Alright, Paladin! What's the deal?

10 year olds aren't looking at this board on their own and if they are looking at it with their parent, it's up to the parent to explain the world to the child, not for me to protect them from it.

And no, while I wouldn't go out of my way to show it to my kids, at the same time I wouldn't flip out because they saw it either.

10-year-olds of responsible parents aren't going to be seeing it.

The number of irresponsible parents, today, I believe, is much larger than the number of responsible parents.

And the irresponsible parents are the ones that also flip out the most about perceived threats to their little angels in a sort of "She doth protest too much methinks" sort of way.

It matters not whether YOU would flip out, it matters whether someone with the ability to do something negative with it has a stick up their ass about it.

and the best thing is, I just sold a custom Zippo, and scored an 1/8th of grapefruit buds
who needs cable tv?

Hasn't this photo been used as an av by somebody? I think I recall seeing it at one time. What's the difference?

the underwire booby boosters?

Rubber prosthetics covering most of the breast under the paint, for one.

Pushing this issue is not going to lead to it going away...we are as lax as laws and serving the most of you as well as possible will allow.

If you want to look at nudity, use the White Room...keep the avatars on the squeaky side of clean, please.

What? That has become the guideline for moderator action now? Honestly?

Cause that's a pretty major policy change.

Actually neither is nudity.

'99 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, not pornography, not age restricted.
[?="Not Safe for Work"][/?]

The fact that this hasn't been brought up yet leads me to two possible conclusions:
1) Either very male that has posted here wasn't alive in '99, or
2) Every male that has posted here loves tha cock.

Yup. Can't disagree with that at all. But, unless you want a new rule, you're gonna have to live with it. That's the bottom line.

Didn't Demi Moore at one time pose in the nude except for the body paint on a national magazine that did not require someone be 18 or older to purchase?

The reason I ask is if it is okay for a magazine to publish that type of picture without it being classified as something unsuitable for younger folks why would it be here?

I can't speak for Tamar, but I'll assume she meant where things that affect the entire board are concerned. Unfortunately, there's no in-between with having certain Avs turned on and off, aside from ignoring that user entirely.

I agree with Elwood in that a case-to-case basis is probably the best policy in determining what is and isn't appropriate, as well as posters--ALL posters--using discretion in what avs they use and where they choose to view the board. It wouldn't be MD's fault if I got fired for viewing WF if I had a job where web surfing was banned (which I did have a few years ago), but at the same time, nudity is kept in the White Room for a reason. Naughty bits = giggle sticks and bare gazungas = not av approrpiate. Not hard to understand, and I hardly find it akin to mod abuse to put some limitations on the things that can and can't be done on this board.

Because depending on where you work you can get fired for shit like Muad Dibs AV.

Someone files a complaint and then they start checking this site out you may get fired for it.

Muad Dib is gonna have to keep his weird fondness for ugly chest painted women to the White Room.

Wordforge is not a magazine.

Well that's that then.

Thread question answered and there's no point in going around in circles further.



Thread closed.