Alright, Paladin! What's the deal?

I never thought I'd see you on the "nanny" side of things.

Different philosophies for different settings.

You know that lots of companies that aren't strict won't hesitate to fire you either if the need arises.

All it takes is someone complaining. Your boss and local HR staff might be the coolest in the world but I've yet to see a boss or HR that won't pull the trigger on your job if the higher ups say do it.

Asking MD to change his avatar is making it unbearable for you here?

No, that's far too simple of an analysis.

That anyone would even think to ask Muad Dib to change his thoroughly harmless avatar is a symptom of the underlying disease.

Many are infected by it, and it makes it nearly impossible to relate to anyone here.

Clyde asked me to remove my avatar and it was just stick figures fucking.

I think Clyde was right on. I would've asked myself except I can only handle so much at a time.

It's pornographic, JCD. And they're not stick figures, they're silhouettes. Not that it makes any difference; they're still performing recognizable sex acts. Even now, I have to position this thread so that your image is off my screen; although my boss and coworkers would probably understand, I don't want to be put in the situation where I have to make them understand.

I don't know what compels some people to push sensible, reasonable boundaries simply to push them. I really don't. But it gets really, really old because it's childish. And it wears on the people who have to enforce the rules after a while. You get to the point where you have two choices: (1) turn a blind eye, which means consciously choosing not to do the job; or (2) say "to hell with it" and just start passing out warnings.

Your freedom and comfort here is not being reduced one iota by the reasonable request to keep NSFW images out of your avatars. Not one iota. And by doing so, you make coming here easier and less stressful for others.

I realize these words are going to fall on deaf ears, that some people with the Howard Stern gene will insist on railing against a rule simply because it is a rule. But you don't make this place better for anyone, you simply make it more difficult for others.

I think you're wrong though. I changed it, but I still think you and Clyde are wrong.

I'm on the fence, kinda.

The way I see it, MOST of the things on this board, if someone looked at it, could get someone fired. This is not a work-friendly website in the slightest. As such, I dunno if avatars are the biggest worry one should have, since you can just turn them off at work.

BUT, avs are also the most highly visible part of the page usually. And can draw attention they might not normally have drawn. So it's really a question of interpretation, and no matter what, someone's gonna disagree. What makes it harder is that each side has a very valid point.

I'll have to admit that I think the mood of WF has changed and that I'm not entirely happy with what I've been seeing. It's the "community" and the dear, long-time friendships I have here that keep me coming back.

No. Clearly discernable sex is going on in that av. Would you want your ten year old daughter seeing that?

If we are really going to have to worry about NSFW avatars, it won't be long before swear words and racist slurs also will end up being banned.

It's like if you bring people here from real life, and they start stalking you, or they tell people here all your secrets. They brought it upon THEMSELVES by bringing them here. The same should go for avatars and topics with dirty words or racist words. If you post here from work, be prepared if there are consequences.

I think we lose a very fundamental part of why this place was created in the first place if we start to worry too much about censoring.

This is why I have avs turned off. Distasteful, the lot of them.

I have to complain about Faceman's avatar. That sort of blatant sexualization of Lesbians is about to get me fired for having it on my screen.

Thanks!

Indeed. I have to ask for a policy against these kinds of avs else I get caught by my employer with my dick in my fist.

I'm torn on this.

On one hand, if someone is walking past your desk, they're not really going to see swear words unless they stop to read what you're doing. However, they will see a questionable image without much trouble.

On the other hand, if your workplace is the kind of place that will fire you for risque avatars, then they are probably the kind of place that would fire you for talking about some of the things that we talk about on Wordforge.

Put another way, say you have two different people in an office, one is reading a slashfic, and the other is looking at pornography, who do you think is going to get caught?

Fortunatey, I have four walls and a door... along with an off button for my telephone ringer.

A "tolerant" shop such as the one I was in will fire for images, but not for text.

Four walls and a door don't do much good if the IT department finds images on your hard drive or they access your account through a persistent login.

Lots of teevee weather people have online "meteorology" degrees from Mississippi State and it's looked upon about the same way.

It could be argued, too, that the avatar with the painted puppies was really not enough for someone to 'notice' that she was nude from the waist up. To me, it looked like she was wearing a puppy bikini until I inspected it closer. And is she REALLY not wearing anything? She could have little black stickers covering her pepperonis.


I think the best solution is for people posting at work to either turn avatars off, or adblock them on a case-by-case basis. And if you think you could get in trouble for avatars here, chances are, you will also get in trouble for a Tasvir or JohnM post that says ALL NIGGERS MUST DIEEE!!!

It would be nice if everyone just tried their best to accommodate everyone, but I also like to see sexy avatars and avatars with hot women. If you allow this, of course there are gonna be grey areas where some people see it one way, and others see it another.

Silly goose, I am the IT department.

Well I really, really don't want to have to make an avatar rule. You guys should have the sense not to have nekkid chix or similar in your avs. The painted puppies I can almost see, cuz at the small size of an avatar, it looks like a girl wearing a tee-shirt or something. I'm with Nick, I can see how this could go both ways.

MUAD'DIB! MUAD'DIB!



THE NIPS MUST FLOW!

Neither do I. I think an AV rule is the wrong way to go. This place functions better with less moderation.

If you don't want an av rule, you're going to have to live with the moderators making calls on a case-by-case basis because I flat out refuse to say that we'll never have a complaint about one.

Nudity belongs in The White Room. Period. Full stop. That's why it's there. That's it's sole reason for existing. It does not belong in an avatar in any way, shape, form, or fashion. If it would get you arrested for public lewdness (or indecency depending on the jurisdiction) anywhere in the United States (You don't hear a lot of stories about the dozens of women that are arrested during Mardis Gras for just such behavior), it doesn't belong in an avatar.

If you have any question about whether or not an image would be appropriate for use as an avatar, and I do mean any question, you should not use it. If you feel the need to ask me if an image is appropriate, you should not use it (and that's exactly what I'll tell you when you do ask). If you feel the need to ask me what is appropriate and what isn't, you should stay away from what you're thinking about. That's personal responsibility in action.

But, with that said, if you surf from work and you have avatars enabled, you do so at your own risk. Personally, I would rather not take that chance. I don't even want to have that conversation with my boss. He may or may not see my side, but I don't even want it to come up to begin with.

I thoroughly agree. However, opinions about what constitutes obscenity are like assholes: everybody's got one.

IMHO the puppy av should be acceptable. The bewbies in question are sufficiently covered by paint and the av size is small enough that you have to look closely to distinguish whether it's paint or clothing. The shape of her tits also makes them less obvious.

IMHO this photo would NOT be acceptable because the bewbie shape is more obvious and nips are clearly visible.

That having been said, I didn't ask because I feel the image is acceptable.

I 100% agree. Look around the board at any given time and you'll see lesbians kissing, women wearing bikinis or lingerie or otherwise posed provacatively, or Soma's gay avs that send us screaming for the brain soap.

If avs can get you in trouble at work, disable them. I don't surf WF in front of my kids because of the levels of avs, topics, and posts that we already have.

No, you don't. I knew what it was almost instantly. So would a hell of a lot of people.

Clearly.

But you must also see, even in just this thread, not everyone would agree on that.

We want as many posters as possible to be able to come here and enjoy as much of the features as possible and part of that includes using some discretion when choosing an avatar which will be seen all over the board. We know many people enjoy nudity here, which is why we have the White Room for just that purpose.

Paint is not clothing and it was obvious to me immediately that she was topless. It's cute, but would have been better part of a "Painted Ladies" thread in the White Room than in an avatar.

[Adama] all this has happened before[/adama]