NWS Avatars
gave the non PM members a taste
Originally Posted by jonnylaw
What makes it diffcult with these avatars at issue is that they are not black and white but mostly in a grey area in regards to whether work safe or not. When I had my avatar removed on g35driver it was for "implied nudity" not nudity. Fine lines are being drawn on a case by case basis. Theres really not a better solution than to be prudent with your choice of avatar and if u r concerned at work, disable avatars, as many have already said.
DNF-I'm pretty good at cod and such--how to get up and play with u all? I want a bawlz in yo mouth avatar
Its funny, because in America, violence is more accepted in our culture than nudity is (quite the opposite in many foreign countries, especially the european ones).
DNF-I'm pretty good at cod and such--how to get up and play with u all? I want a bawlz in yo mouth avatar
Its funny, because in America, violence is more accepted in our culture than nudity is (quite the opposite in many foreign countries, especially the european ones).
gt: ct350z
So... looking around the forum now with all the avatar camel toes, lesbians dyking out, and barely covered **** all over the place I guess this rule is no longer in effect.
As far as I know I'm the only one that's been threatened because of my avatar. Thanks for the special consideration "mods".
As far as I know I'm the only one that's been threatened because of my avatar. Thanks for the special consideration "mods".
Originally Posted by taurran
So... looking around the forum now with all the avatar camel toes, lesbians dyking out, and barely covered **** all over the place I guess this rule is no longer in effect.
As far as I know I'm the only one that's been threatened because of my avatar. Thanks for the special consideration "mods".
As far as I know I'm the only one that's been threatened because of my avatar. Thanks for the special consideration "mods".
Originally Posted by vo7848
I personally just gave up and turned off the avatar and sig function. Fug it...
I'm fine with everyone's current avatars. I don't care what avatars other people have, only that whatever policy is being enforced across the board and not just against select people.
Originally Posted by taurran
Yeah. I'm not looking to start an argument on this subject (again).
Originally Posted by taurran
I'm just pointing out that it seems the exception was only made for one or a few people on the forums and then the "work safe" avatar rule just went away. Funny how that works.
I'm fine with everyone's current avatars. I don't care what avatars other people have, only that whatever policy is being enforced across the board and not just against select people.
I'm fine with everyone's current avatars. I don't care what avatars other people have, only that whatever policy is being enforced across the board and not just against select people.
Originally Posted by Electricchild
sugarspunZ got banned for his avatar a couple weeks back.
But, if you saw mine it was nowhere near as suggestive as some of the other avatars I've seen on the site. It was an obvious case of being singled out.
Admins and moderators had this discussion and I pushed for more leniency in avatars. I don't think it's fair for members to have to change their avatars just because one or two people don't want to get in trouble at work place (where they should be working) when there's a simple solution to it (turning the avatars off). I would assume that it's safe to say that the rules are much more lenient with avatars. Just don't overdo it with the suggestive nature of some of the pictures (even if it doesn't show any direct nudity).
Originally Posted by 3hree5ive0ero
Admins and moderators had this discussion and I pushed for more leniency in avatars. I don't think it's fair for members to have to change their avatars just because one or two people don't want to get in trouble at work place (where they should be working) when there's a simple solution to it (turning the avatars off). I would assume that it's safe to say that the rules are much more lenient with avatars. Just don't overdo it with the suggestive nature of some of the pictures (even if it doesn't show any direct nudity).
Another example of the few ruining it for the many.
It's so flippin' easy to check the box for turning off avatars.
Originally Posted by 3hree5ive0ero
Admins and moderators had this discussion and I pushed for more leniency in avatars. I don't think it's fair for members to have to change their avatars just because one or two people don't want to get in trouble at work place (where they should be working) when there's a simple solution to it (turning the avatars off). I would assume that it's safe to say that the rules are much more lenient with avatars. Just don't overdo it with the suggestive nature of some of the pictures (even if it doesn't show any direct nudity).
"Hot car, Hot Wife!"
People clicked on that link^^^^^ and complained it didn't have NSFW in the title......
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,573
Likes: 0
From: Northwest
Originally Posted by buzzardmountain
+1.......reminds me of the now removed thread:
"Hot car, Hot Wife!"
People clicked on that link^^^^^ and complained it didn't have NSFW in the title......
"Hot car, Hot Wife!"
People clicked on that link^^^^^ and complained it didn't have NSFW in the title......
I have avatars turned off..but honestly...it sucks. I don't even bother enable it when I come back home. So I never see anyone's avatars even though I would like to.
Avatars are nice because it so much easier to identify people by it.
I vote for continuing with work safe avatars.
Avatars are nice because it so much easier to identify people by it.
I vote for continuing with work safe avatars.