Christmas avatar

[makare]

Ok I was pretty sure this wasn't right. the rule does not state that in order for something to be NSFW it has to contain nudity the rule merely lists things that would be seen as NSFW. Anything that the average person (not a religious prude as someone said) but an average person would consider to be inappropriate in a work setting would be considered NSFW as the rule is worded.

Dave fails at interpreting his own rules.

 

[Gusto]

Man that is some classic <username>.

 

[Bubble181]

I'm a regular person, and I don't see any of the three avatars as being NSFW. Heck, Ame's is censored, Shannow's is covered, and mine's merely implication. I'd look at all three without a second thought at my work, and besides the fact that i'd get in serious trouble at work for doing non-work-related stuff, no boss or colleague would even blink seeing those avatars. At most they'd laugh at them.

To be perfectly clear, I *can* understand someone saying these pictures cross a line...But on the other hand, anyone who says so, is either working for, or is themselves, in my opinion, a prude. That might be my europeanness shoiwing through, of course.

 

[bhamv3]

Tinypic broken picture placeholder

*shakes fist* VYXEN!!!!!

 

[Bubble181]

Tinypic broken picture placeholder

*shakes fist* VYXEN!!!!!

What the guy with the clearly NSFC avatar said.

 

[bhamv3]

NSFC? Not safe for Christmas? Not safe for Chaz? New shots from Chamberlain? Nude sexy female coeds?

 

[Bubble181]

No Simple Fucking Chinese. ;-)

 

[Bubble181]

It's just a picture of him with a santa hat :-P

 

[bhamv3]

No Simple Fucking Chinese. ;-)

Aww, that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me. I love the holiday season. :hug:

(Although I'll admit I was hoping for nude sexy female coeds)

 

[Bubble181]

(Although I'll admit I was hoping for nude sexy female coeds)

Me too. Alas, you decided to go with the second-best thing, yourself ;-) Probably better for Mav's job, though.

 

[Qonas]

But on the other hand, anyone who says so, is either working for, or is themselves, in my opinion, a prude. That might be my europeanness shoiwing through, of course.

And what exactly is wrong with being a prude? One might say that to be one, is to be prudent.

Quonas, if you're not going to report, and just tut-tut for people to "self-censor" your problem lies in the people here, not the forum. Which makes it of a "why do you still go to this forum, if you don't like the population?" sort of thing.

Because I've got nowhere else to go!

 

[Bubble181]

But on the other hand, anyone who says so, is either working for, or is themselves, in my opinion, a prude. That might be my europeanness shoiwing through, of course.

And what exactly is wrong with being a prude? One might say that to be one, is to be prudent.
[/QUOTE]

Where did I say there was anything wrong with being a prude? :-P

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Well, there was that one time where we went to that anti-prude rally. Then you drank a lot and I had to go somewhere else for a bit.

 

[Bubble181]

Right, right. That one time....But, look, we agreed we wouldn't talk about that! You don't mention *that * rally, and I con't mention the...*incident* with the tricycle, the dog, and the rabbi, remember? Remember?

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Oh right. Sorry. I do appreciate it that you didn't also bring up the thonged cops on segways in that one incident.

 

[Bubble181]

Obviously. I mean, you didn't bring up the blind nuns and the chesterfield sofa in mine, either, did you?

 

[SeraRelm]

"Aw hell naw!"

 

[bhamv3]

But are they thonged?

 

[SeraRelm]

Why don't you go check?

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Obviously. I mean, you didn't bring up the blind nuns and the chesterfield sofa in mine, either, did you?

Or the pickle spears.

 

[Shannow]

I still see nothing wrong with them, and as Juski and others stated, if it is too much, block them, and still too much, this might not be the right place for you.

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------

Ok I was pretty sure this wasn't right. the rule does not state that in order for something to be NSFW it has to contain nudity the rule merely lists things that would be seen as NSFW. Anything that the average person (not a religious prude as someone said) but an average person would consider to be inappropriate in a work setting would be considered NSFW as the rule is worded.

Dave fails at interpreting his own rules.

So, Dave considers himself an average person, and they do not offend him. I, too, consider myself average, and do not find them offensive. So do others. Where does that leave us?

 

[makare]

an average person is a purely hypothetical person so saying that you or I or Dave think of ourselves as average people doesn't work. It would be better to think if you went into an office like business down town and picked the first employee you meet would that person think that was the kind of image to show at work.

And it has nothing to do with offense it has to do with professionalism. There are many things that do not offend me that I would still not look at or have around me in school or at work because it would be inappropriate and unprofessional.

 

[Shannow]

And it has nothing to do with offense it has to do with professionalism. There are many things that do not offend me that I would still not look at or have around me in school or at work because it would be inappropriate and unprofessional.

Exactly. And in such locations, where one is working, perhaps a public internet forum is not where one should be spending thier time, especially if they might get in trouble to do so. To do so implys going in at your own risk.

as juski said, and I agree with, especially about those saying they are posing from work:

And one more time, kids, I don't give a fuck that you're at work. That sounds like YOUR problem to adjust YOUR browsers according to YOU potentially getting in trouble by wanking off and not doing YOUR job.

That.

Yes, you are right in that going too far is too much. But these avatars here in question? They are no where near that too far line.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

I really cannot believe I have to stand up for an issue here on these boards. I DO NOT DO THIS!!!

 

[Philosopher B.]

eh.. Some people (reportedly) block my avatars regardless of content.. Re: older avatar:

i adblocked the shit outta that

I could be fully clothed in a turtleneck and there'd still be people blocking them.

Oddly enough, when I have avatars of other people / celebs with (semi) nudity I rarely hear complaints at all.

Wow. Some people are pretty rude.

There are some children who read the forums. Teenagers maybe but still, this was supposed to be a fairly PG forum with R rated material being in the NSFW subforum.

If I had children, I wouldn't let them read this board. One of the reasons I've always liked this community is because we can say and do a lot of shit. Yeah, major fucked-up shit like furry porn is going to go into the NSFW section, but even so I don't think this is (or should be) a board children should access. Also, youngest age I've ever seen quoted up in this mug is 17, which is the age at which you can watch R-rated movies.

Which is where my issue with this all lies. Shouldn't we have just a little bit more taste and class?

Class? On the Internets? Get outta here.

Someone asked Ame to change that sig. Remember what happened? It changed.

Huh. I wondered what happened to that. Just as well; those asses were hypnotic. Like, goddamn.

 

[Espy]

If something is bothering you, either report it or block it.

That's how it works. Repeatedly telling us how you are at work or school or synagogue isn't our problem. I have reported (before I got my Ban Hammer that is) avatars that went above and beyond. Guess what, they got changed.
Also: Even without these two shockingly offensive (that's sarcasm mind you) avatars I STILL turn off sigs and avatars and pictures, etc when I am at school and work.
Why?
I'm not stupid, people post stuff and I don't even want my classmates seeing a dumb lolcat if I don't want them to.
It's just common sense.
So again, this time in bright green MODBANNHAMMERCRUSHYOUPUNYHUMANS green: If you think something is offensive or violates the rules REPORT IT or BLOCK IT or TURN IT OFF.
It's really that easy.

 

[makare]

And it has nothing to do with offense it has to do with professionalism. There are many things that do not offend me that I would still not look at or have around me in school or at work because it would be inappropriate and unprofessional.

Exactly. And in such locations, where one is working, perhaps a public internet forum is not where one should be spending thier time, especially if they might get in trouble to do so. To do so implys going in at your own risk.

as juski said, and I agree with, especially about those saying they are posing from work:

And one more time, kids, I don't give a fuck that you're at work. That sounds like YOUR problem to adjust YOUR browsers according to YOU potentially getting in trouble by wanking off and not doing YOUR job.

That.

Yes, you are right in that going too far is too much. But these avatars here in question? They are no where near that too far line.
[/QUOTE]

People should be able to get on here at work the forum is supposed to be family friendly. I do not agree with Juski because he is missing the point. The point is the forum is supposed to be work safe it doesn't matter if someone should really be on the forum at work or not. The rules clearly state nsfw material is supposed to be under spoilers and since the rules state that it would mean that the forum is supposed to be sfw.

 

[Troll]

This thread went from being arty: to amazingly fast.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

We're family friendly? What the fuck?

 

[Shannow]

And it has nothing to do with offense it has to do with professionalism. There are many things that do not offend me that I would still not look at or have around me in school or at work because it would be inappropriate and unprofessional.

Exactly. And in such locations, where one is working, perhaps a public internet forum is not where one should be spending thier time, especially if they might get in trouble to do so. To do so implys going in at your own risk.

as juski said, and I agree with, especially about those saying they are posing from work:

And one more time, kids, I don't give a fuck that you're at work. That sounds like YOUR problem to adjust YOUR browsers according to YOU potentially getting in trouble by wanking off and not doing YOUR job.

That.

Yes, you are right in that going too far is too much. But these avatars here in question? They are no where near that too far line.
[/quote]

People should be able to get on here at work the forum is supposed to be family friendly. I do not agree with Juski because he is missing the point. The point is the forum is supposed to be work safe it doesn't matter if someone should really be on the forum at work or not. The rules clearly state nsfw material is supposed to be under spoilers and since the rules state that it would mean that the forum is supposed to be sfw.[/quote]

And I disagree with you that these are completely nsfw. Turn off images and sigs as a mod just pointed out, and BAM, your forum is squeaky clean. or go find some hello kitty forums or something, if you want something perfectly nice nice. (that is just an extreme example/statement)

 

[Adam]

This thread went from being arty: to amazingly fast.

Halforums' Law - However a thread can go wrong, it will go wrong.

 

[Shannow]

This thread went from being arty: to amazingly fast.

Halforums' Law - However a thread can go wrong, it will go wrong.[/QUOTE]


it is how we roll. Perhaps a llama furry picture would be an accurate logo.

 

[makare]

And I disagree with you that these are completely nsfw. Turn off images and sigs as a mod just pointed out, and BAM, your forum is squeaky clean. or go find some hello kitty forums or something, if you want something perfectly nice nice. (that is just an extreme example/statement)

That's fine but that is not what the rules say. So the people who are think they are nsfw have more of a ground to stand on than those that are disagreeing.

 

[Adam]

This thread went from being arty: to amazingly fast.

Halforums' Law - However a thread can go wrong, it will go wrong.[/QUOTE]


it is how we roll. Perhaps a llama furry picture would be an accurate logo.[/QUOTE]

?

 

[Shannow]

And I disagree with you that these are completely nsfw. Turn off images and sigs as a mod just pointed out, and BAM, your forum is squeaky clean. or go find some hello kitty forums or something, if you want something perfectly nice nice. (that is just an extreme example/statement)

That's fine but that is not what the rules say. So the people who are think they are nsfw have more of a ground to stand on than those that are disagreeing.[/QUOTE]

The rules say average person (which that interpretation can be open to debate, and what we are debating here), and both admins and a mod, have sided with the idea that these are fine. Seems pretty much cut and dry, to me, since once the admins say it, and it is their board, that sums it up.

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

This thread went from being arty: to amazingly fast.

Halforums' Law - However a thread can go wrong, it will go wrong.[/quote]


it is how we roll. Perhaps a llama furry picture would be an accurate logo.[/quote]

?[/QUOTE]


Not enough yiffing.

 

[makare]

And I disagree with you that these are completely nsfw. Turn off images and sigs as a mod just pointed out, and BAM, your forum is squeaky clean. or go find some hello kitty forums or something, if you want something perfectly nice nice. (that is just an extreme example/statement)

That's fine but that is not what the rules say. So the people who are think they are nsfw have more of a ground to stand on than those that are disagreeing.[/QUOTE]

The rules say average person (which that interpretation can be open to debate, and what we are debating here), and both admins and a mod, have sided with the idea that these are fine. Seems pretty much cut and dry, to me, since once the admins say it, and it is their board, that sums it up.

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

This thread went from being arty: to amazingly fast.

Halforums' Law - However a thread can go wrong, it will go wrong.[/quote]


it is how we roll. Perhaps a llama furry picture would be an accurate logo.[/quote]

?[/QUOTE]


Not enough yiffing.[/QUOTE]

Well imagine for a minute that the issue goes beyond those few avs.... then the argument takes on a whole new meaning.

And as I said Dave misinterpreted the rules. Which isn't surprising at all.