What's the story on Avatars and Signatures?

[Fett]

Originally Posted by drktmplr12 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

anyone trying to make OP feel bad for voicing an opinion/concern is a fucking moron. Seriously. This is a discussion forum, for discussion.

I for one agree with him. Existence of filters doesn't give anyone the right to post whatever they want. I for one find some sigs entirely inappropriate (looking at you gaffin).

All you people telling him turn them off because you shouldn't have to change your browsing habits for him are hypocrites. Basically you are telling him he has to change his browsing preferences and filter his experience (sometimes sigs have useful information from people who actually constructively contribute to the project, surprising i know.) because your preference to browse as you please and... freely have OBVIOUSLY inappropriate signatures and avatars? Fucking childish.

Of course we can continue the personal attacks..but I thought that's what RnF was for.

Except you (and OP) are in the minority. So you, the minority are asking the majority to change their habits, when you already have all the tools you need to make these pictures go away. If they offend you, just turn them off. It's that simple.

Creating rules to control people only leads to a slippery slope to create more rules to control more people. It should only be done done when things are absolutely necessary, and since you can already turn off the offensive pictures, I personally don't see it as absolutely necessary.

[webrunner5]

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

Except you (and OP) are in the minority. So you, the minority are asking the majority to change their habits, when you already have all the tools you need to make these pictures go away. If they offend you, just turn them off. It's that simple.

Creating rules to control people only leads to a slippery slope to create more rules to control more people. It should only be done done when things are absolutely necessary, and since you can already turn off the offensive pictures, I personally don't see it as absolutely necessary.

Real life is FULL of rules. Get over it.

[Sarajo]

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

I don't work in a service industry. I am not your cashier. I am not someone who interfaces with customers at all.

Don't accuse someone of derailing the thread or talking about something that's completely not the issue when this is your response. I said nothing about you being in a service industry, nor about being my cashier, nor about interfacing with customers at all. I couldn't be less interested. It is clear from your posts that you have a boss, and the boss compensates you for your work, and your boss monitors your internet use to some degree, and those are the only working assumptions I made in replying to you.

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

If my boss comes by and sees me on facebook, he doesn't care. I make all my deadlines, provide correct estimates, and deliver high quality solutions. He doesn't care if I surf reddit, facebook, or this random MMO forum while I'm doing other things. Believe it or not, there is a ton of 'small downtime' in my field. If he came over and saw me looking at porn, that would be an issue.

I don't know what you do for a living, other than provide your time and work to someone else for monetary compensation. Also, the boss doesn't mind if you use the internet for non-business reasons such as social media or other personal interests. However, they don't want to pay you to look at pornographic content. I get that. I don't know if you've noticed, but in the entire history of the internet employers have struggled with how to deal with this issue; porn can show up at the most innocent-sounding URLs, filenames, or search engine searches. Generally, I.T. departments are in charge of enforcing whatever acceptable use policy the employer has. I.T. departments know that accidents happen when using the internet, such as pop-up windows containing pornographic content or pornographic pictures/slideshows/videos being emailed around with innocent-sounding filenames. Generally, those who do monitor won't take action just because the content shows up on your screen; they'll take action if you spend more than a few seconds exploring that content.[/QUOTE]

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

And again, please stop using attacks on me and my exact situation.

Every example you provided of why borderline NSFW content should be banned was drawn from your own experience, opinion, and exact situation. Sorry that disagreeing with you is perceived as a personal attack. But if I answer your question about whether this content should be allowed in avatars and signature blocks, you'll undoubtedly tie it back into your exact situation, so I don't see why you mind.

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

Is it ok to have NSFW avatars/sigs when we have NSFW sections of the forum. That to me implies there's a time and place for NSFW stuff, according to our forum.

It is not okay. You have a different definition of NSFW than the moderators, though. But again, since your personal definition and needs are different than the moderators, maybe you should take the (sound) advice that 7 pages of replies have given you: Either stop browsing these forums at work or disable pictures. If you got disciplined or terminated for porn because of a woman in a bikini showing up on your screen while the boss was observing you (whether over your shoulder or remotely), do you really think any of that accountability will fall on the person who posted that content? Is it their fault that you chose to access it while at work, when you had the choice to not access it or block the pictures, however inconvenient it may be to not see the useful parts of a signature? I invite you to consult with any lawyer or paralegal at a practice that deals with wrongful termination. Make up a story about how you got terminated because someone posted pornographic content in a forum you were viewing while at work, which violated the acceptable internet use policy at work, and you were fired. Then ask if you have a case, and if the moderators of the forum, the owners of the website, or the forum user who posted the content is in a legally actionable position.

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

I know there's no nipple, but a GIF of a woman with large breasts, in a bikini, smashing them together, is not 'Safe for work' for me.

Breasts: Not a sex organ. They're literally lumps of fat with milk glands made to feed offspring. Stimulating the nipple releases oxytocin, no one knows why, but it's generally thought that this was a way to make breastfeeding screaming, pooping, insomniac offspring more appealing so that the race wouldn't die off. So complaining about a picture of something that is non-sexual(the nipple being the closest to having some kind of possible sexual function) , and still covered with some measure of clothing, is not a problem; your attitude toward womens' bodies is. This goes for the bit about the woman on her hands and knees, shaking her ass: Was she having sex or stimulating her (non-exposed) sexual organs in any way?
e.g.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It's a woman's bare hand. I saw someone use one of those on a man's penis in a video once. Hands are sexual. BAN ALL SIGS AND AVATARS BECAUSE MY BOSS MIGHT THINK I'M LOOKING AT PORN

[Unferth]

This thread really needs to die. I don't understand why there is still discussion about this.

The most elegant solution to the problem OP posted was already implemented before OP posted. Use the user options to turn off images/signatures/avatars. It literally takes 2 seconds an it streamlines the entire forum to be OK at work. If this function exists, why even suggest the possibility of blanket-banning NSFW images at all?

I hate to use such a crude analogy, but that's like having the
most effective contraceptives at your disposal and still asking if abstinence is the most logical choice

[baalzy]

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2651

Originally Posted by Rogean

Content
Any threads that contain content unsafe for work should be marked as NSFW.
Avatars and Signatures
All Avatars and signatures must not contain any explicit or NSFW content. Signatures must be no higher than 150 pixels, and no wider than 500 pixels. If there are multiple images, or images as well as text, the combination must not exceed the height of what a single 200 pixel image would cover.

[drktmplr12]

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

If this function exists, why even suggest the possibility of blanket-banning NSFW images at all?

This is the logic that keeps this thread alive. That is a very short sighted and asinine way to deal with it. Bad word filter means that people can just use all the offensive bad words they want right? Wrong.

He shouldn't have to turn off a useful feature of the forum because 2 or 3 people want to have (subjective) inappropriate (18+) content on every single one of their posts. Interesting how there are people are defending it, yet these aren't even the ones the thread is directed towards. Why do you even give a damn? It has nothing to do with you. Sorry if I am in support of trampling your p1999 forum Bill of Rights.

There are threads in RnF dedicated to these kind of things. Let them post it there if they need to show it off.

Its not like moderating this is a big problem. There are 1 or 2 people doing it, ask them to stop please and put their (seemingly necessary) 18+ content in the designated area. BUT OMGZ THEY ARE ASKING MODERATORS TO MODERATE. Deal with it.

Here's the point, or TLDR for those lacking reading comprehension:

The image in question (woman on all 4s shaking her ass) is clearly inappropriate, and therefore should not be allowed anywhere else except RnF.

[drktmplr12]

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

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2651

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Swish]

Just turn off the signatures. Apparently I'm promoting animal cruelty in my current one.

[drktmplr12]

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

wall of text

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

your attitude toward womens' bodies is.

wat? are you fucking seriously making this claim?

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

This goes for the bit about the woman on her hands and knees, shaking her ass: Was she having sex or stimulating her (non-exposed) sexual organs in any way?

You didn't do a good job of proving that its appropriate. 99% of workplaces will find that inappropriate. It should be removed.

[myriverse]

Originally Posted by webrunner5 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Real life is FULL of rules. Get over it.

Each community has its own rules. Get over it.