

 

-1 for punishment

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost forgot to add,

+1 for Rule Clarification, because I myself have heard several things from several people about what kind of sprays are allowed and aren't, and everyone usually says something a little different. Frosty, Krampus, and I all had different views on those sprays, that alone should be an indication that clarification is needed. 

And -1 for punishing Krampus, because I genuinely feel like he was just as confused about the situation as I was, and don't believe he had any ill intent either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was gonna make this huge long post about sprays and bias and whatnot when an idea came to me...

Here's my suggestion, and I'm prepared to get negatively rated into oblivion for this, but why don't we just disable sprays server wide?

It's been proven, time and time again that players and staff feel completely differently about sprays and their subject matter. Even to a point where I have seen players (some of which are even staff now or were staff) argue with staff members that their spray is allowed since it follows the rules but the staff member personally doesn't believe so (even while another staff member allows it). This has even caused some players to purposefully alter their sprays so they're not "technically" against the rules, but still pushing the lines (again, this has been done by current and past staff members).

The CS:GO Division doesn't have this issue. You know why? Because CS:GO doesn't have sprays (at least not to the degree of TF2's system).

So either we come to a global agreement and clarify rules even more so, which has been tried many times and we still have this issue, or we just disable the spray ability and save TF2 staff another headache they don't need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bone said:

I was gonna make this huge long post about sprays and bias and whatnot when an idea came to me...

Here's my suggestion, and I'm prepared to get negatively rated into oblivion for this, but why don't we just disable sprays server wide?

It's been proven, time and time again that players and staff feel completely differently about sprays and their subject matter. Even to a point where I have seen players (some of which are even staff now or were staff) argue with staff members that their spray is allowed since it follows the rules but the staff member personally doesn't believe so (even while another staff member allows it). This has even caused some players to purposefully alter their sprays so they're not "technically" against the rules, but still pushing the lines (again, this has been done by current and past staff members).

The CS:GO Division doesn't have this issue. You know why? Because CS:GO doesn't have sprays (at least not to the degree of TF2's system).

So either we come to a global agreement and clarify rules even more so, which has been tried many times and we still have this issue, or we just disable the spray ability and save TF2 staff another headache they don't need. 

I mean there's plenty of things we have to go after time and time again even though rules are pretty clear, that's what moderators are for. The solution to "bodyblocking" for instance isn't to just give everyone no-collide or remove every instance of a teleporter within a map, even though it's a rule we constantly have to deal with enforcing. Besides which, I'm pretty sure "nothing explicit" is a pretty concrete one to maintain, although we could certainly go further and make a rule about anything even "questionable", it's just that our new rule as of January is incredibly vague for no real reason. Back when I was mod I didn't ever really even have to question whether sprays were allowed or not because the ruling on it as it was told to me was just not something subjective.  Then we introduced "allowing bulges as long as you can't make out the genitalia" or whatever and it all went downhill.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LAN_Megalodon said:

I mean there's plenty of things we have to go after time and time again even though rules are pretty clear, that's what moderators are for. The solution to "bodyblocking" for instance isn't to just give everyone no-collide or remove every instance of a teleporter within a map, even though it's a rule we constantly have to deal with enforcing. Besides which, I'm pretty sure "nothing explicit" is a pretty concrete one to maintain, although we could certainly go further and make a rule about anything even "questionable", it's just that our new rule as of January is incredibly vague for no real reason. Back when I was mod I didn't ever really even have to question whether sprays were allowed or not because the ruling on it as it was told to me was just not something subjective.  Then we introduced "allowing bulges as long as you can't make out the genitalia" or whatever and it all went downhill.  

The thing is, those rules are black and white. If someone's spawnkilling on Surf, that's a no-no. Another staff member won't show up and go "Nah, I think it's cool man". Same with bodyblocking, it's easy to enforce since it's simply "don't do it".

The spray rules are entirely a gray area. 4 years ago, the rule was "sprays have to be PG-13" it was then changed to: "Sprays, avatars and items that are able to be customized cannot contain the following: nudity, racism, hate symbols, gore, derogatory content and images of sexualized minors (this includes drawn images)". January's version is the same as the second but added the phrase: "no explicit nudity/genitalia"

The "allowing bulges" was never actually a rule, but additions staff members made based on how they personally felt. Which is why nobody knows what the hell is going on and why the rule changes from staff member to staff member. This has happened before, which is why we're here now... again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To start this off I'm just going to explain what happened in my experience of the event to try and explain what I had been thinking during everything.

The whole thing had initially started back when I was sitting on the surf server on Meister when the three of them had joined the server, which soon after Tuna goes to the front of spawn and puts down the first spray where the girl is completely naked except for the fact that her parts are blurred out, which all three of you do know the rules considering you've been here a long time so I don't understand why you would just come on and spray a purposefully edging spray and put it in front of staff and start an argument with me on the server of all places instead of like just making a thread about it or talking on the discord to staff if your purpose was to see what and wouldn't be allowed. 

But anyway, about the first spray I did not believe it should be allowed at the time as it was just a girl straight up naked with some blurring effect and from how it showed all of her breasts and body and is definitely going over the line which is why I still believe that it should not be allowed, also when I warned about it Tuna had instantly started to argue with me until I had told him to end it. After that Matt had left and rejoined the server with the second spray which he was just basically doing to get a response from me as it was like the other spray that I had just warned for.

Which I do admit that one is definitely less showing than the first but the fact that it is showing everything and you just cover where the vagina/butthole would be with a little smiley face makes me think that it should not be allowed since this would go under explicit nudity as it automatically infers what it is supposed to be there. But I do understand why that one would be allowed by other staff as it technically does not show anything, but what I had said there had been my opinion on it which is why I said it shouldn't be allowed.

Now about the Kass spray I did believe that it should have been allowed, although it was risky which I have stated before, since I see that all it shows is the butt which isn't exactly explicit nudity in my opinion as it's just the front of the butt as for the one you all had sprayed it had shown the butt but right where you'd expect the butthole and all that to be you had put a smiley face making is pretty obvious for what should be there. But the thing is that this was just my opinion and obviously people will see it differently than me and say that it is the same thing and you can infer it just from seeing the butt rather than the smiley face there, which I do understand why people would think differently which is why I told you to make a conversation on the forums about how you don't think it should be allowed near the end of the video since those were my beliefs on which ones should not be allowed and it was pointless to keep the argument going there on the server, which I shouldn't have let the argument continue there anyway  for as long as it did. 

So basically what I'm trying to say is that what I had said to not be allowed had been what I thought should be or not in my opinion and that many other people can all see it a different way than me from how the rules themselves are written, which I do believe should be clarified more on that as it keeps coming up time and time again with different arguments for what different staff think should be allowed or not. But still I do understand why you would think it was just be me being purely biased towards precious given our relationship which I do admit does make me more likely to side with him which is a fair point for why it should be left to a higher up to decide whether or not his spray would be considered too much or not rather than me. But still even with that, what I had said about the three sprays was genuine for what my beliefs were for which ones should be allowed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Krampus has any bias or ill will towards you. He's jut trying to do his best to moderate/regulate things the best he can and in all types of positions like this there might be misjudgments or make mistakes. I think there should be more clarification and specifics on the rules of what can be included in a spray rather than the sort of cookie cutter rule presented generally on places like the forums and server itself. I think getting real specific will help resolve any confusions people may have regarding sprays as it won't leave people guessing what's acceptable or not.

I also think that all staff should be informed of the rule so everyone is consistent in saying what is and what isn't acceptable.

Though sprays might be a hard thing to regulate as there will always be a spray that will be in the middle ground and left for staff to make a tough decision. I personally believe that sprays that don't include gentiles by being edited out or covered should be allowed, including the two sprays you made.

I'm sorry to hear that you've been having trouble with this and I hope it's resolved fairly soon. I'm sure this discussion will help implement something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So while this definitely brings up a good discussion on spray regulation, I do no think Krampus is in the wrong at all. Poorly censored porn is not the same as cut off porn. You took two shots with direct nudity and covered it. The other spray has it cut out. On the topic of bias, everyone has a bias but I do not think in this case it is affecting anything. Krampus is a damn good admin and frankly does not deserve this

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Who Viewed the Topic

    1 member has viewed this topic:
    TurdWig