NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand why you deleted the "Al queda is doing it wrong" thread. The pics he linked to were gruesome. But I want to know if this ruling also applies to things like the waterboarding video I've passed around in the past, or photographs of what goes on in guantanamo and Abu Graib. Without these, it might become difficult to impress upon people what the torture methods used by the American government are.

I should first clarify that no moderator gives a damn whether the torture methods in question belong to the US of A, Al Qaida, or the Moleman People's Republic of Lower Mongolia. With that said, I haven't seen the video in question and thus can't rule upon it.

~ Tsarmageddon

I should first clarify that no moderator gives a damn whether the torture methods in question belong to the US of A, Al Qaida, or the Moleman People's Republic of Lower Mongolia. With that said, I haven't seen the video in question and thus can't rule upon it.

~ Tsarmageddon

Would you like me to provide a link to it?

And I guess the question is: Is the ruling that all depictions of torture are out, or just gruesome ones?

We don't want depictions of torture, gruesome accidents, deaths, abortions, et cetera on this board -- we have school kids as young as 12 and thirteen using it. Don't post 'em, and don't link to them directly.

There is no specific line as such, nor shall one be drawn - that sort of thing tends to lead to pointless hair-splitting over whether or not something crosses the line, and we would really rather not have to look at graphic depictions of man's inhumanity to man to determine whether or not they're too graphic.

As a rule of thumb, try to keep it PG-13. Admittedly that doesn't mean what it used to, but use common sense and decency and you should be OK.

I'd hazard a guess that pretty much every depiction of torture out there is more or less unpostable.

~ Tsarmageddon

As usual, the speed-modding team got things sorted in a couple of sensible sentences while I was still halfway through this novella. But I'd tried to write some Should I Call The Doctor? advice, so I'll post it anyway:

Almost always it's a judgment call on a case-by-case basis. The exceptions are the obvious ones mentioned in The One-Stop Rules Shop above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3): "porn or other sexual imagery, warez, sites promoting other illegal activities, referral links or sites that have links to such sites as a principal component".

A blanket statement is difficult because a ban on every depiction of torture would rule out a whole area of legitimate threads -- not just the political ones, but also some religious ones (not that I've ever noticed many threads on tortured saintly martyrs, but you never know).

So, about videos. I guess asking about the suitability of videos is like the NS UN crowd asking whether a proposal is legal. But before they ask they've torn the proposal apart and done their best to look at it every which way, because rulings take time. And there are an awful lot more videos than proposals, and not a lot of mods. So before you post that link, try to put it through the same process:


You say you've "passed around" the video. Has anyone ever commented along the lines that it was a bit graphic, or maybe too shocking or violent to look at? If so, don't post it.

Where did/would you post it? The standard is generally PG 13, but the more accessible a forum is, the more acceptable the content has to be. You should be very picky about posting -- say, safe enough for the PG classification -- if you're considering a deliberately public forum such as General.

Is the posting in any way malicious? Or likely to be understood or responded to that way (eg, as baiting opponents)? If so, don't post.

As usual, the speed-modding team got things sorted in a couple of sensible sentences while I was still halfway through this novella. But I'd tried to write some Should I Call The Doctor? advice, so I'll post it anyway:

Almost always it's a judgment call on a case-by-case basis. The exceptions are the obvious ones mentioned in The One-Stop Rules Shop above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3): "porn or other sexual imagery, warez, sites promoting other illegal activities, referral links or sites that have links to such sites as a principal component".

A blanket statement is difficult because a ban on every depiction of torture would rule out a whole area of legitimate threads -- not just the political ones, but also some religious ones (not that I've ever noticed many threads on tortured saintly martyrs, but you never know).

So, about videos. I guess asking about the suitability of videos is like the NS UN crowd asking whether a proposal is legal. But before they ask they've torn the proposal apart and done their best to look at it every which way, because rulings take time. And there are an awful lot more videos than proposals, and not a lot of mods. So before you post that link, try to put it through the same process:


You say you've "passed around" the video. Has anyone ever commented along the lines that it was a bit graphic, or maybe too shocking or violent to look at? If so, don't post it.

Where did/would you post it? The standard is generally PG 13, but the more accessible a forum is, the more acceptable the content has to be. You should be very picky about posting -- say, safe enough for the PG classification -- if you're considering a deliberately public forum such as General.

Is the posting in any way malicious? Or likely to be understood or responded to that way (eg, as baiting opponents)? If so, don't post.


The particular video that I've posted before is not particularly graphic, (as waterboarding is not truly much to look at) and depicts a man who volunteered to be waterboarded to demonstrate what it was. He is held down to a table while a wet rag is stuffed in his mouth and then water is poured in the rag. I typically post it whenever people start talking about "Taking pictures of you naked" being the only torture the US does, or it being similer to a fraternity hazing.

The other depiction is the one of stress positions, which are basically a guy standing in a way that looks really uncomfortable, often with a bag over his head.

I just want to know, for future reference, whether these are a no post, since I've been posting them in the past and no one's said anything, but the comment on the deleted thread was "no depictions of torture" which these fall into, quite obviously.

We don't want depictions of torture, gruesome accidents, deaths, abortions, et cetera on this board -- we have school kids as young as 12 and thirteen using it. Don't post 'em, and don't link to them directly.

Sigh. and I suppose with that I have my answer. From now on I suppose descriptions will have to do.

Although i'm not a mod, and I rarely ever comment on these threads because their usually well sorted by the time I find them, BUT, this one actually applies to me in a way.

I RP on II, with a variety of Fantasy Characters, one of which, goes by Kajeenith, The Mad god of darkness.

Now, with that name, as one might guess, one of his preferred activities involves Cruel inhuman activities, and due to his divine status, no one can possibly die from them, opening up a whole new field of possibilities. Yet, there are children on this forum. If I had children, I know I wouldn't want them reading graphic detailed descriptions of torture, parts of which defy all reasoning and understanding.

While yes, Torture can have its place and add a dark and sinister air to a thread, is it really neccessary to sicken and disgust your readers, by describing things to them most people would rather not hear about? I mean, that's about as bad as describing a sintilating sex scene by a roaring fireplace.

True, we can't post pics of either concept, but even describing it has its limits. There's the concept of fading out on sex scenes. It leaves it to the reader's imagination. Torture should be the same way. Just as most people can be surprised at the depths of which they can imagine the act of procreation, many people can also horrify themselves at the depths at which they imagine the torture of another being.

I suppose what I'm saying is, be careful. a graphic description can cause as much trouble as a picture, especially if a lot of people complain.

Depictions of torture in roleplay are a different beast than in General; for one thing, in General there are less demon gods and more chance of photographs or videos. As you've pointed out, it's possible to "fade out" in roleplay and convey the impression of something. This doesn't really hold for General, however.

~ Tsarmageddon, Lord of the End Times

Depictions of torture in roleplay are a different beast than in General; for one thing, in General there are less demon gods and more chance of photographs or videos. As you've pointed out, it's possible to "fade out" in roleplay and convey the impression of something. This doesn't really hold for General, however.

~ Tsarmageddon, Lord of the End Times

True, but both forums still belong to the same man, and if it keeps that much more hatemail out of his inbox, then so much the better.

This is so, praise be unto Max.

~ Tsarmageddon, Herald of the Eschaton

Depictions of torture in roleplay are a different beast than in General; for one thing, in General there are less demon gods and more chance of photographs or videos. As you've pointed out, it's possible to "fade out" in roleplay and convey the impression of something. This doesn't really hold for General, however.

~ Tsarmageddon, Lord of the End Times

And, roleplay depictions that include a "fade out" can lead to better writing than graphic depiction of torture.

There's no need to depict graphic torture of any kind. A look of shame or descriptions of physical pain might get the point across just as well.

Just so. They do this in the movies too; I went to see Sin City when it came out, which was so over-the-top gory it alternated between laughable and sickening. Frank Miller is a man trapped in the 1980's, but I digress.

Last month I went to see Pan's Labyrinth, which is probably the best movie I have ever seen. That movie also contains torture, but you don't see it on screen, and the lead-up to it makes it all the more effective. Plus the movie has a tree-elf-faun guy, that never hurts.

~ Tsarmageddon is an affront to God

As fun as it is to discuss the art of writing torture, I think the actual question at hand has been pretty well covered. Unless there's anything else we can do...?

A blanket statement is difficult because a ban on every depiction of torture would rule out a whole area of legitimate threads -- not just the political ones, but also some religious ones (not that I've ever noticed many threads on tortured saintly martyrs, but you never know).
Well, I made one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528068), but no one was interested :(

Right. Before we go off-topic, locked.