Inappropriate Signatures

[MrLuckyDraw]

I know that people like to have signatures with girls exposing their body parts, but there needs to be a line.

I hate having to roam these forums and constantly see signatures like this:

Does this fall under the category of pornography yet? or should it be allowed to continue?

 

[red0roses]

There are probably younger users on here who don't need to this and aren't hooked on porn yet so I'd say it needs to stop even though I don't mind.

 

[Quatakai]

Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.

I don't think that qualifies as an explicit portrayal of sexual subject. Honestly, I think it's fine.

 

[MrLuckyDraw]

Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.

I don't think that qualifies as an explicit portrayal of sexual subject. Honestly, I think it's fine.

So that picture doesn't arouse you?

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Not to be a party pooper, but I'm an advocate of removing "soft-core" porn from signatures. This includes the Travis Rugby image as well as the example above.

Sometimes I want to look around sythe in between college classes, and I really don't feel like scrolling through putang and naked dudes while sitting in a packed computer lab.

 

[red0roses]

Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.

I don't think that qualifies as an explicit portrayal of sexual subject. Honestly, I think it's fine.

Then lets call this soft porn. We don't need it on this website... go to playboy. ^he just said the same thing sort of and I didn't bother to look... my bad^

 

[x339]

So that picture doesn't arouse you?

Just because something arouses someone, does not qualify it as pornography. If I were aroused by pictures of polar bears, would you consider that pornography as well? No, you wouldn't.

Pornography would be classified as something that portrays an explicit sex act, or in most cases, nudity. I don't think there is a problem with people having pictures such as the one you mentioned above, just as long as there is no nudity.

We have a very mature atmosphere (most times ;P) on this forum, and I don't really think its fair to the majority of the people here to force this much censorship just to cater to a few kids who might wander into here.

 

[Jimmy]

Sythe isn't a place to implement your own social policy; the pornography rule exists only because of legal restrictions.

 

[MrLuckyDraw]

Sythe isn't a place to implement your own social policy; the pornography rule exists only because of legal restrictions.

isn't that signature pornography?

edit --

Also, I can't view this thread anymore without my school blocking it for "adult material" I'm on a proxy right now.

 

[gds08]

I always agree when somebody brings this up, I shouldn't have to stop browsing sythe when parents or younger family members are hovering around just because theres a high chance I am going to see a picture of some dirty hoes ass hanging out.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

isn't that signature pornography?

edit --

Also, I can't view this thread anymore without my school blocking it for "adult material" I'm on a proxy right now.

That's some intricate firewall your school has.. I've never encountered a firewall that doesn't just block an ENTIRE site if it deems a part of it inappropriate

 

[Emperor Nero]

Sythe isn't a place to implement your own social policy; the pornography rule exists only because of legal restrictions.

This is my sentiment. While I have only seen one signature that I thought was inappropriate because it suggested that a girl was performing a certain sexual action, I think unless it shows sexual acts or nudity then it isn't porn. Even then nudity can be art if used in the correct context.

tl;dr: Nothing wrong with the sig.

 

[Davidp123]

Support for this, I know most of you guys disagree but scrolling down a thread and a travis rugby sig pops up and my moms like right there starts up the weirdest convo ever

 

[SuF]

This would just add unnecessary grey area into the rules. We shouldn't have to judge every little thing as it just gives more for people to bitch about.

 

[Buissness]

Just because something arouses someone, does not qualify it as pornography. If I were aroused by pictures of polar bears, would you consider that pornography as well? No, you wouldn't.

Pornography would be classified as something that portrays an explicit sex act, or in most cases, nudity. I don't think there is a problem with people having pictures such as the one you mentioned above, just as long as there is no nudity.

We have a very mature atmosphere (most times ;P) on this forum, and I don't really think its fair to the majority of the people here to force this much censorship just to cater to a few kids who might wander into here.

Your Stupid.

 

[tMoon]

There are probably younger users on here who don't need to this and aren't hooked on porn yet so I'd say it needs to stop even though I don't mind.

As for the users that actually don't watch porn constantly? Perhaps you have the wrong perception that everyone is constantly watching porn.


Nonetheless, signatures like that generally annoy the hell out of me. As stated by Tony, when people have signatures like that it makes surfing forum(s) rather.. tedious while at school.

I advise simply having the individual put on your ignore list unless this is passed.

I support removal of such signatures, but I really don't care if it happens or not.

Edit:

Your Stupid.

You're*

The irony.

 

[zachfletcher]

What would classify a signature unruly then? If you people make sigs like that against the rules, it would have to be a case by case scenario.

 

[Travis]

Not to be a party pooper, but I'm an advocate of removing "soft-core" porn from signatures. This includes the Travis Rugby image as well as the example above.

Sometimes I want to look around sythe in between college classes, and I really don't feel like scrolling through putang and naked dudes while sitting in a packed computer lab.

That was for laughs and as of the 10th, everyone who had it as a signature could remove it.

 

[n4n0]

Your Stupid.

You're*

Also, infracted for oversized signature and spamming.


ON TOPIC --- I'm with the majority on this. There's no need to further add grey-area rules for the site. If it's not actually PORNOGRAPHIC (ex. Tits, Cock, Pussy, or otherwise extremely borderline sexually suggestive) then let it be. The .gif's that Travis had in his sig not too long ago(using you as an example) were probably the closest thing we'd allow, and even that was kind of iffy.

 

[They be trippin]

I have to agree, I can't stand this. Support.