I think we're actually on the same page but going about showing that in very different ways. I'm exaggerating to make my point at times ("one or two people" and "slightly distasteful" - there is obviously the potential to have many people offended and some of the images, like the one you just linked, are definitely more than pixelated frontal nudity from the 80s) but I'm also trying to think practically. The site has been operational for a long time and I can count on one hand the number of times people have taken issue with NSFW content here. One of those times was a teacher who said they regularly used the site and asked for some way to hide the NSFW sheets which is where the current message and click-through process came from. So I'm not so much focusing on what you're literally saying but pointing out that many of the suggested implementations of this filter negatively impact the user experience which isn't worth it when a comparatively small percentage of people will prefer it after the change.
I'm not against hiding the icons for NSFW sheets but the rule is already in place that the icons, regardless of what they're representing, are supposed to be appropriate regardless. For instance, the icon for the sheet you linked is not what I'd call inappropriate:
![[Image: 99279.png]](https://www.spriters-resource.com/resources/sheet_icons/96/99279.png)
Sure, when looked at in the context of the full image, it becomes inappropriate but on its own, it's not. That said, if we were to implement either one or the other (hiding the icons entirely or just swapping the image), swapping the image out is infinitely easier and far less intrusive. It's not difficult to hide the content but then we have cases where some of the site is inaccessible and I'm not a fan of that approach. Swapping the icons would be simple and can be done with no significant changes to the code (e.g. having to point out where and how many sheets have been removed from the current view). Like I said, I'm not against it but I haven't been convinced that it's entirely necessary given our current icon guidelines.
One other thing to keep in mind here though is that the mention of covering ourselves (presumably legally) keeps coming up and I'd like to point out that what we're doing isn't illegal and the method we have of hiding inappropriate content already protects us given that you have to willingly acknowledge a warning (which was a little vague in hindsight, hence the update today) and manually click through it to access that content.
I'm not against hiding the icons for NSFW sheets but the rule is already in place that the icons, regardless of what they're representing, are supposed to be appropriate regardless. For instance, the icon for the sheet you linked is not what I'd call inappropriate:
Sure, when looked at in the context of the full image, it becomes inappropriate but on its own, it's not. That said, if we were to implement either one or the other (hiding the icons entirely or just swapping the image), swapping the image out is infinitely easier and far less intrusive. It's not difficult to hide the content but then we have cases where some of the site is inaccessible and I'm not a fan of that approach. Swapping the icons would be simple and can be done with no significant changes to the code (e.g. having to point out where and how many sheets have been removed from the current view). Like I said, I'm not against it but I haven't been convinced that it's entirely necessary given our current icon guidelines.
One other thing to keep in mind here though is that the mention of covering ourselves (presumably legally) keeps coming up and I'd like to point out that what we're doing isn't illegal and the method we have of hiding inappropriate content already protects us given that you have to willingly acknowledge a warning (which was a little vague in hindsight, hence the update today) and manually click through it to access that content.