[Suggestion] Adult Avatar / Signatures

• TA wrote on 2012-01-30 01:36

  Quote from Rair902;754330:

  would my profile pic be considered appropriate? o.o

  
  
  Your profile pic is fine.
  
  Your signature is too big though (394px × 279px) - see our regulations here: http://mabination.com/threads/38577-NEW!-Signatures!-%28now-with-more-regulation%29
  
  If you need help with resizing, there's a thread for that here: http://mabination.com/threads/38588-Help-with-new-Signature-Size-Regulations
• Zid wrote on 2012-01-30 01:46
  This is pushing it beyond the purpose of Rua's House. That thread section was about discussions of mature things, from sexual matters, to violent revelations, and, most beneficially, to discuss personal matters deemed too private to share outside of that section. One of the rules of that section was to not post obvious pornography or similar.
  
  

  Quote from Rules of Rua's House:

  The only thing that changes is the allowed content. Mature discussions are allowed, but they should be kept civilized and not borderline textporn. Use your judgement.
  
  For visual content, tasteful, artistic nudity is allowed. Use your judgement again. For example a still life of a nude model = okay. A nude person touching themselves in naughty places, not so much.

  
  
  I admit there's hypocrisy about perverted content in Bean Rua. Maybe something should be done about that before considering this proposal.
  
  There's also the fact:
  
  

  Quote from TA;753927:

  - Available in Settings for users of age 18 or higher.

  
  
  Is easily circumvented. Way too easy. The only way to have access to Rua's House was through asking and proving your mentality to Osayidan in the first place.
• Kollin wrote on 2012-01-30 01:48

  Quote from animeshadows;754268:

  An option to not see a user's signature or avatar, as opposed to every avatar/signature might be something useful as well...

  
  
  This would be a better option, of course we can still implement an option to hide all 18+ avatars and sigs. I also don't care either way on the 18+ sigs/avatars, as long as it isn't straight up pornography. Suggestive ones are fine. No vaginae (multiple vagina, not sure if I got the word correct) or dicks everywhere.
• Skye wrote on 2012-01-30 01:49
  Just to quell further arguments, this isn't about who's good and bad. This about a suggestion. So, to everyone in this thread, just talk about that. Take arguments to private messages or whatever.
• TA wrote on 2012-01-30 02:14

  Quote from animeshadows;754155:

  I would prefer this option, mainly because in my house because my parents know not of the concept of knocking on the door, and are entirely protective in every single way, shape, and form. Adding to this note that my father moderates a large forum community himself, seeing a "Super Mod" with ass and boobs in their avatar tends to put and extremely negative image of this forum in his mind.
  
  So yeah. The ability to sensor signatures and avatars that are "mature" would be much appreciated so I'm not thrown off of these forums. (And I doubt that I'm the only person with this problem.) However, I would advise a slight modification of a suggestion you made in the original post. The ability to view "mature" avatars and signatures should be available to all, though the ability to upload "mature" content to your own avatar and signature should rely on a user-level, so as to avoid being abused.
  
  Additionally, because this forum seems to have a rule book, but no terms of service to agree to, I would add a little blip in the rules they agree to that "Mabination is not responsible for offensive content accessed by those who have registered under a false account age...." or something along those lines... With lawsuit-culture prominent in the US, some parents could go insane, regardless of it is their child's fault or not.

  
  
  By the way, you can use Adblock Plus to remove my signature + avatar manually, that way it doesn't come up while you're being watched, if it's a problem in a very conservative environment.
  
  There's also a Setting to not display avatars or signatures.
• Elena wrote on 2012-01-30 02:29
  Call me a prude or whatever but I don't really like this. First, there's already enough things allowed where this shouldn't be a problem. I had a naked, drawn butt as a signature and no one (neither staff or other users) complained about it. I also had another pretty suggestive signature and while someone did say something about it, I was allowed to keep it. Why would we need anything beyond really obvious but still covered nudity? Is it really necessary to go that far? I say what you have right now should be around the limits of what should be allowed. I get that it would be "hidden" but this whole thing doesn't sit right with me. If we already allow nudity and what may possibly be cropped porn, what's beyond that? Don't really care to have that on here.
• animeshadows wrote on 2012-01-30 02:55
  Overall, certain rules need rewriting or a revisit. OP's suggestion makes perfect sense, though, given the current content of the forums, I think some rules need removal. (Which I did submit in a separate PM.)
• Morrigan wrote on 2012-01-30 04:57

  Quote from TA;754352:

  I don't know why everyone loves jumping to conclusions like this... @_@
  
  Nooo, this had nothing to do with it. I just thought it would be a good idea. Because, well... (no offense to anyone)... there are a lot of prudes here. Seems it would be better if people could control whether they see risqué stuff or not rather than having to disable them globally to avoid anything. Beyond that, it'd also open it up and make it easier to answer questions like this thread is asking.
  
  If the users are 18+, I don't see any reason why not. Anywho... off-topic.

  
  
  A lot of people don't want to see porn 24/7. I personally feel uncomfortable seeing a half naked woman, and a woman's ass. Sure, it would be a good idea, but you'd be the only one using it, since you seem to feel the need to have porn as your signature and avatar. o.o
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-30 05:14

  Quote from Morrigan;754669:

  A lot of people don't want to see porn 24/7. I personally feel uncomfortable seeing a half naked woman, and a woman's ass. Sure, it would be a good idea, but you'd be the only one using it, since you seem to feel the need to have porn as your signature and avatar. o.o

  
  
  Which is probably why she said it would be an option you can toggle.
• Morrigan wrote on 2012-01-30 05:18

  Quote from Cynic;754696:

  Which is probably why she said it would be an option you can toggle.

  
  
  Yes, but she'd be the only one using it. Why make Osay impliment something like that when no one would use it?
  
  
  Anywho, I suppose the bootyshorts one is fine.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-01-30 05:52
  Somehow the discussion was moved to this thread. I knew it was going to go downhill the moment I saw it.
  
  But why don't we take a more constructive approach to this.
  
  Since the feature, if it ever gets implemented, would be a xenforo feature, we'll think about it in terms of how we want osay to make it in the new site.
  
  If we're doing a feature like this, an image we submit as a signature or avatar would be judged by the uploader as to whether or not is risque. TA for one, has a rather loose definition of what constitutes an inappropriate image, so while she might upload something that she thinks doesn't require her to tag off the mature content, others might.
  
  This leads to an issue of people who opted out of seeing mature content still seeing them. But people don't want to be prudes or come off as whiny little brats, so they don't really report the image.
  
  This could happen with just about anyone.
  
  How about a tag feature? Users themselves can tag an image for having mature content and it would automatically be shifted to being exactly that. If a user is trolling or is in poor judgement you could always remove the tag by consulting with a staff member. It would be an easy way of managing the site's inappropriate placement of risque images without causing staff too much trouble or making individuals feel like a jerk for reporting it.
  
  Personally I don't care for the risque images, and on a regular day I'd probably use the feature myself. But I also want to keep things civilized and taking risks just makes things messy. Also I use nation quite often in public so I'd rather not browse asses in front of people.
• Chihaya wrote on 2012-01-30 20:05
  Personally, I want to know what would be the "borderline" appropriate after incorporating this feature =P
• TA wrote on 2012-01-30 20:56

  Quote from Chihaya;755790:

  Personally, I want to know what would be the "borderline" appropriate after incorporating this feature =P

  
  
  I think we would use a policy like "If you have to ask, then veer on the safe side."
  
  The idea is not just so users could display outright nudity in their avatars and signatures, but to protect the rest of the userbase from adult or otherwise NSFW (Not Safe For Work) material.
  
  So for instance, a heavy ecchi set like I have right now, it would have to use this system, and as such, it would prevent anyone with it unchecked from seeing it - that is, it would protect our users that are at work, school, or are in otherwise conservative environments where such a thing would be frowned upon or disallowed, while still allowing our userbase a bit more freedom.
  
  In short, it's the "do not display signatures or avatars" checkbox at current, but with a slightly wider variety, as to not just be there for bandwidth protection, but as another option to weed out NSFW content for those in such environments while remaining lenient and relaxed with our userbase, as far as things go. All, of course, while still serving to display safe avatars & signatures for easy recognition of other users.
  
  It would, of course, allow for "dirtier" av/sig sets, but... the point, overall, is to protect the users that don't, or can't, see such stuff in the environments they're in, while remaining fair to the rest of users who can, or don't mind such.
  
  I think that's the best way I can describe it.
• TropicalCat wrote on 2012-01-30 21:17

  Quote from Elena;754458:

  Call me a prude or whatever but I don't really like this. First, there's already enough things allowed where this shouldn't be a problem. I had a naked, drawn butt as a signature and no one (neither staff or other users) complained about it. I also had another pretty suggestive signature and while someone did say something about it, I was allowed to keep it. Why would we need anything beyond really obvious but still covered nudity? Is it really necessary to go that far? I say what you have right now should be around the limits of what should be allowed. I get that it would be "hidden" but this whole thing doesn't sit right with me. If we already allow nudity and what may possibly be cropped porn, what's beyond that? Don't really care to have that on here.

  
  
  They show butts on kids shows, I don't really see whats wrong.
  
  

  Quote from Morrigan;754669:

  A lot of people don't want to see porn 24/7. I personally feel uncomfortable seeing a half naked woman, and a woman's ass. Sure, it would be a good idea, but you'd be the only one using it, since you seem to feel the need to have porn as your signature and avatar. o.o

  
  
  This, But you gotta remember the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech and such, But on the other hand, theres innocent 10 year olds on the internet as well.
  But I compleatly Agree.
• TA wrote on 2012-01-30 21:21
  Actually, I wholly disagree with that blanket statement. Wildly proclaiming I would be the only one to use it... really?
  
  That's just silly. I'm sure there are lots of users that would take advantage of the option, were it available. The vocal minority being fairly opposed doesn't say much, as those that have no problem with it are given little reason to feel the need to reply since if it were established then they would be okay with it; that, therein, leads to those that dislike the proposal to be more prone to commenting their opinion on the matter.
  
  Anyways, the latter statement feels a little offensive, so I won't reply to it.