What's the story on Avatars and Signatures?

[BigHurb]

well i mean everyone pointed out pretty nicely but now its just the back and forth of the stubborn op... OP must be abacab

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by August [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nothing is wrong with that option. That's my point. I'm not a prude over here on my moralistic high ground.

We ban nudity on this forum except in NSFW, yet we have people pushing the limits of that in their avatars/sigs.

If I took a compilation of all the GIFs that I considered 'borderline' and posted them in server chat, would it get moved to RnF? That's the real question here. Should I need to disable ALL signatures/avatars (some of which I find useful, btw - like the ones that link to tools or spreadsheets or to past posts, or that provide me with information about someone like the list of their alts -- LIKE YOURS) because a few select individuals like to post nearly-nude GIFs in their signatures?

If there wasn't a RnF forum, I wouldn't even bring it up. Anything goes here. The fact that RnF exists makes me believe there is some desire to keep the majority of these forums free of NSFW material. Sigs and Avatars SEEM TO ME to be an exception to that.

Notice the title of my thread isn't 'CENSOR AVATARS AND SIGNATURES' , it is instead 'What's the story on Avatars and Signatures?' I'm open to the options available to me, but it occured to me that others felt the way that I do, and I don't think there's anything wrong about having civil discourse about the topic.

I see where you're coming from, the fact that RNF exists does lead one to believe we like to have a separation between nsfw and other content on the forums. My concern with this is that we don't really need more moderation on these forums. I think in a lot of cases (aside from outright nudity) what should be considered nsfw is often up for debate. I think if we were to make this the new standard on the forums there would be constant rule layering and people reporting other people for their signatures and avatars. That is simply not what we need the staff to be preoccupied with when its much easier to just suggest that person disable signatures and avatars in the User CP while they are at work.

[Asap]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It sounds like everyone in this thread wants to allow hard-core porn in signatures, with the only recourse being to disable sigs.

Please link me to the sigs/avatars where there is hardcore porn

[August]

Originally Posted by BigHurb [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

well i mean everyone pointed out pretty nicely but now its just the back and forth of the stubborn op... OP must be abacab

Don't know who abacab is. I've had people bring up points and I've provided my retort.

No one has explained to me why it's ok to ban NSFW material from every corner of the forum but a specific one (RnF), yet it's OK to allow sigs/avatars contain NSFW material.

Is the equivalent then, to the minds of the opposition, that RnF = Sigs/Avatars?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Asap [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please link me to the sigs/avatars where there is hardcore porn

No you misunderstood my point. My point is, if you followed the logic in most of the posts here, it would lead to allowing porn. Just replace "bouncing boobs" (or anything to that effect) with "porn" in all of the responses and you'll see the exact same logic applies.

Which gets back to the one thing no one seems to be able to explain: why do we ban porn but not bouncing boobs? Both are clearly designed to arouse, neither has anything to do with Everquest, and if we're all adults here, and we can all just disable sigs, why not just allow both of them?

[August]

Originally Posted by Hailto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I see where you're coming from, the fact that RNF exists does lead one to believe we like to have a separation between nsfw and other content on the forums. My concern with this is that we don't really need more moderation on these forums. I think in a lot of cases (aside from outright nudity) what should be considered nsfw is often up for debate. I think if we were to make this the new standard on the forums there would be constant rule layering and people reporting other people for their signatures and avatars. That is simply not what we need the staff to be preoccupied with when its much easier to just suggest that person disable signatures and avatars in the User CP while they are at work.

So the only hard stop for you would be actual nudity? I get the slippery slope aspect, but even now I can probably name you the 5 people that I think are violating this rule. It doesn't seem like a widespread problem, just a reoccurring problem with a select set of people.

For what it's worth, I can think of quite a few things that would be more prurient than just a naked set of breasts.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by August [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't know who abacab is. I've had people bring up points and I've provided my retort.

No one has explained to me why it's ok to ban NSFW material from every corner of the forum but a specific one (RnF), yet it's OK to allow sigs/avatars contain NSFW material.

Is the equivalent then, to the minds of the opposition, that RnF = Sigs/Avatars?

it's because of the stated user options of showing or not showing signatures or avatars. because someone doesn't explore the tools before them (ignorance) doesn't mean that they should be catered to. if those options were not available to users then there'd be a better debate that could initiate some course of action by the wonderful folks that run this project.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's because of the stated user options of showing or not showing signatures or avatars. because someone doesn't explore the tools before them (ignorance) doesn't mean that they should be catered to. if those options were not available to users then there'd be a better debate that could initiate some course of action by the wonderful folks that run this project.

Read my OP. I am not ignorant of the options available to me. Thanks for chiming in.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by August [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Read my OP. I am not ignorant of the options available to me. Thanks for chiming in.

then you have a weak ground to debate from and come off as whining which is like blood in shark infested waters here.

[August]

anyways guys i'm going out for the night, i'll check back on this thread later. thank you everyone who provided constructive, thought-provoking responses.