The State of the "New" AsylumFollow

I need to understand.

So, it's ok to break the swear filter in the Asylum sometimes? Or is it ok all of the time or is it never ok?

Also, this

is ok as an avatar.

However, am I to understand that this
& this
are not?

Inform me.

Avatars are different because they appear in all of your posts retroactively, including those in more delicate fora. (Although I don't know what's wrong with the pie-face one).

The swear filter thing was probably an oversight by another admin, according to Kao.

Correct. Depends on the admin and how much he/she likes you.

Bingo.

You seem to have things sorted out.



Edited, Jun 14th 2009 1:03am by bsphil

I think it's fine to break the swear filter in the Asylum all the time. Bouncy breasts are cool, as long as we're allowed to have some beefcake males around too. I want us to be equal opportunity oglers.

I don't know what's going on with the jail one. As an image I find it fine to be in the Asylum. I don't know if the "middle finger" breaks the PG+13 rules on the other forums on the site. Is there any "story" about who's in jail and why that makes it icky or objectionable? Personally I find the sequence cold, but fine for an avatar. It looks fictional too. I find a lot of PG +13 rules to be silly and backwards... (IE it should allow more swearing and sex and less violence) but since the site wants to comply to the PG +13 rules in the other forums then it's fair that they enforce them.

The pie one looks like a real life "Happy Slap", and I have a moral objection to real life violence and bullying. I'm really glad that stupid teenagers who record their violence are able to be found and charged these days, when in the past bullying was so hard to prove.

If this pie sequence was told as a story here, or was fictionalised TV/movie imagery with actors, I'd have no qualms with it here. As I think it looks "real", I find it repugnant and distressing.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 4:25am by Aripyanfar

The midget avatar was hilarious. Bring that **** back.

Unless you are posting some truly spectacularily banworthy text in Asylum, we usually leave that alone. Your avatar shows up on every post you ever make. if you exclusivly post in asylum 100% of the time you could make an argument for a more than PG13 avatar. if you have even 1 post outside the asylum, you cannot. If you might even theoretically have 1 post outside the asylum you cannot.

To put things in perspective, if you were to make a post with the finger one in the freerealms forum, I would have to ban you.

Flipping people off isn't PG-13, and your images are viewable by EVERYONE regardless of forum or post. so they are more locked down.

The pie one gets alot of complaints from people who find it objectionable for various reasons. It might technically qualify as PG-13 but really when I get enough user complaints about something, I tend to err on the side of making it go away so i don't get user complaints about it anymore.

If I edit out the offending digit, should I err on the side of caution and use Angsty's face as the censor like here:


Or is blurring ok?

[quote:Zep]So why'd you remove the midget pic from an Asylum thread?[/quote]
Also, this.

Now, not to be a ****, but if Nobby & Naughtword's avatars are ok for "general" posting (as they are PG13) in forums also outside the Asylum, then a dude in a thong bouncing his junk has to be ok too, right?

Also, this.

Now, not to be a ****, but if Nobby & Naughtword's avatars are ok for "general" posting (as they are PG13) in forums also outside the Asylum, then a dude in a thong bouncing his junk has to be ok too, right?[/quote]

Blurring or editing, if done to a sufficient degree and depending ont he situation depicted is ok. Whether Angsty is ok with you using his face is up to him.

Regarding nobby and naughtyword's avatars, there are definite lines. the pictures in question are fully clothed, do not involve any gropeing (Edit for clarity: the lifting motion in rimesume's doesn't involve grasping of the nipple, it's borderline, but we've allowed it. that's about as bad as we would let go though) or particularily sexually suggestive gestures, or anything that would make them forbiddon from being put on tv. Yes, you could theoretically put a guy ina thong up however there is a slight difference as that would be a motion which could be interperated as sexually suggestive given the mechanics of copulation. It would probably depend on how explicit it was, how many complaints it generated, etc. I don't particularily want to see that, but if I nuked every avatar i just didn't like without good reason, well there would be a few more deleted than there are.

If you think it might be a bad choice to put up as an avatar, don't put it up.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 4:32am by Kaolian

protruding nipples can also get your avatard removed. I used to have a bunch of jiggly boob avatars, one had on a white bikini top with obviously hardened nipples.. >.>

I saw a pair of rabbits having sex in my lawn this morning.

I vote that pornography be downrated to G. After all, if we can have two animals having sex in public like that, I see no reason why two animals can't have sex on television.

Jesus christ... she got off easy

Perhaps because it clearly is a documentation of the last moments of a soon-to-be-murdered young man's life?



I will go out on a limb and disagree with this. I've seen the finger used on prime-time TV shows and in PG-13 movies (I seem to recall an episode of E.R. when Giovanni Ribisi flipped off one of the doctors for something.)

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 9:43am by Ambrya

Complaining about admin persecution is very OOT. Maybe Omegavegata would be better off in our forum, where he can share our martyrdom. I've never seen an asylum thread where they ******* like this.