|
|
Post by Rider on Jan 5, 2006 17:41:22 GMT -5
Should != is. We shouldn't have to take that into account, but we know there's younger people on there. Besides, the 'bloids can't be worse than PG-13, so any higher rating would be lying. Except I, for insanity. But that doesn't help people know about it. T, for Tabloid and Teen, could work, though. Why can't they be worse? Why as high as 13, what does it include that 12 year olds couldn't handle but a 13 year old could? [glow=red,2,300]*thinks of Patrick* 12-year-olds can handle a lot.  It's more of a warning to anyone who doesn't want to be in a PG-13 setting. Movie ratings aren't precise. Obviously, pre-teens are allowed into PG-13 movies all of the time, without their parents. Most of them are very mature about what they see. Just don't get hung up on the details, 'kay? ^_^ It's not like we can prevent the pipsqueaks from running around where they please. Like the Proboards Staff, we're powerless to enforce. Besides, I can't picture a Tabloids without Patrick and Kirb.[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Jan 5, 2006 22:31:27 GMT -5
12 year olds are NOT allowed to have accounts on Proboards, therefore we could get into much trouble acknowledging that we know we have under 13s here. Stop talking like we do! (though, if they had an acccount when they were 12 and we didn't know, but they are 13 now, then its okay)
AnyWHO...
A guy without shirt in someone's avatar sounds okay to me. Ever walk down the street on a hot day in Texas? Ever watch the news? Even cartoon guys have no shirts sometimes =P
My question is: Is the reason you don't like it because he has no shirt....or because he has no shirt and he's fat?
If its the latter, then I really don't find that fair at all.
My opinion is: If the picture doesn't have anything sexual implied, and nothing wrong is showing, Then it should be OK.
As for the "closeting" nothing is actually being said. You're not specifically describing the actions of what it happening in the closet. For all anyone knows, you could be searching for mothballs in there. =P
If someone were to go into minute detail, then it would be far too far.
I think you should add a better warning to the Tabloids if you think it will help. Some people do want to avoid the happenings in there. Maybe you could warn like the ESRB has warnings on games?
WARNING: fantasy violence, minimal suggestive themes
|
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Jan 5, 2006 23:05:19 GMT -5
12 year olds are NOT allowed to have accounts on Proboards, therefore we could get into much trouble acknowledging that we know we have under 13s here. Stop talking like we do! (though, if they had an acccount when they were 12 and we didn't know, but they are 13 now, then its okay) AnyWHO... A guy without shirt in someone's avatar sounds okay to me. Ever walk down the street on a hot day in Texas? Ever watch the news? Even cartoon guys have no shirts sometimes =P My question is: Is the reason you don't like it because he has no shirt....or because he has no shirt and he's fat? If its the latter, then I really don't find that fair at all. My opinion is: If the picture doesn't have anything sexual implied, and nothing wrong is showing, Then it should be OK. The problem isn't that he's shirtless; it's that he's wearing a Speedo-type thing and Stal said it was S+M. Heh, I'm not so sure about the "minimal," but that sounds like the 'Bloids. I think saying "Warning: Brain bleach may be needed" or "PG-13" might work better, though... |
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Jan 6, 2006 1:17:39 GMT -5
The problem isn't that he's shirtless; it's that he's wearing a Speedo-type thing and Stal said it was S+M. It can barely be seen, and the focus of the image is not on his speedo. I thought he was just wearing those tighties that wrestlers wear. (I see wrestling junk a lot because my stepfather is a wrestling nut...and he works for a media company that does coverage on wrestling, so obviosuly that's the first thing I'd think of.) XDI don't know what S+M means...so no comment.  XD and the "minimal" thing was an example of an actual rating ESRB has for the 10+ rating |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jan 6, 2006 1:44:50 GMT -5
The problem isn't that he's shirtless; it's that he's wearing a Speedo-type thing and Stal said it was S+M. It can barely be seen, and the focus of the image is not on his speedo. I thought he was just wearing those tighties that wrestlers wear. (I see wrestling junk a lot because my stepfather is a wrestling nut...and he works for a media company that does coverage on wrestling, so obviosuly that's the first thing I'd think of.) XDI don't know what S+M means...so no comment. XD and the "minimal" thing was an example of an actual rating ESRB has for the 10+ rating S&M...as in really freaky kinky stuff dealing with leather, whips, pain, etc. I'm not saying it is for sure, but I am saying that it definitely has a lot of S&M style to it. Enough to freak out a few members parents, and disturb other members. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jan 6, 2006 3:38:09 GMT -5
Basically....
Scroll down a page and you'll have to see avatars.
Click on a link and you can look around and see if your parents are there first.
There are some avatars that are merely suggestive. My own comes to mind, especially the one I used to use. Someone asked me about that. I eventually wound up removing it.
There are some avatars that are a tad more than suggestive. I admit I didn't even know what in the world the fat guy was wearing that looked like that, but I tended to get an uneasy feeling everytime I saw it and wound up avoiding Will's posts altogether.
I realize a whole bunch of mods are privy to total double standards. Like me. I DID draw a lot of nasty things, after all.
Although it might erase somewhat of the 'shock value', perhaps we might want to enforce putting up URLS instead of direct images. It's a rather hard line to draw... there were some good and funny stuff. XD
Ultimately I guess it will depend on your own discretion. A comic of Ikkin beating up penguins won't need to be hotlinked, but I would assume a Speedo-Stal would.
One last thing.
I think that anything that gets anyone in trouble should be removed, whether applicable to avatars or images. We can argue about how 'good' the avatar in question was until the cows come home (and we are.), but if it's getting people in trouble it should probably go. Text is a bit less nasty, since it doesn't actually jump out at you from the computer screen (and really, no one outside the 'Bloids exactly understands the exact implications of 'kill' 'closet' and 'wifey'... well, maybe the 'wifey').
|
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jan 6, 2006 4:30:32 GMT -5
OK, OK. We have some disagreement about the standards around here. I thought Will's avatar was of some strange Opera singer, until it was explained who it was and the labels under the image and the name.
My personal opinion is "Who cares", since nothing is really revealed, but there are some parents of some of the members and some members who:
1. Know who the avvie is of and what he represents.
2. Know about the show he is on.
3. Object to the avvie either because of who he is and what he represents, or dislikes the show, or a combination.
I have never seen this show, or that character, but when I get complaints, I have to do something with it.
I don't frequent the tabloids. I created Tabloid Town so you all can enjoy. But when aspects spill over and disrupt other, more serious, portions of the Forum, I have to do something.
Call me the villain, but I have asked Will to change the avvie to something less... daring, I guess. I was also the wet blanket when the calendar got a bit out of hand last year (in my opinion).
I tend to not start dictating things to the membership, relying on you all to use your judgment and common sense. When it gets thrown in my lap, then I have to make a judgment using my (lack of) maturity and common sense.
Yes, we are more liberal than Neopets. But we are also a family site. It's a fine line, but there are some limits.
So call me Madame Scrooge, but that's my 2 Neopoints worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kat on Jan 6, 2006 4:36:03 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]*thinks of Patrick* 12-year-olds can handle a lot. [/glow] Not just 12-year-olds. I remember some times in the 'bloids when we've even had people younger than that. I'm not pointing fingers, but I just remember. Call me conservative or anything, but that's just the way I am. |
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jan 6, 2006 4:49:52 GMT -5
Again, the Proboards TOS states nobody is allowed to join who is under 13. If they lied about their age, I cannot control that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Jan 6, 2006 4:53:34 GMT -5
S&M...as in really freaky kinky stuff dealing with leather, whips, pain, etc. I'm not saying it is for sure, but I am saying that it definitely has a lot of S&M style to it. Enough to freak out a few members parents, and disturb other members. Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining. I have to agree with Crystal here, if it's getting people into trouble then it should be removed. |
|
|
|
Post by Kat on Jan 6, 2006 4:54:15 GMT -5
Again, the Proboards TOS states nobody is allowed to join who is under 13. If they lied about their age, I cannot control that. Hmmm, yep, that's true. XD *can't believe she forgot that* But the older Proboards version allowed under-13 people to join, right? Before they made with the upgrade and stuff? |
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jan 6, 2006 5:13:10 GMT -5
Again, the Proboards TOS states nobody is allowed to join who is under 13. If they lied about their age, I cannot control that. Hmmm, yep, that's true. XD *can't believe she forgot that* But the older Proboards version allowed under-13 people to join, right? Before they made with the upgrade and stuff? And when we logged back in, we had to verify it after the upgrade. And accounts for people under 13 were automatically deleted. |
|
|
|
Post by william on Jan 6, 2006 5:16:37 GMT -5
Well, I changed my avatar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jan 6, 2006 5:23:34 GMT -5
Well, I changed my avatar. Cute. Your point is taken. |
|
|
|
Post by neonick on Jan 6, 2006 7:28:07 GMT -5
Well, I changed my avatar. x-D *claps* |
|
