What's the story on Avatars and Signatures?

[BigHurb]

war is good business what we need is a bigger war really

[myriverse]

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

The problem here is that NSFW is basically a cess pit that I don't care anything about. However, I do care about signatures and avatars, especially when they contain information that I would like - such as links to resources, character information about a poster, or just funny to look at sigs. By opting out, I have to opt out of more than JUST NSFW sigs/avatars.

And again, we ban nudity / NSFW stuff from every corner of this forum except for the NSFW forum. Why is there an exception to sigs/avatars?

There is no exception. What we have here is a disagreement over what is NSFW. IMO, any NSFW avatars and sigs get dealt with very quickly. A couple of breasts in a bathing suit will never, ever be NSFW.

If your opinion is different, then take steps to restrict your content. Simple problem. Simple solution.

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

I wish they required us to post in character all the time. If they did that then I'd support no suggestive sigs/avatars. But since they don't it's whatever.

How the heck would that work when many have 20-odd characters? Holy schizoid!

And some characters might even be more debauched.

[Clark]

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. Nor is a woman on all 4s shaking her bare ass.

lol

[drktmplr12]

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

[Juhstin]

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

Also this made me laugh:

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

I didn't notice that he tripped her at first.

LAWL

[Bill Tetley]

sounds like op has issues with sexuality imo

[drktmplr12]

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.

[Swish]

The bottom line is that tighter moderation would be a bad thing, and you can turn off sigs/avatars/pictures/RnF if you want to.

If that wasn't the case, this thread would come across less like trolling.

[webrunner5]

I agree with the OP. Some people on here have went WAY over the edge. I really doubt if they had a 8 year old daughter or a wife that they would really like them to see what they posted. Well guess what some people on here DO have a 8 year old daughter and wives that look at pictures and gifs on here.

So if I was king there would be a LOT of ban hammers coming down. I think it is getting out of hand. I hope they moderate this crap and perma ban people who continue to abuse it. Some people on here need to grow up. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Swish]

The only gif I ever got asked to take down is this one:-

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

...so I did. Who'd ban me for it?