NWS Avatars
LONG *** POST.. I'm just now reading all the posts and responding.
My responses are in bold above.
I see your point. However, I still that it would be best for those in such position to just completely disable avatars as to not risk even encountering such "compromising images," instead of expecting all others to follow the rules. Isn't that like expecting all others to obey all traffic laws to avoid collision? We all know that in real life, it's better for you to take affirmative action, defensive driving (disabling avatars) rather than trusting others to not mess up (posting NSFW avatars).
I dont' have a personal bias, a vendetta, nor any type of negative agenda toward you. All I'm saying is that just like you're asking for them to take down their avatars, you could take your own advice and just disable the feature yourself for the time being at work.
It is up to us, mostly. Even if it gets reported, if we don't think actions need to be taken, then we don't act on it. Just because you report it, it doesn't mean we'll cater to your needs. As you mentioned above ("said person gets a PM to take it down"), they get a PM from us. If they don't comply, we'll do it for them. Tell me how that isn't "up to the 'mods & admins.'" Even the TOU states that we have final word (we try to be unbiased to the best of our abilities, but it doesn't happen all the time, as shown by a recent event).
If you see a thread that violates the TOU, then report it. We can’t and don’t see all the posts and threads at all times. If you guys want, I’m sure we can start enforcing stricter rules, where we would have to validate each and every single posts every member makes. But that wouldn’t be so much fun, right? Help the mods and admins out by reporting such threads/posts.
I've been saying that the whole time and all they want is for us to enforce stricter rules on avatars. No! And you can't make me! 
Fine. I'll have an avatar with scantly clad women, but I'll change my user title to NSFW so you can skip over my avatar if you'd like.
Again, this applies to both sides. Just because you find it annoying to change your user options, I'm sure the opposing side finds it annoying to change their avatar. They shouldn't be forced to compromise their forum experience neither, because of a handful of people who refuse to be respectful of others' experience and take my advice of disabling the avatars at work. See what I mean? This is a never ending circle.
You not being able to identiy people FASTER, by recognition of avatars, and justifying it as reasonable logic that applies to everybody is flawed. It's only a minor inconvenience, which does not affect your experience at my350z.com as a whole. Why don't you try again?
Again, I've been saying this for a while now. Nobody listens.
That’s what I’m thinking of doing.. Just need a good picture. 
Admins can't do that, only vBulletin creators can add such features. As you mentioned, you can put them on ignore and not deal with their posts/avatars completely. That was going to be my suggestion but you already came up with that.
I saw it and thought nothing of it, except I thought it was kind of gay that he probably got a myspace chick to do that (most likely) and not a real-life person he knows, met and interacted with. 
(See? I’m not really on Taurran’s side, neither) If I’m wrong, then my bad.
Originally Posted by DomZ
They're appropriately marked so.
^ Where does it say that covered private body parts are not allowed?
Again, what is this **** about being unproductive? You and a few select others have something against folks browsing at work and it has seemingly unmasked your personal bias in this regard.
^ This "****" about being unproductive came from you browsing the forums while at work, which means you're not doing work, thus unproductive. I have no personal bias. I'm just tired of you whining about other people's avatars when they can just avoid seeing it (and being seen by their bosses and customers and whoever) by turning off the avatars at work. How hard is that? You want me to do that for you?
It doesn't make (who the hell are "you guys" anyway?) anyone better than anyone except it helps differentiate between those who do follow the rules and those who don't.
^ "You guys" are the ones complaining about other peoples' avatars, instead of disabling them. Again, I see no problems with their avatars as they do not contain nudity. Why must you, and others, insist on OTHERS taking action instead of YOU taking action?
It just seems like everyone is harping on DNF as a group when in reality we had nothing to do with the original topic nor did any one of us actually report Craig's avatar. This went from a discussion of opinions to a bunch of personal attacks and to be honest the DNF crew have behaved themselves 100x better than the person who so adamantley continues to feed his own agenda while claming we're here to satisfy that very same thing.
^Not everybody. Don't try to play the victim, because you ran out of things to say and are now in defensive mode. Nobody pointed the finger at you. Plus, I would know who reported whom for what reason. Why don't you and Craig and others just leave DNF out of this and just leave it at NSFW avatars?
^ Where does it say that covered private body parts are not allowed?
Again, what is this **** about being unproductive? You and a few select others have something against folks browsing at work and it has seemingly unmasked your personal bias in this regard.
^ This "****" about being unproductive came from you browsing the forums while at work, which means you're not doing work, thus unproductive. I have no personal bias. I'm just tired of you whining about other people's avatars when they can just avoid seeing it (and being seen by their bosses and customers and whoever) by turning off the avatars at work. How hard is that? You want me to do that for you?
It doesn't make (who the hell are "you guys" anyway?) anyone better than anyone except it helps differentiate between those who do follow the rules and those who don't.
^ "You guys" are the ones complaining about other peoples' avatars, instead of disabling them. Again, I see no problems with their avatars as they do not contain nudity. Why must you, and others, insist on OTHERS taking action instead of YOU taking action?
It just seems like everyone is harping on DNF as a group when in reality we had nothing to do with the original topic nor did any one of us actually report Craig's avatar. This went from a discussion of opinions to a bunch of personal attacks and to be honest the DNF crew have behaved themselves 100x better than the person who so adamantley continues to feed his own agenda while claming we're here to satisfy that very same thing.
^Not everybody. Don't try to play the victim, because you ran out of things to say and are now in defensive mode. Nobody pointed the finger at you. Plus, I would know who reported whom for what reason. Why don't you and Craig and others just leave DNF out of this and just leave it at NSFW avatars?
Originally Posted by vo7848
Unfortunately large corporations view "leisure internet surfing" and "compromising images" as two different issues, with 2 different disipline levels. Casual surfing will not cause an employer to take disiplinary action. Causual surfing, while completing daily task on time, will also not cause disiplinary action. Most individuals learn how to balance work and internet surfing accordingly, in order to fly under the radar. However, phonography or compromising images has no grey area. It's disiplinary action is immediate work termination.
Originally Posted by DomZ
It has been considered and I stand by the fact that it is not your choice to tell me what to do while I am at work. There are some people who seem to have a personal bias (vendetta, even) against people viewing from work using words like "unproductive" and "lazy" to refer those of us who use our spare time to browse the web. Though I don't owe you an explanation if you must know my work comes and goes in spurts. If I finish my work early I have to stay here regardless so why not browse my favorite forum?
Originally Posted by sofa king
its really not up to them is it? if you REPORT IT then in your eyes its obviously NSFW is it? and said person gets a PM to take it down.
so while it says its up to the 'mods & admins' its really not is it?
so while it says its up to the 'mods & admins' its really not is it?
Originally Posted by onedirtyz
this isn't a court of law, it's a forum. just saying. lots of sh*t that happens here isn't fair. threads are closed stating certain TOU violations while others who violate the same section of the TOU continue to live on and thrive. it's just the way it is.
Originally Posted by buzzardmountain
My two cents.....I agree with 3hree5ive0ero and taurran......
If I worked somewhere which looked down upon such things as these NSFW* avatars.....I'd go to my control panel and turn off avatars.....I would never complain and report someone for something so trivial as a NSFW* avatar......It's annoying IMO because it seems indicative of the minority controlling the majority......you know the saying...."the squeaky wheel gets the grease first..." When someone gets their panties in a wad for a NSFW* avatar....because they're surfing at work....they complain and ruin it for everyone...
* - NSFW varies by opinion.....my boss could care less what's on my computer.....everyone's idea of NSFW differs.....
If I worked somewhere which looked down upon such things as these NSFW* avatars.....I'd go to my control panel and turn off avatars.....I would never complain and report someone for something so trivial as a NSFW* avatar......It's annoying IMO because it seems indicative of the minority controlling the majority......you know the saying...."the squeaky wheel gets the grease first..." When someone gets their panties in a wad for a NSFW* avatar....because they're surfing at work....they complain and ruin it for everyone...
* - NSFW varies by opinion.....my boss could care less what's on my computer.....everyone's idea of NSFW differs.....
Originally Posted by DomZ
I reiterate: If all the threads with scantly clad women are appropriately marked NSFW in the Lounge then WHY do you feel that the generally accepted mindset doesn't apply to you or your avatar?
Originally Posted by onedirtyz
because that's just f'n annoying. i, along with many, many others, recognize people by their avatars. we shouldn't be forced to compromise our forum experience because of a handful of people who refuse to be courteous and follow the directions.
Originally Posted by DomZ
Unfortunately that also turns off all the acceptable avatars that I identify people by (including my own which I paid for and which also abides by forum rules) so your logic is flawed. Ignoring clicking on threads that are appropriately titled does not make the rest of the SFW threads disappear. Try again.
Originally Posted by buzzardmountain
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....
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....
Originally Posted by bboypuertoroc
Couldn't you just put "NSFW" as your user title IOT warn people of your NSFW avatar (which would be under that)?
Originally Posted by vo7848
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....
Originally Posted by buzzardmountain
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.
(See? I’m not really on Taurran’s side, neither) If I’m wrong, then my bad.
Last edited by 3hree5ive0ero; Mar 3, 2008 at 01:24 PM.
Originally Posted by sofa king
Cliffnotes?!?!?!
Originally Posted by vo7848
Sounds like my kind of punishment! Or is it dinner? 
Originally Posted by 3hree5ive0ero
It's not for me. Only admins can have such delectible treats. Us lowly mods and super mods are stuck with stew made from bones of the babies admins left behind. Sometimes we get some leftover meats, but only on Christmas.
Ian :mod in training:
Originally Posted by 3hree5ive0ero
No. I will be deleting the above post and handing out exams regarding my long long long long *** post. Failure to pass will result in your children being sacrificed and devoured.
Originally Posted by Ghost 350z
i dunno what the big deal is, if you are scared of the avatars, turn them off, or stfu and go back to work 
i just wished he switched it up to different pix!
Originally Posted by taurran
I do know the person in my old avatar.
One night I got bored, put rubber bands on my ***** ****, and took some pics. I bet you all feel pretty gay now, don't you?
One night I got bored, put rubber bands on my ***** ****, and took some pics. I bet you all feel pretty gay now, don't you?
