NSFW Sigs and Avatars

[Ryko]

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.

^

I'll give up my secondary account to ban this retard (not domon) for a week, dead serious.

[Araelus]

Making responsible choices is one of the most important parts of being a contributing member of society.

[Mods should] actually define standards of sig/avatar regulation so the community can make an informed choice.

That's correct. The more information we have, the better this value pluralistic society can decide on what standards are appropriate for the environment.

Those standards can take one of at least two forms - make a long list of what is and is not acceptable, or ... have general guidelines that require common sense to adhere to - kind of the situation before this poll started.

Bottom line for me in this debate... if the boards go NSFW I'll just block out avatars as I already have for signatures. I made my vote () I takes my chances.

For those who want to test the limits right now, or are desperate to post NSFW content in automatically viewed space, I'm sure the folks in charge can talk to them about what is and is not appropriate for BG.

[Yugl]

Honest question:

What do you, as posters, lose by turning off sigs and avatars at work?

For some individuals, it's neither an "At home" nor "At school" issue. BG, as I understand it, is primarily a video game forum. While that intuitively does not place favoritism on one side or another, it does bring into the question the necessity of allowing NSFW images. There are inconveniences to be burdened with should we adopt a liberal stance regarding NSFW images. Turning off signatures, the loss of posters whom are somehow turned off by the resulting images (Either due to work or personal preference), and deterioration of standards (Slippery slope anyone?) are threats posed by allowing NSFW images. On the other hand, what are gains of allowing NSFW images?

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?

It's much easier to go through blocks of "Help me!" texts, identify posters, and once in a while, find humorous signatures when enabled. I personally will either be gone or blocking signatures should restrictions collapse. I cannot answer your question with a resounding "yes" because necessity is objective, and my criteria would not even mention signatures as a necessity.

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)

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. First, you don't know who is and who is not going to change their signature if restrictions are lifted. Moreover, some posters that are of help encode their vulgar in the form of chat rather than images. Given the opportunity to express themselves, it's entirely possible for them to be propping offensive images.

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?

Anyone who has made contributions from work because of the current restrictions may not be able to do so should these restrictions be lifted. Since I do not foresee us receiving an influx of posters should we remove the restriction, I'm highly inclined to suggest that what you're suggesting should be thrown in the reverse. Is it more important that intense, yet non-beneficial (i.e. unrelated to FFXI gameplay) images be posted than it is for people to be able to browse the forums from wherever they may be?

[#686578]

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.

Well that's just unfair, you'd be on the side of truth so you'd obviously win.

[Tyche]

As far as using snapshots to understand what's appropriate and what isn't, I'll provide an example...

appropriate (safe for work)

Spoiler: show

http://homepage.mac.com/djjord/iblog...DSC01196%2ejpg

Very NSFW

Spoiler: show

http://www.megawank.com/pics/paysite...use+-187-1.jpg

These images are visually identical.

[Tempyst]

That's correct. The more information we have, the better this value pluralistic society can decide on what standards are appropriate for the environment.

Those standards can take one of at least two forms - make a long list of what is an is not acceptable, or ... have general guidelines that require common sense to adhere to - kind of the situation before this poll started.

'course, we know common sense is meant to be broken on the internet. My guess will be a big long list of clearly defined dos and don'ts

[Ryko]

Second pic doesnt allow hotlinking.

[Antithesis]

As far as using snapshots to understand what's appropriate and what isn't, I'll provide an example...

appropriate (safe for work)

Spoiler: show

http://homepage.mac.com/djjord/iblog...DSC01196%2ejpg

Very NSFW

Spoiler: show

http://www.popularpages.net/pics/fac..._4_2849_si.jpg

These images are visually identical.

Now i'm convinced your trolling.

[Tyche]

No, I'm convinced that numbers understands context and he's trolling me.

[SephYuyX]

Numbers never trolls.

[#686578]

DOs:
-Use caution when contemplating if an avatar or signature is NSFW or otherwise offensive, if you have to think about it, chances are it is.

DONTs:
-Be Numbers

[Tyche]

I changed the link. I just pulled random images from google.

[Tempyst]

Second pic doesnt allow hotlinking.

It's a big text picture that says "For more pictures like this, visit PLANETCLIMAX.COM"

[Tempyst]

DONTs:
-Be Numbers

I live by this rule and I'm successful beyond your wildest dreams

[Tyche]

I thought numbers was gay. Not joking, am I out of the loop?

[Ryko]

I believe the dumbshit term he uses is pansexual.

[#686578]

NSFW?

Spoiler: show

http://stateoftheart.popphoto.com/bl...icture_1_2.png

Serious about this one, no nudity, she's fully wearing clothes, yet obviously sexual in nature.

[Tagus]

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.

Well, drawing the line is a lot harder when you move it from "No NSFW" to "Some NSFW". I guess I just don't see the point. If you want to see random NSFW images, there's a fucking million places to go for that. And they won't even criticize your math or grammar there.

[Ryko]

NUmbers get off it, you fully understand that his point isn't about one OR the other but rather both. Not necessarily simultaneously and one obviously being a bigger reason than the other but all the same.

[Tyche]

I think you'd have a point if it weren't a classic image that everyone is now numb to.