NSFW Sigs and Avatars

[SephYuyX]

Would you say that this is PG13? Would you be afraid of getting fired at work over this? No nipples etc etc

Spoiler: show

http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/x...lRebelSig5.jpg

Its PG.

There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

[Jeryhn]

More like R, but not NC-17.

The reason why is obvious.

[Gulkeeva]

Its PG.

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

I'd consider it PG-13 since its not showing anything but she is noticeably nude

[#686578]

The fact is that this whole thread is a discussion of a problem that has never existed. You'd think that there would be some kind of impetus for this thread, but there isn't. Gulk's been asked to change his shit once or twice in the past couple of months despite it being PG-13, that's about it. We don't even have official rules about sig/avatar content and we never have. What exactly is the endgame of this thread? If tits wins, we create an announcement saying "feel free to have frontal nudity in your sigs now, guys!" If there was even a desire to do that already, wouldn't there have been some incidents of it by now? This whole thread is completely pointless. It's like Obama calling a press conference to discuss using babies instead of chickens for KFC.

The official rule was that if you're unsure ask.

[SephYuyX]

Shes just itching her thigh. Jeez.

[#686578]

People act like numbers's rebel sense wouldn't go off within 2 seconds of an official ruling. Mother fucker probably has one of those maxx style image rotating sigs that swaps to another picture in his 5 gig collection every time you refresh. He's just waiting.

http://s758.photobucket.com/albums/x...nity/Sigatars/ just for this occasion

[Antithesis]

God, I wish Numbers could have used that Sig. Such glory.

[zagex]

If people have a problem with sigs and avatars, they can always set the forum settings so that it doesn't show either of them.

[Tyche]

Would you say that this is PG13? Would you be afraid of getting fired at work over this? No nipples etc etc

Spoiler: show

http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/x...lRebelSig5.jpg

You don't have a job do you? Or am I being wooshed?

[Yugl]

If people have a problem with sigs and avatars, they can always set the forum settings so that it doesn't show either of them.

Spoiler: show

It's that people have problems with certain types of signatures and avatars

If people have a problem with anti-NSFW being the standard, they can leave.

[Yugl]

Meant to Edit not post.

[#686578]

You don't have a job do you? Or am I being wooshed?

I actually work when I'm at work. I turn off sigs/avatars at school and use discretion with images.

[jimbobsonofgod]

I think if you truly cared about being paranoid about having NSFW shit up around "People"(people=coworkers/bosses/kids/wife/your dog) then you should already have viewing sigs/avatars off already, there are some avatar/sigs out there that really do push the boundaries.(swearing/racial slurs/anime/badphotoshops/anydeadpoolcomics/)

Personally I put tits cause well i decided if i don't want to look at shit, I can take matters into my own hands.

Case in point. currently on this page there is

"My penis will from here forth be known as Princess Babycakes"
"I enjoy tapping my sister's fine ass"
"Man whore"
"Ero-Sensei Sex Cat"

While I don't think its material to get fired over, I do think its not appropriate to be viewed at a respectable company during work hours"

[Tyche]

That's irrelevant, if you didn't turn off sigs and avatars, do you think that image is appropriate? Seriously?

[SephYuyX]

I think if you truly cared about being paranoid about having NSFW shit up around "People"(people=coworkers/bosses/kids/wife/you dog) then you should already have viewing sigs/avatars off already, there are some avatar/sigs out there that really do push the boundaries.(swearing/racial slurs/anime/badphotoshops/anydeadpoolcomics/)

Personally I put tits cause well i decided if i don't want to look at shit, I can take matters into my own hands.

I dont like your avatar, it pictures suicide, thats against my religion, it's offensive to me, and should be banned.

[#686578]

That's irrelevant, if you didn't turn off sigs and avatars, do you think that image is appropriate? Seriously?

Durr

[#686578]

That's irrelevant, if you didn't turn off sigs and avatars, do you think that image is appropriate? Seriously?

Hurr durr

You don't have a job do you? Or am I being wooshed?

I actually work when I'm at work. I turn off sigs/avatars at school and use discretion with images.

[FailureMidgard]

Would you say that this is PG13? Would you be afraid of getting fired at work over this? No nipples etc etc

Spoiler: show

http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/x...lRebelSig5.jpg

Its PG.

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

I'd consider it PG-13 since its not showing anything but she is noticeably nude

Linking film ratings for a stand-still image is flat out stupid. Those ratings were developed from motion pictures, and as such, do not apply to a single stand-still image.

PG : There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity.
PG13 : More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.
R : An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity
NC17 : An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

Alright so lets see. The standstill is brief nudity. It must be PG. It's OBVIOUSLY not PG13, because it's sexual in nature (going by the exact wording here, and not inheriting PG13 wording into PG). It could be R, because its sexually-oriented nudity. Hmm, and it could be NC-17. I guess we can all be sure it's not PG13.
That was sarcasm, for the record. If you really want to use the exact terminology being used in movies, then place that image into a scene, and see where you get. I'm going to go with it would be R rated. Put the back of a naked chick in a shower, where you see nothing at all, and it's just briefly, and you have PG maybe.

Before you try to call my hypocritical, yes, I said I'm fine with general PG13 stuff not needing a tag, but as I already said, in the end it's going to be a biased opinion of a moderator. You can't try to apply a specific motion picture based guideline to a single picture. Though if you get technical, since the picture just sits there, the exposure is never "brief".

If people have a problem with sigs and avatars, they can always set the forum settings so that it doesn't show either of them.

Read the thread. If you have a problem with not having NSFW shit everywhere...go find some porn forums? I don't mind NSFW stuff being on these forums, but I don't see why anyone has a problem with how it is currently. Anyway, we want to see sigs and avatars still, thanks. If people need NSFW stuff, they can always tag it, put it in their sig, or tag it and put it in the text of every post they make...why not just tag it?

[Tyche]

Your post I was quoting asked "Would you be afraid of getting fired for this at work"

If you have to ask that question, then I wonder if you actually have a job.

[jimbobsonofgod]

I dont like your avatar, it pictures suicide, thats against my religion, it's offensive to me, and should be banned.

that's okay I don't like your sig because I Find dead guys trying to fuck my little pony's offensive.