Thread: Avatar Content

Recently, the Moderating team has been asked at an above "normal" rate to ask members to tone down racy avatars, which might be NSFW for some members depending on their own work rules. Primarily, these have been bikini type pictures of women, but some have gone too far and been asked to change their avatar as well.

In the past, we have tried to moderate board content at an approximation of what would be considered a PG-13 level for content. Obviously, nude photos have been completely out of bounds, and politicial statements have not been allowed at all.

Since the question has come up more frequently lately, we thought we would bring it to the board to see what the community as a whole would like us to do. What line would you like us to draw.

Please, the more feedback, the better for us. Where should we draw the line? Are there examples of current avatars that you feel go too far, etc.

Thanks,


Mod Squad

I love women in scantily clad clothing but not in avatars. We have forums for that stuff.

My 2 cents:

My measuring stick for suitable avatars is "Should this picture belong in the Hot Women/Hot Men thread". I understand freedom and democracy and stuff, but I'm also an advocate for common sense. If there is something that I wouldn't hang up on my cubicle wall for all to see, then I don't want that on my computer screen.

I understand the option to turn off avatars, but unfortunately I'd probably just stop coming to this board rather than turn off avatars since it's a simple way to identify individual posters. Would I get used to it? Perhaps. It just seems like it's not worth the loss of easily identifying 95% of the people on this board because 5% of the members on the board want to display something that I can easily search out and find if I want to look at it.

Bottom line for me is that this is a sports fan forum. Not a mechanic's garage, not a porn site, and definitely not a rate my bod site.

I've had avatars and signatures turned off for some time now and use the "work friendly" view of the forum. It was for the above reasons I went this route - some avatars were too racy and some signatures would slow down browsing.

That said, I will continue using work friendly mode regardless of any changes, as I've gotten used to identifying posters by their name and not their avatar.

I would like to apologize to all of the whales I might have offended. Or the grieving fans of Hartford, Connecticut.

I hope my avatar isn't too violent, I know some of you dabble in pacifism.

Personally i dont care who posts what as avatars are sigs. The only avatars i remotely acknowledge are Traveler's but there's little that offends me in that regard. I try to keep mine scaled back but occasionally put one up that pushes the boundaries so for that i apologize to anyone who may have been offended.

The members complaining can turn off images, and use work safe mode. Thats what I do. I hate group punishment. If you dont like the avatars, sigs, or images you have the abilty to remove them.

I have always had my avatars turned off. Am I missing stuff that good???

Always Rav, always....

Originally Posted by Thnikkaman

My 2 cents:

My measuring stick for suitable avatars is "Should this picture belong in the Hot Women/Hot Men thread". I understand freedom and democracy and stuff, but I'm also an advocate for common sense. If there is something that I wouldn't hang up on my cubicle wall for all to see, then I don't want that on my computer screen.

I understand the option to turn off avatars, but unfortunately I'd probably just stop coming to this board rather than turn off avatars since it's a simple way to identify individual posters. Would I get used to it? Perhaps. It just seems like it's not worth the loss of easily identifying 95% of the people on this board because 5% of the members on the board want to display something that I can easily search out and find if I want to look at it.

Bottom line for me is that this is a sports fan forum. Not a mechanic's garage, not a porn site, and definitely not a rate my bod site.

Completely agree. I don't really see the need to make a scantily clad woman (or man) your avatar or sig image on a football forum. Granted it doesn't offend me in the slightest, but when you are browsing at work or in a public area, I can see why you wouldn't want to have stuff like that on your screen.

For those saying "just turn off your avatars", that just makes it harder to browse threads. I'm used to simply identifying posters by their avatars.

Originally Posted by Northman

Personally i dont care who posts what as avatars are sigs. The only avatars i remotely acknowledge are Traveler's but there's little that offends me in that regard. I try to keep mine scaled back but occasionally put one up that pushes the boundaries so for that i apologize to anyone who may have been offended.

I don't think anyone has been "offended" at all, North. Many of the avvys are visions of lovely feminine perfection. Its just that (allegedly) some folks log on to this site from work. Some avvy's could in theory get them in trouble, depending on the work environment. That is not optimal. We are also not and have no interest in becoming a reincarnation of the 1954 Boston Women's Decency Society. There is a balance in there somewhere, and as the rules are member driven we thought we ought to hear from members.

I'm guessing that my avatars are generating some complaints. I'll try to keep them "cleaner."

I was asked to remove a picture of a tree shitting in another trees mouth. I have no clue what was offensive about that

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I was asked to remove a picture of a tree shitting in another trees mouth. I have no clue what was offensive about that

I'd post the pic, but I'd probably get a lifetime ban.