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

[spinky]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

1. Was the picture that Fear Itself provided that some seem to be upset about actually NSFW?
2. If it was NSFW, did it follow the "at least two click" rule?
3. If he played within the rules, what should the mods do, if anything?

My opinions, of course:
1. No
2. It's difficult to say what the "at least two click rule" should say about links that, by definition, aren't clickable because they're in your profile. It would be pretty reasonable for the administration to say that if you're going to put a URL in your profile, it should point to something work-safe or be accompanied by "NSFW", even though you have to go through more than just clicking to get there. Then again, it would also be pretty reasonable to just have a policy that they don't police the non-links in profiles. :shrug:
3. Nothing, IMO

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

This is really a gross misrepresentation of the OP, and it says more about both of you than anything else.

In your opinion was the picture in question NSFW, and if it was, did he follow the "Two Click" rule?

[Patty O'Furniture]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

1. Was the picture that Fear Itself provided that some seem to be upset about actually NSFW?
2. If it was NSFW, did it follow the "at least two click" rule?
3. If he played within the rules, what should the mods do, if anything?

I don't know why you left this one off, when it's clearly the main issue here:

4. Did the poster in question use the boards as a medium in which to deliberately provoke other members on a known contentious topic?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

I don't know why you left this one off, when it's clearly the main issue here:

4. Did the poster in question use the boards as a medium in which to deliberately provoke other members on a known contentious topic?

So let's do these in order, o.k.? You answer the first three, and I promise to answer the fourth.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'll give Czarcasm's questions a try:
1) NSFW? Probably, depending on the workplace; I suspect in most professional settings, it'll be considered really unprofessional to have an image like that on your screen.
2) I don't think this question applies, and if it does, it does so in a technical way and I'm unfit to answer it.
3) The rule it seems to break is "don't be a jerk." He appears to have acted in a way designed to annoy other people on the board, using some part of the board (his profile), and that seems jerkish to me. Since it breaks the rule of not being a jerk, it'd be okay, I think, for the mods to say, "Knock it off, fool." But I'm also okay with their washing their hands of the situation.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

In your opinion was the picture in question NSFW, and if it was, did he follow the "Two Click" rule?

I went to the registration agreement to see what both the letter and the spirit of the rule are.

When posting a link to potentially shocking or offensive material, observe the "two click" rule - don't link directly to the item, but rather to an intermediate page that in turns links to the item. If you're not sure whether a link is appropriate, contact a moderator or administrator before posting it. Any user who feels a posted message is objectionable should contact the moderators of the affected forum by e-mail.

The letter is pretty clear. Anything potentially objectionable has to require at least two separate actions on my part in order to be viewed. If I provide one action (I "click") and another poster provides the second action (the link I've "clicked" automatically pulls in objectionable material) when I land on that page, then the rule is not satisfied.

My reading of the intent is that the board does not want its members to be blind-sided by objectionable material. Thus, any objectionable material that is presented to me without my having consented (I consent on a case-by-case basis by evaluating the context of each post and perhaps hovering over the link before deciding if I want to click - then when I get out of the forums, I have to take additional action to see the material) violates the intent of the rule.

I don't agree with the others who say that by enabling the script in my browser, I have provided one of the "clicks" because:

1. it doesn't give me a chance to evaluate the context surrounding the questionable links.
2. the second "click" doesn't exist. Even if I agree that by enabling the script, I have provided one of the clicks, I am immediately presented with hypothetically objectionable material without having to perform any further action (the second "click").

I used to work for city government, so yes the image in question would have been "NSFW", although I don't personally find it offensive. Again though, this is a side issue. The meat of the issue is that somebody has used the boards to deliberately provoke members on a topic he knew to be contentious. I thought we had a rule against that.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

1) NSFW? Probably, depending on the workplace; I suspect in most professional settings, it'll be considered really unprofessional to have an image like that on your screen.

My previous employer (Verizon) punished an employee for having a bikini-clad model pinned up in his cubicle. Apparently, according to sexual harassment laws, a female subordinate walking into the cube could have had grounds for a case.

That's the spirit of the 2C rule - I have to take some definite purposeful action - twice - each time I am presented with the opportunity to see potentially objectionable material. If I have done that, then whatever happens next is on my head.

[Northern Piper]

Since the greasemonkey script is not part of the SDMB, I fail to see how the two click rule applies to it.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

So let's do these in order, o.k.? You answer the first three, and I promise to answer the fourth.

If you want to see it, you can go to his profile and do so. Then judge for yourself.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

If you want to see it, you can go to his profile and do so. Then judge for yourself.

I saw the unclickable link he listed in his biography-PG13 at best in my opinion.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I'll give Czarcasm's questions a try:
1) NSFW? Probably, depending on the workplace; I suspect in most professional settings, it'll be considered really unprofessional to have an image like that on your screen.

I would have reprimanded someone under me for having that on a screen if I saw it. If it were reported to me, I would remind the person that it's a workplace.

It wouldn't be a big deal, unless it started to happen a lot.


ETA: I have no idea what "coman" is doing up there in the title.

[Measure for Measure]

1. Yes, the image was NSFW, IMHO. It's also PG-13. No contradiction.
2. Yes, it followed the 2 click rule. The link was not live. And the poster later labeled it NSFW.
3. So no rules were broken and the mods acted appropriately insofar as they are not responsible for moderating off-board activity. That said, FI was using within-board text to affect Pandora. So the mods could actually rule on this either way-- it's a matter of borders not central domains.

And now 4. Sure. But I think the mods should wash their hands of the matter at present. And when they get the time, the volunteer Greasemonkey coders should attempt to parse messages like NSFW or Animated if they are placed alongside links to avatars. Users should familiarize themselves with the underlying script and edit it accordingly. Busy-bodies like myself should contribute their erudite musings. And we should discuss this matter at greater length: I'm pushing for 20 pages/1000 posts across the 3 active avatar threads. We're only up to page 13 now.

[Guinastasia]

It wasn't so much the image -- as annoying as it was -- as his intention in posting it.

[Crazyhorse]

It is obviously NSFW in most corporate environments but there is no NSFW rule in the avatar system. Anything might pop up one time, and at that point the users are empowered to do their own content moderating and block or replace any avatar they don't like. IMO the mods here shouldn't be contacted about any content related issues in avatars.

It is perfectly clear to all participants in this thread that Fear Itself's mere participation in the avatar system, after denouncing it for at least 2 years, was only in an effort to troll avatar users. If he had gone into any other thread on the boards, proclaimed that he wasn't interested in the subject and thus probably not many other people were either, he likely would have been asked to stop threadshitting just for that. If he also posted a URL in his profile to a perfectly SFW image that was related to that same subject, that probably would have been considered relevant information to the staff as they evaluated the situation. If it were NSFW and there were no warning as was originally the case it would have been even more relevant.

Such is the dark and dangerous world we live in here as avatar users. It's up to us to take the high road and handle it ourselves if being trolled by a SDMB member. As long as they are targeting us for using avatars, we're on our own.

If a poster makes a dickish enough of an effort to annoy avatar users the keeper of the avatar server may be forced to intervene. And he doesn't like being called away from his work at the institute.

[Inner Stickler]

This seems appropriate.

[Bob Ducca]

While reading the recent (and very sad) "My Wife Died Last Night" thread in MPSIMS, I couldn't help but hope that Rico wasn't one of the people who'd installed the avatar script.

Fear Itself posted his condolences in that thread and if Rico had to read it while seeing that immature gif, I think that's pretty shitty.

FI, if you're going to insist on using an immature avatar, please do everyone a favor and only use it in immature threads. On another message board.

[Morgenstern]

Bob D, I think that didn't happen.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...8&postcount=83

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

FI, if you're going to insist on using an immature avatar, please do everyone a favor and only use it in immature threads. On another message board.

I would guess that as far as he is concerned, he is not using an avatar.

[Patty O'Furniture]

I can't speak for anyone else, but on every other forum that I visit that uses avatars, I don't "read" the avatar into each post. The avatar adds a little color, a little personality and tells me something about the poster. Avatars don't set the context or atmosphere of everything that they post.

[Richard Pearse]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

I can't speak for anyone else, but on every other forum that I visit that uses avatars, I don't "read" the avatar into each post. The avatar adds a little color, a little personality and tells me something about the poster. Avatars don't set the context or atmosphere of everything that they post.

Seriously. It's no worse than having a coincidently inappropriate username.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

1. it doesn't give me a chance to evaluate the context surrounding the questionable links.

Who's fault is that?

You have loaded a script to your computer that will automatically parse and display image links without giving you a chance to evaluate the content.

I'm sure it's possible to create a script that will automatically open unparsed, spoilered, or broken links that people put in their posts. Loading that to your computer doesn't suddenly make them responsible for your script opening up a NSFW link.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Aaaand that's why it's called a TWO click rule, not a one click rule. So that even if one of the "clicks" is defeated or is somehow made to "auto click", there would still be another manual action that I must perform (the second "click") before I can see objectionable material.

If somebody has an offensive avatar, that poster has decided to provide the second "click" on my behalf. I no longer have to "click twice", just once (again, if you consider the loading of the script to be the first "click").

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

Aaaand that's why it's called a TWO click rule, not a one click rule.

Your script does BOTH CLICKS.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

If somebody has an offensive avatar, that poster has decided to provide the second "click" on my behalf.

But that somebody doesn't have an avatar, this board does not allow avatars. How can they be held accountable for avatars on this board, there are none?

[artemis]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

If somebody has an offensive avatar, that poster has decided to provide the second "click" on my behalf. I no longer have to "click twice", just once (again, if you consider the loading of the script to be the first "click").

And that's why you might not want to install the Greasemonkey avatar script (or turn it off) when you're browsing the Dope in a sensitive environment. Even if someone IS policing avatars, a NSFW avatar may be up for a while before the avatar cops can pull it down - and during that interval, you risk seeing it.

The Greasemonkey script sounds like it offers the users a tremendous amount of control over what they view, which is great. But there's just no way to guarantee 100% that you'll never see a NSFW avatar. At least the script allows you to block it or change it to something less offensive after you've spotted it, which is functionality the board's vBulletin software doesn't offer.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Richard Pearse

Seriously. It's no worse than having a coincidently inappropriate username.

Agreed.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Jragon

when a poster does something on this board deliberately to be a dick to the other users, regardless of what it is, it runs afoul of rule zero.

He's not doing it on this board, though. He's doing it in whatever nebulous virtual space the avatar script resides in. If this were High School, it would be the equivalent of "Stop hitting yourself, nerds!", only funny.

And to me, it is funny as hell. Well-played, Fear Itself, well-played.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

Aaaand that's why it's called a TWO click rule, not a one click rule. So that even if one of the "clicks" is defeated or is somehow made to "auto click", there would still be another manual action that I must perform (the second "click") before I can see objectionable material.

If somebody has an offensive avatar, that poster has decided to provide the second "click" on my behalf. I no longer have to "click twice", just once (again, if you consider the loading of the script to be the first "click").

Y'know, it probably never occurred to TPTB that when they made that rule that someone would create an unofficial script that would take what would normally be a perfectly-within-the-rules link and turn it into an avatar for whoever loaded the script. If someone enables a script that makes any link, no matter how man clicks removed, into a picture that appears in the post itself, do you think TPTB should involve themselves in the following kerfluffle?

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Check out some other boards and see their avatars. Giraffe boards don't have problems with them. In this case, it seems like it's almost like the Streisand Effect.

I, in fact, stopped posting at GB after checking it out precisely because of avatars (yes, I couldn't be bothered to turn them off, so what?)

[Hbns]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

But that somebody doesn't have an avatar, this board does not allow avatars. How can they be held accountable for avatars on this board, there are none?

SDMB Avatar: ...

I'd be inclined to agree if not for the two bolded words in Fear_Itself's biography line. They are not there by accident.

That being said, it seems he is being held accountable for his action by those that his action was directed at, so problem solved without any SDMB moderation.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Hbns

SDMB Avatar: ...

I'd be inclined to agree if not for the two bolded words in Fear_Itself's biography line. They are not there by accident.

No, I doubt they are there by accident. But he can write whatever he wants there, it does not mean that the SDMB has avatars.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

And to me, it is funny as hell. Well-played, Fear Itself, well-played.

You have a really low bar.

[spinky]

Originally Posted by Hbns

SDMB Avatar: ...

I'd be inclined to agree if not for the two bolded words in Fear_Itself's biography line. They are not there by accident.

That being said, it seems he is being held accountable for his action by those that his action was directed at, so problem solved without any SDMB moderation.

For what it's worth, it would also work if it said, "Under no circumstances should this NSFW picture be displayed as an SDMB Avatar: http:..."

[Bob Ducca]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Bob D, I think that didn't happen.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...8&postcount=83

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

I would guess that as far as he is concerned, he is not using an avatar.

I don't know about that, I still see an avatar next to his name. It's still the bouncing tits, but now it also says "DOUCHE" across the gif in large text.

Regardless, I was just trying to illustrate a point about how his immaturity reflects on him in posts that should carry a bit more gravitas.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

You have a really low bar.

Boobs are always funny.

Or, let's just say I give exactly zero fucks for someone's fear of being caught with a NSFW image while viewing this decidedly non-work-related messageboard.

Actually, scratch that. I give negative fucks. I'm actually owed some fucks over here.

Especially when the whole problem wouldn't happen if avatars were restricted to jpgs. Gifs are of the devil anyway. Although I suppose static offensive pictures would work too. a-la goatse.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by Hbns

That being said, it seems he is being held accountable for his action by those that his action was directed at, so problem solved without any SDMB moderation.

Problem solved, and I'm sure the ones affected have moved on. But the others will continue to to bring it up again and again.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

no matter how man clicks removed

But if you removed them all, then the avatar would be safe for work.....oh, you said man CLICKS. nevermind.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

I don't know about that, I still see an avatar next to his name. It's still the bouncing tits, but now it also says "DOUCHE" across the gif in large text.

Regardless, I was just trying to illustrate a point about how his immaturity reflects on him in posts that should carry a bit more gravitas.

It is probably good judgement to choose an avatar that won't offend a large audience if one worries about a post/avatar combination offending. Likewise if one may be offended by an avatar regardless of the context of the thread, it is probably wise not to enable them. There is a lot of room for making personal choices here that neither the SDMB or the avatar script have much influence over.

The avatar that FI chose for himself was intended to harass so I don't guess he minds which avatar script user might or might not be offended by it.

But since any avatar can be blocked by any user there is no need to moderate the content of avatars, and only very rarely (once so far) the intentions behind that content.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Boobs are always funny.

Wrong.

Or, let's just say I give exactly zero fucks for someone's fear of being caught with a NSFW image while viewing this decidedly non-work-related messageboard.

Some of us actually aren't all that interested in boobs and don't particularly care for having non-sought after breasts thrown at us.

Actually, scratch that. I give negative fucks. I'm actually owed some fucks over here.

Well, then I give negative fucks about you giving negative fucks. What a stupid game.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Some of us actually aren't all that interested in boobs and don't particularly care for having non-sought after breasts thrown at us.

I'm sorry FI held you down and installed this avatar software on your machine, then...

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Well, then I give negative fucks about you giving negative fucks. What a stupid game.

To be honest, this is the only part of his "arguments" I agree with. The mods shouldn't have to worry about offending people at work, because that isn't any of their business. I believe (and I realize this isn't a popular opinion) that if people are at work they should be working, and if a business has a problem with NSFW images then they probably have problems with reading message boards as well.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I'm sorry FI held you down and installed this avatar software on your machine, then...

I don't give a shit about the photos people upload. That's why I have adblock. I'm taking issue with the idea that boobs are always funny. Just because you like to look at them all the time doesn't mean all of us do.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Just because you like to look at them all the time doesn't mean all of us do.

Dude, you're overthinking this. "Boobs are always funny" was perhaps a little too pat. "Surprise boobs are always funny" is perhaps more accurate. Not because I like looking at boobs so much (though I do) but because I like the reaction they cause.

It would be the same of they were surprise naked mole-rats or something, YKWIM?

Heh, naked mole-rats...

[Hbns]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

But he can write whatever he wants there...

I bet he can't. I bet whatever gets written there is subject to board rules regarding language, disparaging comments about other posters, and not being a jerk.

...it does not mean that the SDMB has avatars.

You are absolutely correct. And totally missing the point.

When it waddles like a jerk.
When it quacks like a jerk.
When it fwaps like a jerk.
Let's just call it what it is. A great big giant DUCK-HEAD!

[Hbns]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Dude, you're overthinking this. "Boobs are always funny" was perhaps a little too pat. "Surprise boobs are always funny" is perhaps more accurate. Not because I like looking at boobs so much (though I do) but because I like the reaction they cause.

Personally I think farts are always funny. But that is just the way my immaturity manifests itself.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Hbns

I bet he can't. I bet whatever gets written there is subject to board rules regarding language, disparaging comments about other posters, and not being a jerk.

Super. Now, what board rules did the words written in his user CP break?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Hbns

I bet whatever gets written there is subject to board rules regarding language, disparaging comments about other posters, and not being a jerk.

More than likely.

Originally Posted by Hbns

When it waddles like a jerk.
When it quacks like a jerk.
When it fwaps like a jerk.
Let's just call it what it is. A great big giant DUCK-HEAD!

Same rules for here, right?

[Hbns]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

Super. Now, what board rules did the words written in his user CP break?

hahahahahaha you are so hilarious! You just keep shifting those goalposts there buckety. Really. No one is even noticing.

[Hbns]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

More than likely.Same rules for here, right?

Super. Now, what board rules did the words break?

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Hbns

hahahahahaha you are so hilarious! You just keep shifting those goalposts there buckety. Really. No one is even noticing.

Excuse me? You said:

Originally Posted by Hbns

I bet whatever gets written there is subject to board rules regarding language, disparaging comments about other posters, and not being a jerk.

And I asked:

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

Super. Now, what board rules did the words written in his user CP break?

Seems straight forward to me.