# Avatars (adult imagery on avvies)



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 18, 2006)

An alteration to the avatar submission page telling users that mature images/nudity aren't allowed in avatars.  I just happened to see one while I was browsing the board.  I spazzed out and everything. 

As it is now, there are no guidelines listed for avatars.  I personally think that nudity shouldn't be allowed since there is a user base who is underaged on this site and it is impossible at this point to filter out or cancel avatars.

Thanks!


----------



## Vgm22 (May 18, 2006)

*RE: Avatars*



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> An alteration to the avatar submission page telling users that mature images/nudity aren't allowed in avatars.  I just happened to see one while I was browsing the board.  I spazzed out and everything.
> 
> As it is now, there are no guidelines listed for avatars.  I personally think that nudity shouldn't be allowed since there is a user base who is underaged on this site and it is impossible at this point to filter out or cancel avatars.
> 
> Thanks!



Well Then SW. Report it, if you already haven't.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 18, 2006)

*RE: Avatars*



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> An alteration to the avatar submission page telling users that mature images/nudity aren't allowed in avatars.  I just happened to see one while I was browsing the board.  I spazzed out and everything.
> 
> As it is now, there are no guidelines listed for avatars.  I personally think that nudity shouldn't be allowed since there is a user base who is underaged on this site and it is impossible at this point to filter out or cancel avatars.
> 
> Thanks!


Adult avatars will blown into particle debris like a caterpillar in an atom smasher.

Forums are mandatory "worksafe".


----------



## Brooklyn (May 18, 2006)

*RE:  Avatars*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Forums are mandatory "worksafe".



Except for the textual content of the posts.   (Purely F-bombing a post is bad sure, but not illegal)


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 18, 2006)

*RE:  Avatars*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually was referring to the FA site, sorry for being misleading. ^-^;

Edit:  The avatar I found was the user Zabeth's.


----------



## Diamond (May 21, 2006)

http://furaffinity.net/user/moonbeamcat/


----------



## Dragoneer (May 21, 2006)

*RE:   Avatars*



			
				Brooklyn said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eh, I don't think F-bombs constitute "worksafe". Bosses are more concerned with raging boners and milk-jetting boobies going across their users' screens.


----------



## owenm (May 23, 2006)

I love boobies. But I think a G-rated limit on FA site avatars is a good idea. On the other hand, your avatar is a good indication to others what your artwork is like, and whether or not you post nudity and/or porn.
Maybe a simple one- or two-letter code (G, M, A, etc.) could be added to the end of usernames as they appear in those popup thumbnails when you hover your mouse over a picture? Or something similar.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 24, 2006)

owenm said:
			
		

> I love boobies. But I think a G-rated limit on FA site avatars is a good idea. On the other hand, your avatar is a good indication to others what your artwork is like, and whether or not you post nudity and/or porn.
> Maybe a simple one- or two-letter code (G, M, A, etc.) could be added to the end of usernames as they appear in those popup thumbnails when you hover your mouse over a picture? Or something similar.



You can always sample your work to show off your skill and if people like it, more than likely they'll visit your page where they will actually get to see your work.

I don't think it should be G-rated, but I definitely think that anything shouldn't go above PG, since the age of admission for FA is legally 13.


----------



## Popabear (May 24, 2006)

I never thinked of it that way... hmmm. once I get home, I'm gona change or censure my sigpic ^_^


----------



## Rouge2 (May 28, 2006)

I agree with it, Kids could be looking at FurAffinity and see those Adult Avatars and then the parents see it and makes them get off.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 28, 2006)

Rouge2 said:
			
		

> I agree with it, Kids could be looking at FurAffinity and see those Adult Avatars and then the parents see it and makes them get off.


Well, FA requires people to be a minimum age of 13 to use FA. So, y'know, what 13 year old really hasn't seen boobies by then anyway? =D


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 28, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Rouge2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah really what's the point of rating filters anyways.... gg.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 28, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Heh heh. Well, despite my sarcasm in the above response, I still believe 18 is the magic number. And ratings are always good for those offended by adult material. Read: KAK.


----------



## Marthaen (May 28, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Rouge2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OMG Boobies!


----------



## Calorath (May 28, 2006)

> OMG Boobies!


*SQUEEZE*

>:9


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 28, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm being rather facetious anyways, because I just don't see how it couldn't be anything short of a lack of common sense that one would submit artwork and know it needs to be marked mature or adult, but yet go willy nilly all over the internet with cawk and breasticle avatars XD

If you have to mark your work MATURE because it features nudity or breasts you might think that...oh probably a good idea NOT to have an avatar that goes around said filters.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 28, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amen to that!


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 28, 2006)

Marthaen said:
			
		

> OMG Boobies!



heheh, have you seen the tshirt on Threadless? "Nice Boobies"


----------



## yak (May 28, 2006)

Arshes:  You mean this one?. hehehe...

Ok, enough OT.

I personally am against mature avatars myself, for many, many reasons. 
First of all, yes - it looks ridiculous to hide the art but to leave the avatars. No logic in that.
Secondly, for aesthetical reasons. I do not belive that viewing a general audience avatar will raise as much discontent in the majority of users as seeing some cock fly across the screen.
Thirdly, for pure practical reasons. While at work - i am able to avoid weird looks on myself from other people by scrolling down a page or promptly switching from one tab to another. But in the case of forums or comments - there is no way i can avoid all the 'maturity' (which sounds more like immaturity to me) in teh avatars while i read the text - i can't read 15 line comment in under 5 sec. (and no - i do not browse FA for porn - it is just that it is hard to avoid)


----------



## Brooklyn (Jun 20, 2006)

*RE:    Avatars*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Eh, I don't think F-bombs constitute "worksafe". Bosses are more concerned with raging boners and milk-jetting boobies going across their users' screens.



Well, I was referring to the fact the EVERY member is required to acknowledge a statement saying that no one is responsible (the forum admins, creators, companies, etc.) for the content of posts (textual or otherwise) and that it cannot be adequetly monitored to catch everything and users should access the forums at their own risk and cannot hold anyone accountable except their ownself.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Jun 20, 2006)

*RE:     Avatars*



			
				Brooklyn said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still, there can be guidelines that should be kept when it comes to things like this that can't automatically be filtered out. Yes, it means there will always be some risk since and admin can't always be there to catch every single little perpretrator.

It's like those companies saying that their product makes the air 99.9% cleaner, only so they have that little margin allowed for error or slip-ups.


----------



## WHPellic (Jun 20, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Heh heh. Well, despite my sarcasm in the above response, I still believe 18 is the magic number. And ratings are always good for those offended by adult material. Read: KAK.



It's too late. She already thinks you're Kylen Miles.


----------



## mif_maf (Jun 21, 2006)

I wonder if my avatar's ever inflating boobs would be considered pg-13.


----------



## Myr (Jun 21, 2006)

mif_maf said:
			
		

> I wonder if my avatar's ever inflating boobs would be considered pg-13.


Yep >^.=.^< They're fine. The hands are placed in such a convenient location. If anyone wants to bitch, we'll blame it on a milk-malfunction and just move on. Hey, it worked in the superbowl...


----------



## furryfan87243 (Aug 26, 2007)

So are these avatars not acceptable?

Swinging Boobs

Marge Boobs 1

Marge Boobs 2

I was gonna put them in the "


----------



## Visimar (Aug 27, 2007)

A YEAR? Holy crap.


----------



## Wolfblade (Aug 27, 2007)

Jesus, is that a thread necromancy record?

In any case, as it stands presently, I don't believe those avatars would be violations. Stretching things a bit, yeah... but for the most part with boobie avatars we go with visible nipples or bodily fluids displayed for them to be no-no.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 27, 2007)

There's also a lot of users out there with butt-shot avatars.  I can generally ignore them, but there are a few (such as by this user) which may be pushing the line.


----------



## Jekkal (Aug 27, 2007)

Stratadrake said:
			
		

> There's also a lot of users out there with butt-shot avatars.  I can generally ignore them, but there are a few (such as by this user) which may be pushing the line.



I halfway think the pics in that icon have been censored to boot... and not very well, either. Note the very-very-dark sections making a pathetic attempt to look like a thong.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 27, 2007)

My concern exactly.  They're crotch shots plain as day, blurred or not, and I come from a few sites whose standing policy is that some things are *still* against the rules even when censored.


----------



## furryfan87243 (Sep 5, 2007)

Well in any case I didn't want to make a new thread and then be redirected to this thread


----------

