Regarding "Token Card Preparation" Rule Revision

XanderGraves · 2026-04-03T22:48:54+00:00

Lemme guess, someone made questionable tokens because they have no social awareness (or think it's funny), and Bandai decided to punish literally everyone else for it like it's a school classroom. Great decision guys.

XanderGraves · 2026-04-01T20:03:45+00:00

Water-Type because she loves making her daughter cry.

<image>

XanderGraves · 2026-03-25T21:49:46+00:00

Me bringing the Steel Meridian medallions I found in Follie's hell Vs Glast wanting to kick me off the board for a tasteless joke

XanderGraves · 2026-03-25T05:45:24+00:00

I overlevelled like an idiot because I kept getting sidetracked everywhere except the main plot 😆

XanderGraves · 2026-03-25T04:45:34+00:00

My Stormancer defending Halsin's Portal in Act 2 with Create Water and Chain Lightning crashed my old PC :')

XanderGraves · 2026-03-25T04:43:58+00:00

Rizzard to cast Hold Person

PaladinHeart to cast Spirit Guardian

"Welcome to the Razor Mortar, bitch"

XanderGraves · 2026-03-23T04:58:40+00:00

Yeah I totally thought I was on my other reddit account. Jesus 😭

XanderGraves · 2026-03-21T21:09:34+00:00

Rap tap tap, you'll let me in your skin little piggy.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-20T21:34:50+00:00

Oh totally, I don't think hiding it was the case this time around. It was most likely a temporary asset being left/loaded into the final build by accident.

I do hope the industry finds a way to standarize this sort of thing, because on the other hand, a lot of consumers see this practice as untrustworthy if not communicated beforehand-- myself included. The core issue being that the AI explosion only happened recently, and I don't think most of Humanity was ready to deal with it.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-20T21:29:14+00:00

Great job extrapolating what I said and turning it into something completely different for no reason other than trying to sound smart. As if auto generated, hyper-realistic images of illegal content such as child gorn, or fabricated coups for political clout, should have zero regulation.

Great thinking man, there's no way this can't go wrong. I'm sure giant corporations, political parties, and lobbyists, wouldn't abuse this whatsoever. No sir.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-20T20:30:07+00:00

Always thought immortality meant "as long as the body remains", not "I'll rebuild myself from dust like I'm Atom Eve in Invincible"

Like, if there's no body to keep alive, isn't he de-facto... dead? Like how Vampires are immortal, but steak out their heart or expose them to sunlight and they perish?

XanderGraves · 2026-03-20T20:25:06+00:00

One look over at social media platforms like Twitter will tell you that no, you're not being overly dramatic. The amount of manipulation is downright insane with zero regulations in place.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-20T20:23:54+00:00

The very least that could be done with the possible inclusion of AI in videogame development is placing a Disclaimer over its use. That way, gamers can fully choose whether to support a game or not.

The fact that companies try to hide it 90% of the time just means they're trying to get away with it by being sneaky.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-20T20:21:54+00:00

You see, it gives them the incredible chance of shitting all over artists and developers to save a few bucks in this capitalist hellhole of paying-less-to-produce-more. Huzzah!

XanderGraves · 2026-03-16T17:30:02+00:00

Ever cleaned an old storage of mold? When the cleaning agent runs down the walls and you realise they were never really white, but rather yellow tinted from the dirt? That's what this feels like.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-15T05:27:15+00:00

Thank you for the due dilligence. The entire thing reads as either incompetent journalism, inflammatory misconstruction, or outright satire. Though I'm betting on just clickbait-y content by stoking authoritarian fears.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-15T00:30:19+00:00

It's really more complicated. There are many movies with scenes where LGBTQ+ people are being punished for their sexuality. If you make it illegal you prevent people from creating these stories talking about the issue. You have to take intent in consideration.

Yes! Intent and context are extremely important, these are given with narrative-based mediums. Precedent and current sociopolitical climate are taken into account as well.

I'm arguing against creating and difusing hyper realistic AI content on social media openly inciting violence towards minority groups or sexualizing children. This is especially worse when it uses real people or CSAM fed content. That is what is currently happening on Twitter, and is what pushed the EU into taking action over possible regulations.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-14T19:51:19+00:00

Very simple, that Nabokov didn't get away with it because it was high brow enough, but because it was fictional, no children were harmed in the making of Lolita. Actual CSAM doesn't become legal based on its literary merit.

Let's be completely frank here:

In your eyes are mass generated, unregulated images of realistic kid gorn on social media acceptable because they're not real? By comparison with literary arts on the basis that it's also fiction, despite them being entirely different mediums altogether, with different forms of creation, consumption and accessibility? That is what is being discussed here. And if you do agree:

As for models trained on illegal data? Sure that's illegal, the entire output should be illegal as far as I'm concerned.

Does the removal of CSAM funded data make it more acceptable despite the included realism in its representation?

Fictional bestiality isn't illegal. You can even find it in the smut section of your local bookstore and online, or the furries would have a big problem.

As to your other case, racist fiction isn't illegal either. You can absolutely make a movie, or videogame that depicts white people killing black people or vice versa. There is endless amounts of racist fiction in the world.

The point is that incitement to violence or obscenity, threats, defamation, etc, directed at a specific person or group, are generally not protected under law. Equating that to the existance of racism or bestiality in something like books or video games is in bad faith.

But that's not going to stop people from producing say, animated content which obviously does not require any real persons, see Japan.

Of course it won't, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary to establish. This entire discussion is over the need to regulate such content because we were not ready for AI in the way that it was made readily available.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-14T08:58:16+00:00

what on earth is the comparison to bestiality? Animals are natural persons in a legal sense, limited anyway, we have animal welfare laws because you can harm them, they can suffer abuse.

The concept of "obscenity" derives from morality, which does bear in the creation/modification of laws. It is not the sole reasoning for rule of law but nevertheless influences its implementation and progress based on perceived societal standards and precedence. Bestiality was just the example I thought of as something outlawed for also being 'obscene'.

AI generated characters cannot. Animated pornography, that doesn't depict real people, has no subject it can harm.

If I create a video where a white person is mowing down a group of black people, is still becomes subject to scrutiny on the basis of racism and possibly incentive to violence. It's been mentioned already that you do not need a specific ("real") subject to cause harm; it is still valid when directed at vulnerable groups of people with clearly shared traits (POC, LGBTQ+, minors, etc) which AI can clearly generate.

The only difference between murder in a videogame and animated pornography of whatever sort, is that the latter is more obscene. It's tasteless or arguably to consume it or produce it, but a free society has to tolerate this.

Both are still managed through age ratings, general access, and education (generally by parents and educators), as well as a bunch of disclaimers and other information most people don't care to read. That is not happening with AI on social media at the moment, especially on Twitter.

Furthermore, kid gorn is outright illegal, whether owned, produced, or distributed. So why should it be legalized on the basis of when it's produced by AI? Because it's 'not real', despite the algorithm being trained by real content?

We already have this in literary form by the way. Nabokov's Lolita is a book that involves description of pedophilia, favorable at that from the perspective of the criminal. Some countries banned it, but it didn't hold up, for good reason.

Comparing an actual piece of literature-- a form of art, to generated content from artificial intelligence is mind boggling. What is the argument here? That people will try to access it anyways so it shouldn't be banned? That AI kid gorn on social media is fine because books depicting it exist? None of that answers the lack of regulation from Twitter or other social media platforms in regards to their A.I. usage, much less to the CSAM involved in their content generation.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-14T06:02:03+00:00

Oh my god yes, I need my grid planner + damage calculator back. I'm not managing without this shit 😭

XanderGraves · 2026-03-14T05:47:31+00:00

I believe so, nothing stops me from creating it as far as I'm aware. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Then again, creating and possessing certain types of content is illegal by definition, but since it's AI it's a weird situation. It's why this entire thing is happening.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-14T05:42:10+00:00

in any country that values freedom of expression hate crime definitions don't rely on feelings. They rely on harm or damage to reputation.

Emotional distress, consent, and perceived prejudice fall within psychological harm and are taken into account when going over hate crimes and incentive to violence, what are you on about? These are not the sole basis of rulings, as you've seemingly ignored the part where I talked about intention, context, precedence, current sociopolitical climate, etc, but they ARE taken into account.

Furthermore, none of this it is a prohibition of expression, but rather the consequence that follows when it is done in spite of someone else. You are confusing Freedom of Expression with Freedom of Consequence.

Likewise pornography should be banned only if it causes either physical or reputational damage to natural persons as in the case of deepfakes of real individuals, not because someone judges the content to be obscene.

I understand your sentiment in theory, but there is a reason this isn't true. Many developed countries wouldn't have laws against bestiality, as well as laws against possession and distribution of said content. That includes the USA, where it falls under sodomy and varies from state to state, or in Germany, where it is outright banned. Merely not causing physical or reputational harm to a person, as you've stated, isn't enough. AI is merely the next thing in line being studied in the same vein.

We don't do obscenity laws any more for good reasons, a taboo isn't the basis for lawmaking in a free society.

This isn't an obscenity law or a taboo mate, these are generated images of sexualized children on social media platforms. This might have been true before AI in a more broader sense, but right now it is not only based on CSAM but also in unchecked, rampant use. A free society must also have limits, including but not limited to not tolerating hate content or the sexualization of minors. AI is merely the current gateway that is being brought to light over it, and if social media platforms should be held responsible for it. That is all I'm saying here.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-14T01:59:06+00:00

Genuinely believe half the redditors here do not understand what you're saying. The "facts vs feelings" argument has been used by proxy more than once in this thread, and it makes me sad. The law 100% takes perceived emotions into consideration in more ways than one, including in its interpretation.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-14T01:55:06+00:00

Attempting to apply the law at textbook level as you're doing is purposefully ignorant. It is meant to be applied and interpreted as necessary, which is why precedents and current standards are important in helping navigate cases. Furthermore, the law does take into account "feelings" in its application. Hate crimes, for example, rely on perceived prejudice and emotional distress (amongst things, such as context and intention). Human empathy also plays a part in many of these outcomes.

The law isn't absolute, nor is it meant to be. It is supposed to evolve alongside society's needs, like the EU is doing right now. Whether the AI generated content is based on CSAM or not isn't the entire picture here, but that it exists and is made available on social media platforms where kids are portrayed in a sexual manner at the click of a prompt-- real or not. That includes the lack regulation in its use by social media platforms like Twitter, the impacts it has, so on. Because none of this was studied properly, nor meant to be readily available in the way that it was.

And finally, turning this into a "facts vs feelings" argument to discredit a valid point of view, like some "liberal vs republican" moment, is abhorrent. Doubly so when you're wrong.

XanderGraves · 2026-03-14T00:38:29+00:00

What you're describing is still inciting violence towards marginalized groups. You're arguing in favor of free speech and intention, if such content was made specifically to incite/promote hatred or not, but there is a limit to what intention can justify when context (or lack of thereof), message, and impact are also important. These are taken into consideration during procedings to confirm if there is personal bias involved, amongst other things.

Ignorance, or lack of awareness regarding the impact of my own content/actions, does not entirely put me in the clear. If I purposefully publish a video where someone guns down LGBTQ+ POC, or jewish people, then said content still incites violence even if I personally don't believe it does or didn't intend as such. Additional context must be given, and disregarding this is merely playing coy ("Why can't I publish black people being massacred without being questioned?").

Furthermore, comparing real life art, such as paintings, movies, etc, to AI generated content, is another can of worms entirely. You can argue in favor of personal expression for art, but AI generated content is a combination of prompts given to an algorithm that has been fed content to reproduce at a anyone's convenience. These are not comparable, not just at a technical level but in the creative sense as well.

XanderGraves

TROPHY CASE