Should we bother reporting offensive/NSFW avatar links? Any recourse in this situation?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Garfield226

Perhaps I do. Was the address labeled NSFW? A poster on the first page said it wasn't.

FI later added a NSFW label. Of course it's all moot as he's taken the link down anyway.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

It's not that they haven't answered-they have, more than once now.
It's that you will only accept an answer that gives you what you want.

Edited to add: Jack Batty is wonderful.

I read each post but I haven't seen a post by a mod or admin that says "The rule regarding content of posts applies to user profiles as well" I think that is all I'm really trying to understand.

The discussion gets split by constant hairsplitting, etc. as is the case with many ATMB threads. It's a simple question - do all the same rules about posting in threads apply to posting in one's own profile - nothing to do with avatars, just a general question about board policy.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Garfield226

Well, no. If a poster posts something that breaks the rules or that I just personally don't like, I have the ability to police it myself whether it's a NSFW address in a profile or excessive profanity or graped text or whatever. The "what we do is irrelevant, since you can police it yourself" standard thus applies to everything on the board.

Like I said, this is nonsense, unless what you mean is that you have the ability to invoke the ignore function. (Of course that means you have to ignore all posts by the poster, not just the ones that offend you). You have no capacity to make a poster stop breaking the rules; we do.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Garfield226

Hey, Fear Itself: Jack Batty is wonderful.

I was waiting for the perfect moment to whip that out. Hoist on my own petard again!

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Precisely whose definition of "offensive" are we using?

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Full Tilt Boogie

Precisely whose definition of "offensive" are we using?

I think this one, but who knows?

(2) LINKS SHOULD BE WORKPLACE-SAFE
This means in terms of sounds as well as visual content. A site that is not safe for workplace is sometimes called "NSFW." Note that being "workplace safe" doesn't just mean that there's no nudity or explicit visible sex. A page with a flashing banner in large, bright colors that says "Hot Nubile Young Teens" would NOT be workplace safe. The criteria is: if your boss walked by while that was on your screen, would it cause her/him to stop and stare, and would it potentially cause problems at work? If yes, then don't provide a direct link.

Please understand: we're not trying to impose censorship. We just don't want anyone inadvertently clicking on a link to something that could be career-limiting if their boss happens to walk by. Lots of our members read the boards during work hours, and it's easy to accidentally click a link when you're scrolling or mouse-over-ing or whatever. We basically don't care where you link as long as no one can get there accidentally.

The goal is to set things up so that no one gets to such a website unintentionally; it requires TWO clicks, rather than just one click, to get to a site that is not safe for workplace. That's our two-click rule.

So, on one hand the link FI put in his profile was clearly NSFW by the board's general definition of the term, and was not accompanied by any NSFW warning until long after the post.

But on the other hand, links put into user profiles are never directly clickable so they all comply with a '2 click' rule by default.

On the third hand deliberately trolling other users and doing things just to be a jerk is usually against the rules even if any links or post contents that were part of that behavior were completely SFW.

All in all, for lack of any direct clarification by TPTB we can probably take from this that any link to any content can be added to a SDMB profile even without a NSFW warning because it isn't clickable and has to be manually copy/pasted in order to see the link.

Without any aggravating circumstances like deliberate trolling, having threadshit in a thread that the link is related to shortly before placing the link, etc. it would appear that profiles are 'anything goes'. My guess is if this loophole were exploited for anything other than trying to annoy avatar users TPTB would revisit the issue with a different perspective so I would leave it to others if they want to test the boundaries.

For SDMB Avatar users who intentionally harass, the problem can be rectified easily by just blocking the avatar. In special circumstances if warranted the admin of the SDMB Avatar server can block the offender from using the avatar system and/or assign them any avatar of his own choosing.

[Garfield226]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Like I said, this is nonsense, unless what you mean is that you have the ability to invoke the ignore function. (Of course that means you have to ignore all posts by the poster, not just the ones that offend you). You have no capacity to make a poster stop breaking the rules; we do.

It doesn't matter what you do here, since script users have the ability to police NSFW avatars by assigning the poster whatever avatar they wish using the script.

It doesn't matter what you do here, since any member has the ability to police jerks, trolls, spammers or folks who post foul language or purple text or links to Fox News using a script.

What you do here is irrelevant because [people who are annoyed] have the ability to police [annoying behavior] using a script.

(I don't actually think that's true, just trying to follow your logic to its conclusion)

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

My guess is if this loophole were exploited for anything other than trying to annoy avatar users TPTB would revisit the issue with a different perspective so I would leave it to others if they want to test the boundaries.

I'm sure I can't be the only one waiting breathlessly for this chilling hypothesis to be tested. If you are correct (and I shudder to even consider it) the consequences for this board— nay, for the very social fabric itself— could be so dire and catastrophic, the world as we know it may never look the same.

I know I, for one, won't sleep again until some idiot decides to put a link to Tubgirl in his profile. Will he earn a retributive "knock it off" from the powers that be, or will the cowl of injustice continue to cast its dark shadow over us all? My guts churn like a traditional top-loader!

[Guinastasia]

So basically, if I want to post a link to Two Girls, One Cup in my profile, all I have to do is label it "NSFW"? Cool.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

Not that it has been a big problem, only one person so far (who was opposed to avatars from the start and is most likely not using the script) has attempted to game the system. But future versions might need to include a simpler way to handle it if that assumption about TPTB moderating profile contents, whoever the intended audience is, was incorrect.

Wouldn't that obviously fall under the "Don't be a jerk" rule? Couldn't one even argue that he's deliberately trolling, since his intentions were to mess with people who wanted avatars? He didn't want them, he wasn't even using the script, so he decided to go and poke people who were. He was intentionally being an asshole, and THAT, I would think, is what people are most upset about.


I don't care if the mods police the avatars themselves. I do think they should be consistant over whether or not someone's deliberately acting like a turd.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Garfield226

It doesn't matter what you do here, since script users have the ability to police NSFW avatars by assigning the poster whatever avatar they wish using the script.

It doesn't matter what you do here, since any member has the ability to police jerks, trolls, spammers or folks who post foul language or purple text or links to Fox News using a script.

What you do here is irrelevant because [people who are annoyed] have the ability to police [annoying behavior] using a script.

(I don't actually think that's true, just trying to follow your logic to its conclusion)

No, it's still nonsense which doesn't follow from my statement. A script would not allow people to police jerks, trolls, spam, or anything else that you list. I don't think it's necessary to respond further to such a ridiculous assertion.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

I would think, is what people are most upset about.

I don't think "most" people are upset.

As an avatar script user, I'm embarrassed the question in the OP was even asked.

Who cares if he was trying to be a jerk? If you don't like the image, then disable his profile in the script, it's that easy.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

I read each post but I haven't seen a post by a mod or admin that says "The rule regarding content of posts applies to user profiles as well" I think that is all I'm really trying to understand.

I'm giving my personal opinion here, since we haven't had a general staff discussion about this. I would say that the general answer is yes. However, we don't police profiles as closely as threads, since most information already requires a couple of clicks to access

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

On the third hand deliberately trolling other users and doing things just to be a jerk is usually against the rules even if any links or post contents that were part of that behavior were completely SFW.

You keep characterizing this as "trolling" or "being a jerk," but (again in my opinion) it doesn't rise to that level. We don't police all behavior that other members consider annoying, even if deliberate, as is being currently discussed in another ATMB thread. This was a pretty low-grade annoyance, especially since it can so easily be blocked/changed.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

However, one of the built-in mechanisms in the script to avoid outrageously disgusting or offensive links was an assumption that outrageously disgusting or offensive links were already not permitted in SDMB profiles so it wouldn't ever come up. I was just seeking clarification of that point.

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

So basically, if I want to post a link to Two Girls, One Cup in my profile, all I have to do is label it "NSFW"? Cool.

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

I know I, for one, won't sleep again until some idiot decides to put a link to Tubgirl in his profile. Will he earn a retributive "knock it off" from the powers that be, or will the cowl of injustice continue to cast its dark shadow over us all? My guts churn like a traditional top-loader!

Seriously? You regard the image that was posted as "outrageously disgusting and offensive"? You feel it was the equivalent of Two Girls, One Cup or Tub Girl? (OK, I know Vinyl is never serious.) If so, I'd have to say you have very low tolerance for offense or disgust. Prime time TV or the average beach features sights that are equally "disgusting" and "offensive" (probably more so).

In my view, I expect that we would have posters take down links to images like Goatse, Two Girls One Cup, or Tub Girl, regardless of any NSFW warnings or any issues with a script. (It's possible we might allow such links as part of a thread discussing such famous internet images, with appropriate disclaimers, but again that's my opinion, not a policy statement.)

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Garfield226

It doesn't matter what you do here, since script users have the ability to police NSFW avatars by assigning the poster whatever avatar they wish using the script.

It doesn't matter what you do here, since any member has the ability to police jerks, trolls, spammers or folks who post foul language or purple text or links to Fox News using a script.

What you do here is irrelevant because [people who are annoyed] have the ability to police [annoying behavior] using a script.

(I don't actually think that's true, just trying to follow your logic to its conclusion)

I honestly have no idea what argument you're trying to make, but just in case you're actually confused about how this stuff works, I'll spell it out:

The mods only care about the content that appears on the site in its default, unscripted state. They decided that the url Fear Itself put in his profile did not break any rules, because of how it appears to people viewing the site in its default, unscripted state. Because that's all they care about.

Any additional commentary about how easy it is for script users to avoid having to see avatars they don't like doesn't change that central point. The fact that Fear Itself was able to potentially annoy script users with this behavior also doesn't change that central point. The fact that you can construct alternate realities in which all moderation is done by personal scripting doesn't change that central point.

It's really not hard.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Originally Posted by Colibri

...OK, I know Vinyl is never serious...

Try cracking a joke about a tragedy too soon and see if he doesn't get serious as a bomb threat.

[MsWhatsit]

Originally Posted by Nzinga, Seated

Try cracking a joke about a tragedy too soon and see if he doesn't get serious as a bomb threat.

...a funny bomb threat?

[Nzinga, Seated]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

...a funny bomb threat?

Well yeah. But only after we check to be sure no babies were blown to bits and all dopers are ok.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Nzinga, Seated

Well yeah. But only after we check to be sure no babies were blown to bits and all dopers are ok.

How can a bomb threat be funny without babies blown to bits? Or at least the threat of babies being blown to bits.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Colibri

You keep characterizing this as "trolling" or "being a jerk," but (again in my opinion) it doesn't rise to that level. We don't police all behavior that other members consider annoying, even if deliberate, as is being currently discussed in another ATMB thread. This was a pretty low-grade annoyance, especially since it can so easily be blocked/changed. [...]

Seriously? You regard the image that was posted as "outrageously disgusting and offensive"? You feel it was the equivalent of Two Girls, One Cup or Tub Girl? (OK, I know Vinyl is never serious.) If so, I'd have to say you have very low tolerance for offense or disgust. Prime time TV or the average beach features sights that are equally "disgusting" and "offensive" (probably more so)

Speaking for myself, I didn't find it outrageously disgusting and had it been a funny made by an avatar user, simply blocking the image if it offended would have been the best and only way to handle the entire matter (again speaking for myself). But it raised a larger hypothetical question about what is permissible in profile text, if the same would apply if it were outrageously disgusting. Between your answer here and the answers in the other ATMB thread on profile text, it has been addressed and I appreciate the answers.

As far as trolling, being a jerk, etc., normally I'm pretty sure if I came in to a thread about a given subject and posted "I'm not interested in this" it would be threadshitting, and if I went on to post a link in my profile that related to "this" whatever the subject was, it might be considered a little jerkish or trollish, and if it turned out to be NSFW with no warning, maybe more so.

The specifics in this case were very mild abuse, if one even wants to call it that, and for my part I was asking only for clarification for hypothetical cases in the future. The reality is there probably won't be many as there aren't really all that many who have enough time to dedicate any to anti-avatar activism.

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Wouldn't that obviously fall under the "Don't be a jerk" rule? Couldn't one even argue that he's deliberately trolling, since his intentions were to mess with people who wanted avatars? He didn't want them, he wasn't even using the script, so he decided to go and poke people who were. He was intentionally being an asshole, and THAT, I would think, is what people are most upset about.


I don't care if the mods police the avatars themselves. I do think they should be consistant over whether or not someone's deliberately acting like a turd.

Sort of makes you feel like a gay vegetarian on Chick-Fil-A appreciation day doesn't it?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

The reality is there probably won't be many as there aren't really all that many who have enough time to dedicate any to anti-avatar activism.

This I see as the main problem. I'm a staunch opponent of avatars. I live in continuous dread that somehow, somewhere, someone out there is having fun, or at least is mildly amused. Sadly though there just isn't enough time to give this issue the attention it deserves. Fourteen pages of thread really isn't enough. Very unfortunate.

What to do. What to do.

[Guinastasia]

Colibre, of course it's nowhere near TGOC. I was using that as an example.

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

I don't think "most" people are upset.

I think you know what I meant. I didn't say "most people", I said "people most", as in, "those who are upset". Jesus.


I don't want the admins to police avatars -- like I said, I can disable them with the script. I do think they should look at who's acting like a dick by posting stuff just to piss people off.

The rules around here are like a huge game of Calvin Ball sometimes.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

I think you know what I meant. I didn't say "most people", I said "people most", as in, "those who are upset". Jesus.

I read that wrong, I retract what I said.

I don't want the admins to police avatars -- like I said, I can disable them with the script. I do think they should look at who's acting like a dick by posting stuff just to piss people off.

The rules around here are like a huge game of Calvin Ball sometimes.

I disagree.

I don't think the mods should get asked to deal with trivial matters like this.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Colibre, of course it's nowhere near TGOC. I was using that as an example.

If you knew it wasn't anywhere near Two Girls One Cup, it doesn't make any sense for you to say you thought it would be OK for you to put a link to it in your profile or use it as an example. It would be better not to post comparisons you already know to be ridiculous in discussions here - it's not really helpful.

[spinky]

It seems that if you phrase your questions in the right way, you can get a direct answer on this issue.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by spinky

It seems that if you phrase your questions in the right way, you can get a direct answer on this issue.

There was actually an answer given in this very thread, post 14, less than 45 minutes after the question was asked. Most people moved on after that, except for a few that don't want to leave well enough alone and just want to stir the pot.

EDIT---actually, around post #20 the question was asked again, more generally, but seemed to get lost in a bunch of tangential arguments.

[Patty O'Furniture]

But if you continue reading the rest of the replies, it's clear that the answer was somewhat unsatisfying, and since no opinion was offered about whether or not the DBAJ rule was broken (which is a key point that many are focusing on here), people understandably continued to ask for further clarification.

Originally Posted by Colibri

Seems like the way to go.

I can't imagine why you would want to do this,. We've stated before that we don't support or endorse the greasemonkey script or other add-ons. You're welcome to use it if you want, but if it has results you don't like you're on your own.

This answer is just a bit more satisfying than a shrug, and it doesn't say anything about members who use off-board content to provoke other members. I don't think anybody bothered to answer the question of whether or not the DBAJ rule was broken until Dex finally made his cameo very late in the thread.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

But if you continue reading the rest of the replies, it's clear that the answer was somewhat unsatisfying, and since no opinion was offered about whether or not the DBAJ rule was broken (which is a key point that many are focusing on here), people understandably continued to ask for further clarification.

Perhaps, but in all honesty asking a direct question as was implied in the post I replied to wouldn't have helped anyway, as people would then bring up new points only indirectly related to the original question. Which then brings "us" to the point "we" are at (and the answer to those points has been given, and people are still not satisfied, on both sides, making an outside observer thinking they are arguing just for the sake of argument).

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

But if you continue reading the rest of the replies, it's clear that the answer was somewhat unsatisfying, and since no opinion was offered about whether or not the DBAJ rule was broken (which is a key point that many are focusing on here), people understandably continued to ask for further clarification.

See my post #262. Many posters do things that are annoying to other posters (e.g., sign-offs, signatures, catchphrases). We don't necessarily require them to stop if they are low-grade annoyances. In my personal opinion this was at worst a petty annoyance, and one that could easily be remedied by anyone who didn't like it.

This answer is just a bit more satisfying than a shrug, and it doesn't say anything about members who use off-board content to provoke other members. I don't think anybody bothered to answer the question of whether or not the DBAJ rule was broken until Dex finally made his cameo very late in the thread.

Even given the above, as we've said we're generally not going to concern ourselves with what people do off-board, and we consider the script to be a non-board issue.

[spinky]

Originally Posted by srzss05

There was actually an answer given in this very thread, post 14, less than 45 minutes after the question was asked. Most people moved on after that, except for a few that don't want to leave well enough alone and just want to stir the pot.

EDIT---actually, around post #20 the question was asked again, more generally, but seemed to get lost in a bunch of tangential arguments.

The answer given in post 14 didn't answer the underlying questions, which is why I started the other thread. This discussion here was getting too bogged down in arguing from a pro-avatar or anti-avatar stance. The question that many were trying to get answered wasn't whether people who use the avatar script should be specifically protected from seeing NSFW stuff, but rather whether everyone should be able to count on links in profiles being worksafe (or labeled NSFW). That certainly did not get answered quickly or simply. In fact, post 262 might be the first decent answer in this thread.

[jackdavinci]

Seriously, let this thread die already. If you encounter an offensive avatar while using the script, change it yourself. If by some bizarre convoluted series of events you click on an offensive link in a profile feel free to PM the user or report it. But please don't pretend this happened if you really discovered it through the script. End of story. Geez.

If you post an avatar, don't be a dick. If it must be potentially offensive, do so because you genuinely believe in it, not to troll or stir up board flame wars.