NSFW Sigs and Avatars

[Woozie]

Gotta love the high and mighty saying that they do work while at work. Newsflash, so do the rest of us, just sometimes there is this thing called down time. You might have heard of it.

I can't remember a single day at my current job where I've worked continuously from the time I showed up until the time I went home (not counting lunch and official breaks, since they're required to give me those), even on a really busy day. Sorry if that means I have time to browse BG for a few minutes. There are worse things I could do on company time.

At one of my jobs, there's literally nothing to do the vast majority of the time. I have one assignment every few weeks, and the other days is just 5 hour shifts at the computer that I get paid for lol. At this particular job we're pretty much expected to browse the internet or do homework all day. There was only a few rules we were given (one of which involving NSFW websites).

Of course, this job is an exception.

At the jobs I've had in the past, the rule was that we were allowed to browse the internet during downtime. At each of these jobs, viewing nudity or stuff like that was actually against the sexual harassment policy for some reason (even if no women were around @_@ ) and was grounds for immediate termination.

[Tempyst]

against the sexual harassment policy for some reason (even if no women were around @_@ ) and was grounds for immediate termination.

Even if it's just dudes around someone's bound to be uncomfortable, and barring that you've got tits and ass on company property that's just begging to resurface somewhere unfortunate by accident

[Tagus]

I'm a big fan of the spam crew, tbh... but I don't trust them. Last thing I need is an avatar of a "nigger stealin my bike" to pop up as I go to post and have a co-worker see that shit. How funny I think it would be wouldn't help me much when I got called in to talk to HR.

[FailureMidgard]

lololol i can do this too. Look, im taking arguments and reversing them saying theyre illogical. You can reverse anything, my posts are as illogical as yours.
Stop visiting this forum
???
profit

lolullu

Now try doing that with one of my actual points, instead of my example pointing out the idiocy behind half the posts. Yes, It's blatantly obvious me taking the format the other poster used, and reversing it was just to point out how illogical it was. I'm glad you've grasped this, and realize that my response was no more logical than his initial statement. Now, moving on, please, reply to an actual point I've made. Here, I'll help you out:

Your stupid comment:

Its PG.

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

My reply:

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".

Please, explain how that picture could legitimately be PG. Alternatively, stop trolling this thread, because it's pretty blatant that's all you're doing.

[BerenTebogo]

Honest question:

What do you, as posters, lose by turning off sigs and avatars at work? Are there SFW sigs that you absolutely need to see? Are there some that please you greatly? Is there something that you cannot do with avatars and sigs turned off?

Before you make huge illogical leaps, please remember I will call you out for every fucking stupid rebuttal you make to that question.

Censorship takes something away from those wanting to express themselves under the current rules, and allows us even more ways to discern who is worth listening to and who isn't (the people who post 3 guys 696ing themselves as sig for lolz are going to be a good indication)

Censorship is not a choice you, as a person, as a poster, as a contributor can take on and make for yourself. It is a choice you are being deprived of. Making responsible choices is one of the most important parts of being a contributing member of society. What is more important to you? Depriving others of the ability to contribute, however frivolous or idiotic, to the BG community or saving yourself from having to make the decision whether or not to check two boxes under settings while you're at work, school, or family?

Again, remember, if you do not have a VERY good fucking point and respond with something like 'well I shouldn't have to make a choice!' I will fuck you in the eyes with my words.

[Tyche]

You're on a videogame site, completely offended that they want to censor nudity in certain places? Wat?

Why is this mindset completely illogical to me? Help me understand where I'm missing something. I know, it's the internet, don't censor, blah blah blah. BG should have higher standards. They have 14 year old kids who visit the site. The have corporation heads visit the site. This isn't backyard dave's general discussion site. It's legit, act like it.

[SephYuyX]

Now try doing that with one of my actual points, instead of my example pointing out the idiocy behind half the posts. Yes, It's blatantly obvious me taking the format the other poster used, and reversing it was just to point out how illogical it was. I'm glad you've grasped this, and realize that my response was no more logical than his initial statement. Now, moving on, please, reply to an actual point I've made. Here, I'll help you out:

Your stupid comment:


My reply:


Please, explain how that picture could legitimately be PG. Alternatively, stop trolling this thread, because it's pretty blatant that's all you're doing.

Simple it's brief nudity.
Your turn.

[BerenTebogo]

Again: South park put it very succinctly I believe, either everything is ok or nothing is. Make the rules to either cover all possible aspects of nsfw content or allow it.

Again, it falls on the admins and the mods, this whole argument on both sides is full of holes, I'm just taking the easiest one because you fags are making it SUPER easy.

[fredjanx]

Now try doing that with one of my actual points, instead of my example pointing out the idiocy behind half the posts. Yes, It's blatantly obvious me taking the format the other poster used, and reversing it was just to point out how illogical it was. I'm glad you've grasped this, and realize that my response was no more logical than his initial statement.

I guess i didn't make much sense at all
but i still don't see why people (not you, the other d00d) are making a big deal about it

Edit:

What do you, as posters, lose by turning off sigs and avatars at work? Are there SFW sigs that you absolutely need to see? Are there some that please you greatly? Is there something that you cannot do with avatars and sigs turned off?

this, pretty much

[Khajit]

We lose out on Morgan freeman and deadpool. THat is too much of a sacrifice to ask of us.

[SephYuyX]

You're on a videogame site, completely offended that they want to censor nudity in certain places? Wat?

Why is this mindset completely illogical to me? Help me understand where I'm missing something. I know, it's the internet, don't censor, blah blah blah. BG should have higher standards. They have 14 year old kids who visit the site. The have corporation heads visit the site. This isn't backyard dave's general discussion site. It's legit, act like it.

Whats the difference btwn a nsfw picture, and the word nigger and other distasteful stuff being in almost every other thread on the board? Do we go as far as banning curse words? Where are the lines drawn?

[Tempyst]

Again: South park put it very succinctly I believe, either everything is ok or nothing is. Make the rules to either cover all possible aspects of nsfw content or allow it.

Sorry dude I've been kind of with you along the way but if you're going to cite south park as a source I'm out

[#686578]

Is my new signature PG?

[#686578]

It's not even sexual.

[Tyche]

There's people in society that just "don't get it". You're starting to look like one of those people.

[stewie]

Is my new signature PG?

yes

[BerenTebogo]

Sorry dude I've been kind of with you along the way but if you're going to cite south park as a source I'm out

Hey, I just like the quote. Ignore it being from South Park and it still holds true.

[Tempyst]

Hey, I just like the quote. Ignore it being from South Park and it still holds true.

nope

argument completely ruined

south park: ruining internet arguments since 1997

[BerenTebogo]

[#686578]

Honest question:

What do you, as posters, lose by turning off sigs and avatars at work? Are there SFW sigs that you absolutely need to see? Are there some that please you greatly? Is there something that you cannot do with avatars and sigs turned off?

Before you make huge illogical leaps, please remember I will call you out for every fucking stupid rebuttal you make to that question.

Censorship takes something away from those wanting to express themselves under the current rules, and allows us even more ways to discern who is worth listening to and who isn't (the people who post 3 guys 696ing themselves as sig for lolz are going to be a good indication)

Censorship is not a choice you, as a person, as a poster, as a contributor can take on and make for yourself. It is a choice you are being deprived of. Making responsible choices is one of the most important parts of being a contributing member of society. What is more important to you? Depriving others of the ability to contribute, however frivolous or idiotic, to the BG community or saving yourself from having to make the decision whether or not to check two boxes under settings while you're at work, school, or family?

Again, remember, if you do not have a VERY good fucking point and respond with something like 'well I shouldn't have to make a choice!' I will fuck you in the eyes with my words.

Sath, you're missing the bigger issue. Signatures and avatars are the only reason I even read BG. Hilarious SFW signatures and avatars are just a big a part of the cultural phenomena that is BG as is any AV thread.

Opening this kind of leeway would have a big impact on the way users act on this board. Threads would be completely different, people's tones would change, and the entire board would be lesser as a whole for it.

I dont think it would be at all presumptuous to say that this would be akin to having a house without any furniture. Sure, you could live there, but why would you want to?