(03-28-2010, 04:12 PM)sweet georgia brown Wrote: [ -> ]i love how those two have now become the examples for shitty members
I'm pretty sure they must be proud of this accomplishment.
(03-27-2010, 07:53 PM)Koopaul Wrote: [ -> ]People shouldn't have to handle "assholes". Members should feel comfortable in a community.
Unfortunately, the world is full of assholes. If we want to be free of them, then Dazz should turn member registration off and we should have to ban so many users that it wouldn't be fun anymore. Oh, wait, Tyvon is at it, at least at the banning part
And what it have to do with inappropriate names anyway? Maybe we should stick to the topic, shall we?
(03-26-2010, 08:22 AM)Arkinea Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2010, 07:35 PM)sweet georgia brown Wrote: [ -> ]but see the problem with this site being frequented with children and pre-teens is that
the terms of registration clearly state you need to be at least 13
so anyone young enough to be offended by a picture like that wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed here in the first place
That doesn't stop anyone from just browsing the forums.
As if you've never lied about your age on the internet.
Everyone has.
disable sigs/avvys for unregistered users
/issue
...no?
he isn't unregistered...?
(03-29-2010, 05:19 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]...no?
he isn't unregistered...?
oh, wow, I completely misinterpreted that post
(03-29-2010, 05:15 PM)RetroX Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2010, 12:24 AM)Rhymey Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2010, 08:22 AM)Arkinea Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2010, 07:35 PM)sweet georgia brown Wrote: [ -> ]but see the problem with this site being frequented with children and pre-teens is that
the terms of registration clearly state you need to be at least 13
so anyone young enough to be offended by a picture like that wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed here in the first place
That doesn't stop anyone from just browsing the forums.
As if you've never lied about your age on the internet.
Everyone has.
disable sigs/avvys for unregistered users
/issue
So, prevent the members who won't have bad avatars/signatures from changing it and allow people that have the suggestive girls in theirs?
i'm probably going to get warned for flaming but come on kid, either your gay (no offense grooveman) or you haven't hit pubes?
go to your user cp and disable signatures and avatars until you hit pubes, or learn that girls dont have cooties, okay?
(03-29-2010, 05:22 PM)RetroX Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2010, 05:19 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]...no?
he isn't unregistered...?
oh, wow, I completely misinterpreted that post
I explained it to him rhymey
(03-29-2010, 05:29 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2010, 05:22 PM)RetroX Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2010, 05:19 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]...no?
he isn't unregistered...?
oh, wow, I completely misinterpreted that post
I explained it to him rhymey
my point still stands, there's no real reason someone 13+ should have an issue with seeing girls on the internet.
(03-29-2010, 05:31 PM)Rhymey Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2010, 05:29 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2010, 05:22 PM)RetroX Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2010, 05:19 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]...no?
he isn't unregistered...?
oh, wow, I completely misinterpreted that post
I explained it to him rhymey
my point still stands, there's no real reason someone 13+ should have an issue with seeing girls on the internet.
"girls" and "suggestive/nude girls" are not the same.
tSR is a community for a wide range of people, however, it has a few simple rules. Rule #4 is one of them, and these images are pretty much breaking it.
If we wanted porn, we would go to a site for it; it's not hard to find. I'm sure that a lot of the people here do indeed look at pornography, however, they probably don't want to see it here.
The fact that we have come here and expect that the members will be good enough to not break the rules is not a whole lot to ask, and really, if it's too much for you, I don't know what to say.
Rule 4 is porn.
Suggestive images =/= porn, therefore no rules are being broken.
I can somewhat see where you're coming from with the pictures of the naked girls that have their "naked parts" cut out of the image, but for stuff like rhymey's where she's actually wearing something, your argument has no validity.
(03-29-2010, 06:36 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]Rule 4 is porn.
Suggestive images =/= porn, therefore no rules are being broken.
I can somewhat see where you're coming from with the pictures of the naked girls that have their "naked parts" cut out of the image, but for stuff like rhymey's where she's actually wearing something, your argument has no validity.
pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
Does not require nudity.
It honestly doesn't matter- we're trying to increase the stature and viewpoint of the forum, and by allowing signatures and avatars with almost naked women in them makes us look... sort of unprofessional.
You might say, well, Dex, isn't this a mature enough forum to handle such things as suggestive images?
Well, gee, yes, in some cases, but it's also a forum immature enough to complain about the nature of a SPAMHAUL and such. We're also a spriting forum, which appeals to youth; I joined when I was only 13, so it's obvious that younger members are going to be the standard, or at least the substandard.
People that don't want to see specifically one certain avatar should have to turn avatars off just because of that; it'd be much easier to just change said avatar, which is what you'll probably start seeing.
tSR is aiming to be a more friendly and mature website- by eliminating pointless names and signatures/avatars like the ones above, we start to enhance those ideals, which is why we're taking this first step now.
That's not to say that images like such will be grounds for banning- no no, we'll still allow them in SPAMHAUL, but we've got to start being less tolerant of what goes on everywhere else.
We hope you all understand!
(03-29-2010, 07:08 PM)Rhymey Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2010, 06:48 PM)RetroX Wrote: [ -> ]pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
Does not require nudity.
(03-29-2010, 06:36 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]Rule 4 is porn.
Suggestive images =/= porn, therefore no rules are being broken.
Gee, thanks for completely ignoring my point and the definition listed in my post. It's not in the rules, and that entitles it to be completely acceptable.
And as far as maturity goes, "maturity" is more on the ability to handle content like suggestive images. Not the fact that you can blatantly post them around the place (which is considerably immature, by the way).
Being childish isn't a way to make a point about what is porn and what isn't. How old are you, Rhymey? 12? So if a Playboy girl uses a bikini at the cover or got something in front of her it's not porn?
Definition from wikipedia: "Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction."
But it isn't about the definition of pornography, but keep in mind you're at a sprites forum. Kids enter here looking for Mario, Sonic and Pokemon. It's not appropriate for a place like this. It's about having some common sense.
Can you guys really tell me why are you making such a fuss?