About having "female" signatures...

Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
It seems that most of those signatures were removed last time . . . if you see any new ones, by all means screen cap and report them. Otherwise it appears this matter is closed.
 
Active Member
★ Black Lounger ★
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
8,229
Best answers
0
Location
December
Spunky said:
Haven't you heard? Lukyas sees all...............................on the internet.
...That's me. Damaera. But I guarentee you, Lukyas' face is in my signature! It's not me!
 
whereswarren (King_Vegeta)
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
So what? DJ gets off free?

"Alright so basically anything sexually explicit is not allowed as you can see. So from here on out if you post a sexually explicit sig in this forum you will earn yourself an immediate warning from either the other mods/admins or myself and I will see to it personally that I check this section frequently for such infractions."

What about his warnings?

Oh right favoritisms, silly me.

Can we also get Clear Guidelines on what we can and cannot have in our sigs?

Is a female dressed in a swim suit considered sexually explicit?

And how is this:
any different to this:


Is it because the angle is slightly different? If anything the first "acceptable" picture is more "sexually explicit" in content because of the context and expression of the featured character, where as the second looks to be a representation of a person caught unawares or off guard from an advantageous angle and shows a blank emotion and no signs of sexual expression.

The guidelines are incredibly blurred and for a matter that earns us "instant warnings" I think more clear cut rules need to be put into place.
 
The Duke of Juke
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,852
Best answers
0
wheres_warren said:
So what? DJ gets off free?

"Alright so basically anything sexually explicit is not allowed as you can see. So from here on out if you post a sexually explicit sig in this forum you will earn yourself an immediate warning from either the other mods/admins or myself and I will see to it personally that I check this section frequently for such infractions."

What about his warnings?

Oh right favoritisms, silly me.

Can we also get Clear Guidelines on what we can and cannot have in our sigs?

Is a female dressed in a swim suit considered sexually explicit?

And how is this:
any different to this:


Is it because the angle is slightly different? If anything the first "acceptable" picture is more "sexually explicit" in content because of the context and expression of the featured character, where as the second looks to be a representation of a person caught unawares or off guard from an advantageous angle and shows a blank emotion and no signs of sexual expression.

The guidelines are incredibly blurred and for a matter that earns us "instant warnings" I think more clear cut rules need to be put into place.
Wow warren, you seem to be pretty upset with things overall lately, but you bring up valid points. It's tough dealing with Ready because he's a team member and that puts him higher up on the pseudo-heirarchy than just forum staff.

I can't seem to find the AUP at the moment(hope sky or Cuc has a backup) but essentially no nudity including "hand-bras" and camel toes is acceptable.

Want to know why you see the rules as blurry? It's hard to make a good set of functional rules in this situation. I see the bottom as more sexual even if it is a moment caught unaware due to the camel toe.
 
Active Member
★ Black Lounger ★
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
8,229
Best answers
0
Location
December
The first one seems fine. I usually see that in evry single one of DJ's pictures.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,309
Best answers
0
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
Personally, a change in the rules could be at hand.

The change I'd want to see is that people don't get immediate warnings, but rather, get PM'd to change it within a certain time frame (I.E. 24 hours, 12 hours etc.)

If they do not comply remove the sig.

Also, unless the picture is explicitly drawn to scream "OH **** ME HARD~" or "Does this picture give you a boner? ;)" Then, without a doubt you can warn them.

There *IS* A fine line, like if a picture of a girl is just laying in bed with sheets and a bra and panties on. that's fine to me. But if a girl is sitting there on her ass with her legs spread open with camel toe / grabbing her boob winking at you, then that's kinda over the line.

Ya smellin me, dawg?!

edit: I'm still kinda sad my sig got the boot. That was my favorite signature I made :(
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Location
Round Rock, TX


*cough*

It doesn't go as far as it could, but it's still not right.
 
The Duke of Juke
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,852
Best answers
0
Kaination said:
Personally, a change in the rules could be at hand.

The change I'd want to see is that people don't get immediate warnings, but rather, get PM'd to change it within a certain time frame (I.E. 24 hours, 12 hours etc.)
That is exactly how we handle it :p
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
Last two times I brought this up, I was shushed by the admins lol. So typical.
 
whereswarren (King_Vegeta)
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
Can't talk the talk origin.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
Does it even matter? I gave up trying to make my point about admins abiding by the rules.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
Yes it actually does. As far as DJ abiding by the rules, he has been campaigning against the decency one for a while. He was asked not to put pictures like that in his signature. Now that he has another one in there he'll be asked to remove it again, if he doesn't in 24 hours, he'll be warned. Things aren't quite so simple when he's a member of the development team, since they are the reason this board is here.

As for shushing, I find that hard to believe. If you don't want to say anything about it, then don't ***** about it not being fixed. PM me the names if you want it private.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
It wasn't so much shushing as it was defending a very, very clear violation of the rules posted. Funnily enough, though. I pointed this exact same thing out nearly 3 months ago and I guess DJ is laughing his ass off at supposedly being warned all the time. 3 months of warnings and no consequence. Brilliant.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
No, he was told to immediately remove them and he said he did. Apparently he has added another questionable one.

If you haven't noticed, NO ONE GETS CONSEQUENCES from sig violations other than non-voluntary removal of said signatures unless they are blatantly pornographic. There is no double standard. Show me where someone has been warned for something like that and had that warning count towards a ban.

Go ahead, show me this clearly corrupt administrations dirty laundry.
 

L

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
1,069
Best answers
0
Location
B.C, Canada

Now is this suddenly plausible to be used?
The edit may not be obvious but the underwear in question that gives off that 'camel toe' look is not from them being skin tight, but they look rather snug.
So the crease there is obviously from the cloth folding over itself since it's also occurring from the eh, crack.

Which I'll add this is very odd talking about an anime character in this fashion.
 
whereswarren (King_Vegeta)
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
Deman said:
Wow warren, you seem to be pretty upset with things overall lately, but you bring up valid points. It's tough dealing with Ready because he's a team member and that puts him higher up on the pseudo-heirarchy than just forum staff.

I can't seem to find the AUP at the moment(hope sky or Cuc has a backup) but essentially no nudity including "hand-bras" and camel toes is acceptable.

Want to know why you see the rules as blurry? It's hard to make a good set of functional rules in this situation. I see the bottom as more sexual even if it is a moment caught unaware due to the camel toe.
I am terribly upset :p

But I love DJ and camel toe so I don't really care. tbh.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
Fatal_CobraX said:

Now is this suddenly plausible to be used?
The edit may not be obvious but the underwear in question that gives off that 'camel toe' look is not from them being skin tight, but they look rather snug.
So the crease there is obviously from the cloth folding over itself since it's also occurring from the eh, crack.

Which I'll add this is very odd talking about an anime character in this fashion.
No, this is not alright, it's obviously focusing on the only part of the body, say, ***** would like.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom