NSFW Sigs and Avatars

[Tyche]

For a long time weve been against NSFW sigs and avatars, keeping people who browse from work safe from all the evil nudity.

However there has been a call to drop that net and allow NSFW sigs and avatars (nudity and naughty things, gross still applies).

What say you BG peoples, rock teh voet.

Dicks are gross. Even without syphilis.

[Yuri-G]

I never like to be a rebel but if this goes through I'm totally using hard up penises in my avatar in hopes I piss of some of the people that voted yes.

I'm with you on this. I don't agree that the rights of some people to post boobies in their avatars is greater than the rights of some people to browse BG at work, period. You can already post boobies in plenty of other threads or by using spoiler tags, why ruin the browsing privileges of a fair share of BGers who mostly come here at work? What's the point? People shouldn't have to turn off avatars and sigs to browse the forum.

So yeah, if this passes, I'm thinking gay bukkake animated .gif for my avatar

[Cleverness]

I would really rather not see Ariel Rebel's vagina all over the spam boards...er, more than I already have to.

Forgot about this, numbers CANNOT be allowed to take that shit out of spam. GTFO

[Eticket]

I don't agree that the rights of some people to post boobies in their avatars is greater than the rights of some people to browse BG at work, period. You can already post boobies in plenty of other threads or by using spoiler tags, why ruin the browsing privileges of a fair share of BGers who mostly come here at work? What's the point? People shouldn't have to turn off avatars and sigs to browse the forum.

That sums it up pretty well for me.

[Izzy]

This and SA are the only two things that keep me awake at work. You don't need to be looking at tits 24/7. If you REALLY have to look at some fucking titties, load up a porn site or some shit...or the fuck/duck thread.

GTFO!

Has anyone else noticed that 90% of the GTFO votes have come from people who have been browsing BG for years? I'm willing to be that almost half of the posts on the forum every day come from people at work.

[Alleya]

OK it's time to inject some fucking reality into this thread.

First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with adult content. All of this started because of sideboob in Gulk's shit and maybe some other people.

Second of all, the point of even asking a question like this is totally lost on me. As has been clearly demonstrated in this thread, people will always sue for a solution that involves no effort or thought on their part.

You would have us spend the time and/or money to have a feature custom made for this forum that sets up a supposedly self-policing system where people who want to have a NSFW avatar have to register it like a fucking convict just so that people slacking off at work don't have to be slightly inconvenienced by changing a board setting or JUST LOGGING OUT TO BROWSE.

No, instead we have to put the onus on the moderators of the board to go around policing avatars and sigs and we are right back to square 1-- because the first time someone gets an infraction for not having their shit filtered and decides that their civil rights have been violated by TEH BG GESTAPO, we have to have another shitstorm debate about what constitutes NSFW.

Allow me to offer a solution.

If you don't want to get fired, disable shit or log out. Or better yet, do your goddamn job and spend your lunch hour getting some real human interaction.
If you're considering a new avatar: Keep it PG-13. That means no nipples, privates, or excessive gore.
If you're offended by a PG-13 avatar, shut the fuck up.

[Tyche]

Sonomaa was the first to suggest to have a code made.

Reality injected.

[Charismatic]

If you don't want to get fired, disable shit or log out. Or better yet, do your goddamn job and spend your lunch hour getting some real human interaction.
If you're considering a new avatar: Keep it PG-13. That means no nipples, privates, or excessive gore.
If you're offended by a PG-13 avatar, shut the fuck up.

/thread

[Alleya]

Sonomaa was the first to suggest to have a code made.

Reality injected.

Yeah, the people who don't have to do any of the work are happy to foist it on others, exactly my point.

[Klutz]

I voted yes only because I believe there is an option to turn sigs and avatars off.

Inb4 someone might see it, it only takes two seconds.

So as long as people at work are smart enough to turn that shit on while at work or whatever, I don't see the problem with having NSFW sigs/avatars.

[Tempyst]

No, instead we have to put the onus on the moderators of the board to go around policing avatars and sigs and we are right back to square 1-- because the first time someone gets an infraction for not having their shit filtered and decides that their civil rights have been violated by TEH BG GESTAPO, we have to have another shitstorm debate about what constitutes NSFW.

So if this is your problem with it, when do we go full circle and back to square one because people start posting dicks in their avatar in response to this? You're back to policing avatars and sigs all over again if this is "only about side boob"

and trust me people are going to do this, I know the internet and the backlash from this seems like it's going to be worse than saying "stop posting smut"

[Alleya]

So if this is your problem with it, when do we go full circle and back to square one because people start posting dicks in their avatar in response to this? You're back to policing avatars and sigs all over again if this is "only about side boob"

The point was that there has never been a problem with NSFW avatars since the days of Splitdick Kuai, about 4 years ago.

[SephYuyX]

Tits.

Simple rule: If you dont want to see NSFW material, you shouldnt be browsing the forums.

[Cleverness]

So, the reason this is happening is cause someone had a sideboob in their sig, the worst thing in 4 years? I've seen the kind of pics that Gulk has, I'm sure he/she only put it there cause they thought it was fine.

[BerenTebogo]

Tits. I don't browse BG in public because nudity or not, how are you going to explain to another non-gaming adult why you're browsing a website where people have avatars or 5 year old anime girls in 2cm of cloth?

Awkward conversation is awkward. Bring forth the tits for when I'm at home.

[Ragns]

Sonomaa was the first to suggest to have a code made.

I wonder who will code it.

[Tempyst]

Tits. I don't browse BG in public because nudity or not, how are you going to explain to another non-gaming adult why you're browsing a website where people have avatars or 5 year old anime girls in 2cm of cloth?

Awkward conversation is awkward. Bring forth the tits for when I'm at home.

I'm willing to trade those fucking weird 5 year old anime girl avatars for tits, those are 1000% worse in making this place look like a dump

let the negotiations begin

[Shadowhusky]

I'm all for tits, ass, dick, whatever as much as the next person. But I don't come to BG to browse for porn. If you want that shit, google is a click away.

[Ksandra]

The point was that there has never been a problem with NSFW avatars since the days of Splitdick Kuai, about 4 years ago.

Which is pretty much why things shouldn't change.

And as others stated, allowing nsfw avatars is just going to cause traffic to the site lessen, when there's a fuck or duck thread over there ->


It really really isn't necessary to allow this.

[FailureMidgard]

For a long time weve been against NSFW sigs and avatars, keeping people who browse from work safe from all the evil nudity.

However there has been a call to drop that net and allow NSFW sigs and avatars (nudity and naughty things, gross still applies).

What say you BG peoples, rock teh voet.

OK it's time to inject some fucking reality into this thread.

First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with adult content. All of this started because of sideboob in Gulk's shit and maybe some other people.

How does this have nothing to do with adult content? Sonomaa's post flat out said it does.

Second of all, the point of even asking a question like this is totally lost on me. As has been clearly demonstrated in this thread, people will always sue for a solution that involves no effort or thought on their part.

You think people are upset about this because of effort? How about we want to allow signatures and don't want to have to worry about what the fuck will come up when we're at a location or with company that doesn't want to see this stuff? I'm sure almost everyone in the no camp is fine with somehow making a way to disable only NSFW signatures/avatars, and expect others to tag them as such, but that's a lot more work on your part, which is at least why I myself am not pushing for that option - to save YOU effort.

You would have us spend the time and/or money to have a feature custom made for this forum that sets up a supposedly self-policing system where people who want to have a NSFW avatar have to register it like a fucking convict just so that people slacking off at work don't have to be slightly inconvenienced by changing a board setting or JUST LOGGING OUT TO BROWSE.

A few people suggested it, as an option. The moderators/admins have every right to say that's too much effort and not worth it, and none of us will disagree at all. We're responding to a black and white question - and that is we would like to be able to see people's signatures and would like to not see NSFW content unless we click on it. Want to save the mods some work? There's all sorts of unnecessary (though perhaps nice) modding going on in certain threads. OMG Town Gear shot in Gimp thread, making sure every topic everywhere stays on topic 100% of the time, etc. Don't get me wrong, what makes a community/forum site good is the moderating being done, so I'd love to keep shit-storms out, but when it comes down to it, I'd rather all that mod-effort be redirected to this, if that keeps NSFW shit out of sigs/avatars.

No, instead we have to put the onus on the moderators of the board to go around policing avatars and sigs and we are right back to square 1-- because the first time someone gets an infraction for not having their shit filtered and decides that their civil rights have been violated by TEH BG GESTAPO, we have to have another shitstorm debate about what constitutes NSFW.

There's always the option to get more moderators, if it's needed. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me the number of active moderators has dropped in the past 1.5 years.

Allow me to offer a solution.

If you don't want to get fired, disable shit or log out. Or better yet, do your goddamn job and spend your lunch hour getting some real human interaction.

It isn't just about work. I'd rather not have to deal with my daughter or wife see that shit. I visit my parents, and like to browse BG there, would rather them not see it. I browse BG at other public locations at times, I'm sure people use laptops in libraries/etc. It isn't just a work thing. And why is your solution perfectly content with everyone that enjoys SFW avatars/signatures getting screwed?

If you're considering a new avatar: Keep it PG-13. That means no nipples, privates, or excessive gore.
If you're offended by a PG-13 avatar, shut the fuck up.

I completely agree with both of these statements.