NSFW Sigs and Avatars

[BerenTebogo]

1. mod sass was limited to a few and those mods aren't even here anymore, nor does the rule exist anymore.

2. that is an admin issue. Mods don't make the rules, we have to enforce what we are given.

Fair enough then, let me rephrase what I just posted. "Because banning nsfw sigs and avatars wont make useless admins useful?"

[Cleverness]

I got something you can enforce that I want to give you

[Aksannyi]

That's hot.

And while Cleverness's sig was brought up, that type is fairly small, unless you're browsing at 800x600 for some reason, so while it'd probably get you in trouble, your boss would have to be pretty damn close to read it, in which case you'd deserve it for being retarded enough not to minimize before they got that close.

[BerenTebogo]

In before Sonomaa comes up here raging that being an admin isn't a fulltime job and he does this for us, blah blah. Delegate powers down the line.

Concentration of power among those who aren't willing to exercise that power is useless. There are a few dedicated mods here (a few) who, in the case of "blah blah I have a real life" argument, should be turned to for assistance.

[Ksandra]

Concentration of power among those who aren't willing to exercise that power is useless. There are a few dedicated mods here (a few) who, in the case of "blah blah I have a real life" argument, should be turned to for assistance.

That is somewhat subjective too. There is the extreme of "not modding enough" vs" modding too much" and many will argue which is the case in certain situations. Equally, I can safely say most if not all mods have their "posters" who go to them whenever there is an issue.

Usually I get a lot of PMs from the same people, who I guess to some degree trust me to look into things. I know this is the case for others.


With that being said this topic is somewhat irrelevant to the OP. You shouldn't just create rules to "make your mods useful". An admin should make the rules on how they want their forum run, and then leave it to the mods to enforce those rules (as you said earlier). Even if a rule doesn't require a lot of "work" from your mods, doesn't make it a bad rule.

[BerenTebogo]

That is somewhat subjective too. There is the extreme of "not modding enough" vs" modding too much" and many will argue which is the case in certain situations. Equally, I can safely say most if not all mods have their "posters" who go to them whenever there is an issue.

Usually I get a lot of PMs from the same people, who I guess to some degree trust me to look into things. I know this is the case for others.


With that being said this topic is somewhat irrelevant to the OP. You shouldn't just create rules to "make your mods useful". An admin should make the rules on how they want their forum run, and then leave it to the mods to enforce those rules (as you said earlier). Even if a rule doesn't require a lot of "work" from your mods, doesn't make it a bad rule.

Well the point is, as you said yourself, your hands are tied in many situations. As Tempyst said, the rules of a forum are not the United States constitution, we handcuff our authority because of the sheer force of their power vs. the individual, there is no such need on forums. You do not have "rights" and this extends to "you do not have the RIGHT to browse BG whenever you fucking feel like it and have the entire forum cater to what personally works for you."

That is why there are rules. In a situation where there are not defined rights given to the posters (uh...anywhere on the internet?) and the posters must first agree to terms and conditions before ever posting the handcuffs should be on us, not the mods, if anything.

This is one of the larger reasons, to my understanding, that I am not a mod. Half of this forum would disappear overnight, because valid reason or not - it's clear to see who is shitting up BG (FFXI section at least) and the solution is clear and requires no piddling around.

[Tempyst]

You do not have "rights" and this extends to "you do not have the RIGHT to browse BG whenever you fucking feel like it and have the entire forum cater to what personally works for you."

It's almost like we should have some sort of vote posed forward by an admin

[BerenTebogo]

It's almost like we should have some sort of vote posed forward by an admin

I like the cut of your jib.

I guess now is the time to clearly state that if someone comes back in a few hours and defines CLEARLY (you know...the opposite of vague) what the standards will be then I will be fully in favor of whatever is chosen by the masses.

The poll at the moment is trash though.

[Correction]

What Alleya really meant to say was 'time to inject some emotion rather than reason into this thread, guys.'

[Priran]

bitches

[Ryko]

I voted tits out of obligation but on a serious note the argument of "just log out to browse" or "if you dont like nsfw shit dont browse at all" is fucking retarded. That said, leave the shit as is. Topics marked properly with an option to turn off images is fine. It's not a fucking matter of staying classy or whatever other shit people are saying, it's the matter of the fact that if people really wanna see mithra tits that badly, they can just fucking go to neko-sentai.

[Alleya]

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.

[Ksandra]

You do not have "rights" and this extends to "you do not have the RIGHT to browse BG whenever you fucking feel like it and have the entire forum cater to what personally works for you."

I agree 100% with everything you said, but this statement comes to the point of this topic.

The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) so much "the right" to check it at work or when family is around. It's whether or not the admins of bg want you to be able to check it at work or when family is around.

The overall argument that this will cause less posters is definitely something I think the admins should figure out whether it is important to them. Regular posters will probably not notice or necessarily care for that type of change (unless they are the ones that will no longer post here). I can't imagine anyone is going to stop posting here unless they can have tits in their avatars. So it comes down to the admins deciding on whether they want to push people away in order to offer more choices to those that stay, or if they should deny some rights in order to prevent the forums from decreasing.

[Not Kuno]

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.

There hasn't been an official ruling but people know better. I mean hell, didn't that one smn chick have a oglaf sig (bear holding a naked chick) that sono shooped so it wouldn't have nudity anymore? That sounds like an official ruling to me.

And yes I fully expect full frontal nudity in sigs + avatars if we allow it. People will go as far as they can no matter what the rule is. I think the system we have now is fine, simply the fact that 1/2 of the people have a problem with it is more then enough for me to say its not worth fragmenting the community over something like this.

[Ryko]

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.

[miokomioko]

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 laughed, and I second this.

[isladar]

The fact is that this whole thread is a discussion of a problem that has never existed.

This. A sideboob isn't a shitstorm.

[Gulkeeva]

yeah I usually ask sono about a new sig before using it incase it might be considered a little too PG13'ish (or showing too much etc!)

[Qalbert]

This. A sideboob isn't a shitstorm.

but "A" sideboob IS banned in australia

[Antithesis]

I think everyone here swears that the second the tits rule passes (if it does) everyone on the board is going to have nothing but tits, dicks, vags and so on for Avatar / Sigs. Get a fucking grip people, Falisa modded so many of my Asian Girl .gifs that were BARELY NSFW that I welcome this change just for a little more room to breathe with Avatar / Sigs.

If someone has a Avatar / Sig that you don't want to see, Adblock, logout, or disable. Is this really so fucking hard?