Forum:Ban promo skins

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Ban promo skins
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 5 March 2015 by Cqm.

Ok, I know Green skin existed already, but before there was only one color. Now, with the release of Grey skin and Onyx skin this is getting quite distracting. Everytime I see something like this all I can think of is Papa smurf. Can we please ban the promotional skin colors for equip images?

--Jlun2 (talk) 16:29, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

oppose - racist. Also lol it doesn't matter. MolMan 16:33, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

oppose - per mol. it is racist against those who have in their life consumed a lot of silver and turned blue. Also since this thread is because of me, I do not want to go and change my character's skin if I ever decide to take an image. I have recently done the Lord Marshall skirt image Jlun linked above and also the fire skull images, which Jlun then later replaced. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 16:39, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Comment Can you please don't play the race card on me? That was not the intention when I made this thread; hell I didn't even knew that wikipedia article even existed. :/ --Jlun2 (talk) 23:43, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - per Mol Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 16:50, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Question - Does it cost anything to remove the skin? Or is it simple, like taking off armor? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:16, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

It requires travelling all the way to makeover mage and back. So unless we have a cooperative model (which is rare), it's not really an option. MolMan 17:18, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
It is more or less like asking someone to change their skin from white to black to take the image. It is pointless. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:42, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

asdf - I don't even notice the different skin colour when I look at such pictures. That has nothing to do with being racist or not, but that's because the skin colour, hair colour, eye shadow, or brand of shoe polish used, is completely irrelevant to the purpose of the image. You can see the armour just as well with basically every type of armour. The only thing I would agree with is for example Onyx skin with black equipment if it would blend over perfectly, or some combination of clothes that would make you look nude when combined with a certain skin colour. But that would only be because then the skin colour would then limit with the visibility of the equipment item itself. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:36, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - for now I think the current promo colours are acceptable for taking images, though if any multi-coloured skins come out (e.g. a rainbow one, who knows) where it makes it more difficult to see, then I'd suggest banning those when they come out. Ozank Cx 23:53, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Consistency. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:55, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see what you mean by consistency. Do we currently have one skin color we use for all of our images? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 15:44, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
We should. Retaking everything might be a step too far but we can at least stop using green/blue skin for images. An exception could be if an item is completely white or something, then, say, a brown or black skin would be better for contrast, so UCS. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:45, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
lolno. Suggesting we do any of this is the opposite of using our common sense. Gratuitous use of an "under-represented" skin-tone would be more distracting. This whole thing is a non-issue that people want to be made into an issue. It's just like those same people who will tag an image for retake because a non-distracting piece of clothing (like ringmaster's pants) is being used because technically, it's not allowed by the strict letter of the law. Some people seem to have a very ridiculous idea of what's distracting that's really not helping to get us anywhere. MolMan 16:01, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
Actually reading the Images Policy, it states that "Benign and undistracting costume parts (such as plain boots) can be ignored." svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 16:03, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
That's something I had to add because people were being stupid with the letter of the law. Though it's true and should definitely stay. I'm going to take your citation of it as admin approval. Thanks. MolMan 16:05, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Support - I thought this was already in RS:IMG but it doesn’t appear to be on there, nevertheless in the past images taken with green skin were tagged to be retaken (there’s still a couple of them in the retake category). I’d agree the skins we have now don’t massively affect the images they’re used in. However I still think they could be confusing to some people if they don’t know what these promotional skins are. If we start using the promo ones it could potentially look like a skin colour change is an effect of wearing the items in the image. People in this thread have argued that they personally don’t find these distracting - but we can’t say this of everyone who reads the wiki. Lots of different people with more or less knowledge of RuneScape (and its promotions) use the wiki.

I also think it may easier to pre-emptively decide against using these images than come back to this decision in the future. It could be that in the future promo skin colours are no longer widely used in RuneScape, causing images taken with them to look outdated. On the other hand it may be that Jagex releases more promo skins which are too distracting to be used in images. If we then had to decide whether or not to allow promo skins we could potentially have to retake images taken with the green, onyx and grey skins.

I’m also concerned that as promo skins are not available to all players, people may use these promo skins to try and show ownership of an image or to use image taking to show off that they have the skin in game.

Going to change skin colour really isn’t that much of a hassle in addition to all of the other inconveniences that are part of image taking. We already ask people to remove all their items, change their combat mode and potentially accompany us to a POH (or the cosmic altar). You do have to go to an NPC to change skin colour, but it’s really not that hard to get to the Makeover mage in-game. I’ll admit that I don’t take too many images with other people modelling, but usually the people that refuse are those that don’t want to stop what they’re doing in game and give up their time to take the image. When people are happy to take an image, I’ve usually found that they are willing to change their settings to fit the standards we ask. Since the OOO update to allow people to use the orb without equipping it (i.e. we can all take images using ourselves as models) is this really that much of a concern anyway? Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 10:06, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, for the issue of appearing like ownership of an image, Spine uses the same model in a lot of his images. It is clearly Spine making those images. Should we make image takers change their avatar every so often so they don't appear to be owning the images? If later, Hamflax releases a skin that is annoying, we can ban it later. Magically, if it is just that skin that is bad, the other promo skin images wouldn't have to be retaken as they would still be considered acceptable and not annoying. Going to change your skin colour is an unnecessary hassle. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 15:44, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
Spine uses the same default clothing in a lot of his images. It is unlikely that anyone would consider using images to show off their default clothing, as it something that is available to all players. Promo skins are not available to everyone and so are more likely to be used for showing ownership/showing off in-game status. Also, default clothing is not always visible in images (as it can be covered by equipped items) while promo skins would be. However I don't think that's the major concern here - my main problem is that I think these skins could be confusing and distracting in images. I think this is a more important consideration than the potential inconvenience of changing skin colour. Is inconvenience even that big of a potential problem? Personally, I take a lot of images and I would not be deterred by having to change skin colour. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 08:47, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
How distracting is it in these images? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 13:35, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
Pretty smurfing distracting; especially with the tattoo one. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:54, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
How is being blue da ba dee da ba die something to brag about? MolMan 13:42, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - per mol, enough said???  ChaoticShadow Zaros symbol.png  Talk  Guest book  Sandbox  Contribs   05:21 February 10, 2015 (UTC)  

support - just to be some evil corrupt stick in the mud rules enforcement agent. CONFORM!!! --Deltaslug (talk) 19:38, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

wut svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:54, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
Someone has to represent the man ... the system ... how else will you fight the man or fight the system if there is no man or system to fight? --Deltaslug (talk) 23:30, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't find it distracting or confusing. I don't think anyone is looking at these images and thinking, "Oh no, blue skin? I suddenly can't see the Bat Staff in this image!". If the skin colour somehow obscures the equipped item then sure, that would be a problem. If not, it's not a big deal.

Of course, I was a smurf for two summers at an amusement park, so I might be biased. --Farming-icon.png Ms ZuZu Talk Quest icon fixed.png 04:34, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - As stated before the promo skins don't bother me unless the obscure the item being shown. Zaros symbol.png Kyoya Ootori 18:00, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to prohibit promotional skin colours at this time. cqm 10:07, 5 Mar 2015 (UTC) (UTC)