NSFW Sigs and Avatars

[Tempyst]

Blame the hundreds of thousands of internet libertarians who have pointed to south park and said "NO GUYS, THE TRUTH IS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, THIS CARTOON WITH A SATELLITE COMING OUT OF A FAT KIDS ASS IS THE MESSIAH"

[FailureMidgard]

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?

To start with, I wish people would stop saying work. NSFW is a term that was coined however long ago, because that was probably the primary time it mattered, but there are still times at home that people don't wish to have that shown.

But really, do you -really- need to see nudity without having to click that one extra button to remove a spoiler? Is that really such an awful form of censorship? Does it displease you that much to have to make that click?

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 does take something away, but so does forcing other people not to censor - but to block ALL signatures based on the fact that we refuse to have any censorship at all. Also, the issue here is pretty clearly (to me) not about the evilness of censorship. It seems to me we are still censoring "Gross" things, by what Sonomaa said, and even people arguing for allowing this in sigs/images seem to agree there is a point that would take it too far. So we're talking about slightly more lenient censorship? It's still censorship, and what real gain is there? The fact that you can use some pornographic signature image to judge someone? Should the people that don't want to see said image to begin with not be allowed to judge people based on their SFW signatures?

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?

What is the overall goal here? Does it even matter how illogical someone may be? If allowing this WILL drive people away from BG, that will detract from BG being the prominent FFXI (and perhaps FFIV) "elitist" endgame community. Are you so anti-censorship, that you would rather see the lack of censorship potentially kill the community?

And actually, this brings up another point, based on what you said earlier - that it's hard to clearly define rules. If NSFW stuff is allowed in signature/avatars without spoiler tags, is there still going to be moderation on what is allowed without spoiler tags in normal posts? If the answer is yes, this new proposed method would in fact not clarify the gray line at all, it will just move it. If the answer is no, well, at that point we've moved past blocking avatars and signatures as a viable way to keep it out even.

Making people spoiler their nudity is not depriving people of the ability to contribute to the BG community. Furthermore, nudity in someone's avatar is -not- a contribution to the BG community. And it isn't about saving anyone from making a decision - the decision is being made for us.

[FailureMidgard]

Simple it's brief nudity.
Your turn.

Ok, so you truly believe that "sexual based nudity" is allowed in PG, not in PG-13, and ok again in R?

Please tell me how you aren't a troll. More likely, you didn't even read my entire post.

[Araelus]

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?

I leave sigs off and use avatars to ID common posters at a glance, although that can backfire - avatars change on occasion.

Would I lose a lot from turning off avatars as well? No. Not in the greater scheme of things. But what's the point of avatars except to ID posters at a glance?

I voted for because avatar/sig-space doesn't seem like the place for NSFW content on BG, given the majority tone of board content. The people interested in NSFW have dedicated threads, and thus it can be avoided entirely without blocking out safe-for-work data at the same time.

More generally, people who don't want to see NSFW content don't want to go out of their way to avoid it or view it unexpectedly. The current system sides with them. Why would we change that...? It errs on the side of caution in the public sphere.

(Too long typing this; expect knife eye attack.)

[BerenTebogo]

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?

You have a good point, and I agree with it, but it's also subjective.

One of the biggest points being levied against NSFW sigs and avatars is that the people who aren't big, recognized, key posters are going to shy away from the site.

And as much as I do agree with you, there are concessions that have to be made. Deciding where and what they are is the central issue. On one hand you lose the ability to post anything nsfw as defined by vague, broad, and incredibly ambiguous standards (that you are doing a good job of exploiting, might I add) and on the other you have access to everything with the ability to selectively filter out when you see what you see.

There are 3 choices, yet the poll only has 2. So let me clear this up a bit.
Tits
Gtfo
Actually define standards of sig/avatar regulation so the community can make an informed choice and not do their best impression of the conservative presidential campaign.

[#686578]

Rant

What's the point of having a signature if people have to click on your spoiler to see it? No one's going to click on it, or their going to click on it once and never care again. Why do you care if you have a signature now? Why not just spoiler it. I already have to scroll through your six paragraph long diatribe that I'm sure if I took the time to read would just be as inane and tiring as any other post in this thread, why make me scroll through your 300 pixel signature too?

[Tagus]

Knowing the way you sickos operate, uncensored avatars on BG would just turn into a constant reminder of what Cartman sees when he closes his eyes.

Just sayin'.

[#686578]

Might I remind everyone that I used this NSFW avatar for approximately three months or longer without a word
http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/x...ielRebelAv.png

Spoiler: show

There's a nipple

[SephYuyX]

Ok, so you truly believe that "sexual based nudity" is allowed in PG, not in PG-13, and ok again in R?

Please tell me how you aren't a troll. More likely, you didn't even read my entire post.

Please tell me how you aren't a troll.

[#686578]

PG

Spoiler: show

http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/x...s/SillySig.png

Nothing sexual about lounging in your favorite chair

[Charismatic]

Notice how it's mostly the spam crew that's all in favor of allowing NSFW stuff where ever the hell they want. That speaks volumes...

You don't notice that because it's not true you dumbfuck.

[Not Kuno]

You are a fucking idiot.


ps thats directed at numbers

[Tyche]

PG

Spoiler: show

http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/x...s/SillySig.png

Nothing sexual about lounging in your favorite chair

You have to be trolling, you're not completely oblivious to subject -> object interaction.

[BerenTebogo]

To start with, I wish people would stop saying work. NSFW is a term that was coined however long ago, because that was probably the primary time it mattered, but there are still times at home that people don't wish to have that shown.

But really, do you -really- need to see nudity without having to click that one extra button to remove a spoiler? Is that really such an awful form of censorship? Does it displease you that much to have to make that click?



Censorship does take something away, but so does forcing other people not to censor - but to block ALL signatures based on the fact that we refuse to have any censorship at all. Also, the issue here is pretty clearly (to me) not about the evilness of censorship. It seems to me we are still censoring "Gross" things, by what Sonomaa said, and even people arguing for allowing this in sigs/images seem to agree there is a point that would take it too far. So we're talking about slightly more lenient censorship? It's still censorship, and what real gain is there? The fact that you can use some pornographic signature image to judge someone? Should the people that don't want to see said image to begin with not be allowed to judge people based on their SFW signatures?



What is the overall goal here? Does it even matter how illogical someone may be? If allowing this WILL drive people away from BG, that will detract from BG being the prominent FFXI (and perhaps FFIV) "elitist" endgame community. Are you so anti-censorship, that you would rather see the lack of censorship potentially kill the community?

And actually, this brings up another point, based on what you said earlier - that it's hard to clearly define rules. If NSFW stuff is allowed in signature/avatars without spoiler tags, is there still going to be moderation on what is allowed without spoiler tags in normal posts? If the answer is yes, this new proposed method would in fact not clarify the gray line at all, it will just move it. If the answer is no, well, at that point we've moved past blocking avatars and signatures as a viable way to keep it out even.

Making people spoiler their nudity is not depriving people of the ability to contribute to the BG community. Furthermore, nudity in someone's avatar is -not- a contribution to the BG community. And it isn't about saving anyone from making a decision - the decision is being made for us.

I have to respond quick since I just got first EXP party in two days, but yes. If people aren't willing to choose for themselves when and where is appropriate to view certain things then I don't really want them on BG, just as much as I don't want people on BG who are going to abuse the hell out of any NSFW-allowed rule.

Extremes are a terrible position to take. Reasonable people can disagree on reasonable issues and as long as there exists a middle ground for both sides (both spoilers and the ability to filter avatars and signatures) then the middle ground is usually right. Irrational people can disagree on reasonable topics and shout that, "no, I'm right because xyz and that is that!"

You have said yourself that you don't visit general much, which is why you're so gung-ho about spoilers. If you, like many other posters on BG, ventured off of advanced a bit you would know that what is contained in spoilers is usually far worse than would ever be allowed in sig/avatar even with less strict rules. If you're unsure about a spoiler then you don't click it.

It falls to the point that a decision cannot be reached without more defined standards for either side. The only argument here is semantic and that is what is primarily pissing me, and others, off.

This is one of those 'if you don't support the war you're unamerican!' 'well if you want war in Iraq YOU'RE unamerican!' arguments. Neither side has any clear view of what the details of their argument entail and ultimately they have no fucking clue what they're saying and are lending themselves to make snap, idiotic, uninformed judgments.

Disclosure of standards or shut the poll down.

I can make better points and a better topic which more convincingly describes why new posters should not be able to register and anyone with under 200 posts should be immediately banned, as long as you don't make me use any real facts or statistics.

[Omnipotent]

Let me see if I can shop some boobs on to my boy on the left here.

[miokomioko]

ITT: People who are annoyed by unsolicited gratuitous nudity/suggestive images on a very popular MMORPG forum and the trolls who troll them.

Also, I can't believe someone is comparing some text that might say "nigger" if someone were to read it and a photograph of some chick's ass in a thong or strategically concealed nipples.

http://people.mozilla.com/~schrep/ApplesAndOranges.jpg

[Charismatic]

#686578 does not speak for spam.
I disagree very strongly with him on this one, also... Ariel Rebel is terrible.

I don't want to see anymore of her than I already do... also, stop changing your avatar asshole.
nvm that, Kiarax hooked me up

[Ryko]

Look, im taking arguments and reversing them saying theyre illogical.

No one has to reverse your points to try to make them look illogical, your points are just fucking bad in their own right.

[Gustaf the Voidbringer]

Voting GTFO on account of half of you guys having shitty taste in women/men and/or humor.

me included etc.

[#686578]

ITT: People who are annoyed by unsolicited gratuitous nudity/suggestive images on a very popular MMORPG forum and the trolls who troll them.

What are you trying to say?