And people telling others that their TOU-approved avatars personally offend them is "f'n annoying" as well. We go back to a few people telling the LARGE number of people what to do because they are simply annoyed.

I hope you never have the gall to complain about blatant politically correct movements that make life hard on the masses for the sake of a certain few.

My avatar is just a small piece of it. As Robin stated, if a few people are stating they're inconvenienced is causing the general mass of people to change their ways, it's wrong.


If you were at all courteous, you would go out of your way by turning your avatars off. As you can see, this can go round and round. Pot-kettle-black.

 

I paid to have an avatar of my choice too, so you telling me to change my forum-acceptable PG avatar is wrong.

Isn't this fun to talk in circles??? Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

 

Hey, I'm fine with your current avatar, so whats the issue? The mods obviously decided that your old one was NSFW, they made you change it, and now all is right with the world. It's ultimately up to the mods anyway, and it seems they disagreed with you in this case.

/thread.

 

I already stated 10x that this is more a question of principal than my own avatar. I'm just using it as an example. Read my previous posts.

 

But if my office allows it......mods don't seem to have any problems until someone "reports it"....then who are we catering to?

People keep using the word courteous.....how about being courteous to the numerous others that don't have a problem at their workspace with NSFW* avatars.... I feel the majority of people here don't have any problems with their surfing....

If my work has a problem with such things....I'm either turning off avatars....or surfing on my time....


IMO they shouldn't be labeled......if you're at work (who seems to frown upon such things) and you click on a thread titled "*****....." Do you really need a NSFW* title letting you know whether or not you should click on that thread...????

Once you start labeling threads because it's gonna offend someone...you'll have to start labeling all threads/posts....that someone could possibly be offended by....

I think like taurren stated....it's the "*****-fication of America"....<-----Not calling anyone a "*****" as not to offend anyone.....

 

Exactly... We are all posting our own opinion on the situation yet he wants to bash all of DNF because DomZ disagrees with him.

 

You paid to have your avatar of choice within the TOU. Your avatar wasn't forum acceptable now was it? I doubt the mods would have removed it if it was completely acceptable. Try again.

 

did they PM you to take your avatar down? did you PM them back? what was their reasoning? was it a MOD that said you should take it down or did someone report you?

 

Well than let me put it this way... Perhaps you are overestimating PG. You considered your avatar PG, and it was taken down. Shrek was PG. PG is the norm for "family" films. (source - wikipedia) If you want a PG-13 avatar, thats fine, but you're risking the mods taking it down, as they did in your case.

 

I think the issue is someone had to complain about his avatar in the first place for the mods to ask him to remove it......

Like I said before NSFW* means a lot of different things to different people.....people will get bent out of shape about everything.....

Why should everything be "right with the world" because they "made" him change it.....

He didn't add that NSFW* avatar last night.....it's been up for months....

 

Wud up Robin?

 

Couldn't you just put "NSFW" as your user title IOT warn people of your NSFW avatar (which would be under that)?

 

I don't think he was bashing DNF in the beginning....just trying to use your (DNF) avatars as an example...since one of the more vocal anti-NSFW* avatar people were/are DomZ.....and he happens to be DNF.

I think one of taurrans points were the irony of people complaining about the NSFW* avatars but yet fine with some of the DNF avatars that I'm sure offend someone out there on the intrawebz.....

 

I wonder if the admins could incorporate a feature that allows us to disable certain member's sigs/avatars, similar to the way we are allowed to place individuals on the ignore list? This would be a good solution....

 

I like how you think.

 

Well, just because people lived with it for a long time doesn't make it okay. If it was NSFW, it is good that they made him change it. And to maximize the forum experience for everyone, Avatars should air on the conservative side. You can still get your ***** in the NSFW threads without degrading your forum experience. Me turning off avatars degrades my experience on the forums.

 

His avatar was/has been fine for months.....until someone complained. So you tell me....was it acceptable? I can assure you....every mod here saw his previous avatar and never mentioned anything.....until someone complained.

 

I just don't understand why everyone is beating their chest to have **** in their avatar.

NSFW

Not Safe For Work. Used to describe Internet content generally inappropriate for the typical workplace, i.e., would not be acceptable in the presence of your boss and colleagues (as opposed to SFW, Safe For Work).


So nothing should be marked NSFW - are you serious?

Calling my350z America is a pretty far stretch.

Also I'd like to point out that I've never reported anyone for avatars or anything like that. My whole point is that if someone does report it and it does get taken down don't cry about it because it was violating the TOU and it was deemed inappropriate by the mod who handled it. I'm being unfairly painted as PC **** when in all reality the chances of my boss creeping up behind me are pretty slim and I'm not the one going around reporting people.

 

Howdy....you guys be good.....got to get ready for our meet.

Have a good night....

 

The funniest part is I don't even have a "bawls in yo mouf" avatar!!