What is your definition of NSFW?

[4-leaf-clover]

NSFW : Not safe for woman.

 

[BoxmanWTF]

click when horny
or Click when no one is around

 

[DeathStrudel]

snip

I reported your sig. I didn't report it because I found it personally offensive. I reported it because it involved nudity/see-through-panties. I've reported many sigs/avatars that involve questionable images just as everyone else should be doing (that is why there is a "report" button). People here think they need to push every rule to the limit... This is supposed to be a "friendly" community. It is supposed to be "SFW". Saying, "Well kids can see worse things in other places!" isn't a valid argument here. This isn't about other places, it is about THIS place. It's sad when it gets to the point that you have to block everyone's sigs/avatars when visiting a forum...

I'd have posted much sooner in this topic but seeing the title "What is your definition of NSFW" led me to believe it was either a troll thread or that tagzard started it...

That is actually NOT why the report button is there. It is NOT there so that you can judge what other people might possibly find offensive, it's so you can report stuff that YOU find offensive. Basically it seems that nobody actually had a problem with it, but you took it upon yourself to decide what others could find offensive. Why don't you just let people speak for themselves?
Reminds me of South Park:
"I like to think we speak for the children." - Stephen Spielberg
"But we're the children!" - Children

 

[HugeCock]

NSFW = If someone peeks over your cubicle while looking at this thread you may get in trouble.
It is a courtesy tag designed to help people not get themselves into the above situation but the reality of it is that almost all employers would frown, reprimand, and prohibit their employees going to any site that would even consider having to use a NSFW tag.
I'd say a large percentage of members here are kids so the idea of "work" is still a very Terabithian concept but the real shock will be when they become members of the work force they will be shocked to find that going to Facebook from a work terminal is enough to get you fired.
The question I as an employer ask my employees is "Do I pay you to go to facebook, how does GBATemp help you do your job, and for that matter what job out there could you obtain that would view GBATemp as a valid work source?"
So what then is NSFW? The picture in question... well Facebook, Myspace, whatever you kids are on today has more....promiscuous pics then the one in question, I view NSFW as things I would not want my kids to see if they are in my office while I am on the computer. Pretty much that means no porn or extremely violent graphic content. The image in question is a butt, now thank god.....*let's NSFW this post now as I have brought religion into the topic which your colleague poking their head over your cubicle may find offensive*
PS tell that co-worker to stop being nosy and get back to work before you both get wrote up
...anyway, thank god I am not a moderator or on the censorship committee as one would have to ask....if we outlaw a butt....do we outlaw

• Vitruvian Man
• Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bumblebee
• Michelangelo's David
• Ect

We are a global forum which is very hard to grasp....there are people outside your state, outside your country, on the other side of the world even that are viewing your words... it is like magic. Ironic that a picture of Mendes is NSFW as Pete sits in his office off a nude beach in Greece watching a commercial for Dove soap with the actress’s breast exposed. Saying it is a nude beach may be a little redundant since all the beaches are nude...or at least they were when I was last there but for an American where violence is more acceptable then the naked human body maybe we should come up with a region based tag?
NSFUW = Not safe for American work
NSFEW = Not safe for European work
NSFJW = Not safe for Japanese work
**Fun fact** I pulled the codes from the GBA region coding

Rather then censor my friends and future leaders of the world I just chose to disable sigs

 

[retKHAAAN]

snip

I reported your sig. I didn't report it because I found it personally offensive. I reported it because it involved nudity/see-through-panties. I've reported many sigs/avatars that involve questionable images just as everyone else should be doing (that is why there is a "report" button). People here think they need to push every rule to the limit... This is supposed to be a "friendly" community. It is supposed to be "SFW". Saying, "Well kids can see worse things in other places!" isn't a valid argument here. This isn't about other places, it is about THIS place. It's sad when it gets to the point that you have to block everyone's sigs/avatars when visiting a forum...

I'd have posted much sooner in this topic but seeing the title "What is your definition of NSFW" led me to believe it was either a troll thread or that tagzard started it...

That is actually NOT why the report button is there. It is NOT there so that you can judge what other people might possibly find offensive, it's so you can report stuff that YOU find offensive. Basically it seems that nobody actually had a problem with it, but you took it upon yourself to decide what others could find offensive. Why don't you just let people speak for themselves?
Reminds me of South Park:
"I like to think we speak for the children." - Stephen Spielberg
"But we're the children!" - Children

Use the report function! If you see someone breaking a rule, report it. Don't reply to a post you've just reported and don't write an essay for the report reason but DO make it clear why it should be removed.

This was not an ass for the sake of education. It was an ass for the sake of an ass. I like Eva Mendes. I like her ass. But I can also recognize that questionable images have no place out in the open for all to see. There is no problem with OPs first post since it is marked NSFW and put in a spoiler. In a sig/avatar though, it's out there for all to see and forces other members to take extra steps if they don't want to see it.

P.S. I'm not speaking for anyone else. I'm speaking for myself. I'm not personally offended by the image but the fact remains that it does not belong here.

P.P.S. You spelled Steven Spielberg's name wrong...

 

[ShadowSoldier]

see:
"'Well kids can see worse thing in other places!' isn't a valid argument here. This isn't about other places. It is about THIS place..."

I reported your sig. I didn't report it because I found it personally offensive. I reported it because it involved nudity/see-through-panties. I've reported many sigs/avatars that involve questionable images just as everyone else should be doing (that is why there is a "report" button). People here think they need to push every rule to the limit... This is supposed to be a "friendly" community. It is supposed to be "SFW". Saying, "Well kids can see worse things in other places!" isn't a valid argument here. This isn't about other places, it is about THIS place. It's sad when it gets to the point that you have to block everyone's sigs/avatars when visiting a forum...

I'd have posted much sooner in this topic but seeing the title "What is your definition of NSFW" led me to believe it was either a troll thread or that tagzard started it...

Really, whether the picture was there or not (Even though it was small as all hell), SHOULD you be viewing THIS site at work at all? And if you were allowed, chances are that the boss won't care if some person on the internet has a small avatar of a beautiful actress. Yes, "kids see worse" is a stupid argument, but it's true. Chances are if you're seeing this, then you're either at home, or at a friends place. In which case you see much worse just turning on Family Channel. If it was a big signature or something, then sure, it'd be understandable, but the avatars dimensions were small.

 

[retKHAAAN]

see:
"'Well kids can see worse thing in other places!' isn't a valid argument here. This isn't about other places. It is about THIS place..."

I reported your sig. I didn't report it because I found it personally offensive. I reported it because it involved nudity/see-through-panties. I've reported many sigs/avatars that involve questionable images just as everyone else should be doing (that is why there is a "report" button). People here think they need to push every rule to the limit... This is supposed to be a "friendly" community. It is supposed to be "SFW". Saying, "Well kids can see worse things in other places!" isn't a valid argument here. This isn't about other places, it is about THIS place. It's sad when it gets to the point that you have to block everyone's sigs/avatars when visiting a forum...

I'd have posted much sooner in this topic but seeing the title "What is your definition of NSFW" led me to believe it was either a troll thread or that tagzard started it...

Really, whether the picture was there or not (Even though it was small as all hell), SHOULD you be viewing THIS site at work at all? And if you were allowed, chances are that the boss won't care if some person on the internet has a small avatar of a beautiful actress. Yes, "kids see worse" is a stupid argument, but it's true. Chances are if you're seeing this, then you're either at home, or at a friends place. In which case you see much worse just turning on Family Channel. If it was a big signature or something, then sure, it'd be understandable, but the avatars dimensions were small.

and if it was an acceptable image for a signature the moderator would have left it alone, correct?

 

[iFish]

If we're talking about this forum being suitable for all ages and such, why are we allowed to swear? I mean, I understand the rule against NSFW material and such, since that is different. But when you say "suitable for all ages"(Or something of the sort), it doesn't make sense since we're still allowed to swear and we probably do swear here.

Just pointing that out.

 

[retKHAAAN]

If we're talking about this forum being suitable for all ages and such, why are we allowed to swear? I mean, I understand the rule against NSFW material and such, since that is different. But when THE RULES say "suitable for all ages"(Or something of the sort), it doesn't make sense since we're still allowed to swear and we probably do swear here.

Just pointing that out.

Fixed that post for you.

As far as I've noticed, any posts where people swear in a derogatory way are edited/snipped/deleted by moderators. If they are not and you feel they should be then maybe you should report them.

 

[Rayder]

I would define NSFW as anything that might be considered inappropriate or upsetting or embarrassing to anyone in a work environment if they saw it.

While personally, I don't find a woman standing there in her panties and showing some buttcrack to be particularly offensive to me, some women (and frankly, some uptight guys) may find it demeaning for someone to display a pic such as that on a public website and would request for it to be removed.

A large part of moderation is dealing with things that offend members. Rather than argue the validity, it's sometimes easier to just eliminate the issue causing the offense than to deliberate over whether or not it was actually offensive. Basically, if someone complains about it, then it is usually dealt with and ultimately considered NSFW.

 

[weiff]

As much as this thread has stayed on topic and provided valid points... I have to post this:

On another forum site, that was definitely NSFW, they had a thread jokingly called SFW porn. It was all the typical nude female/male images, however the nipples and other parts had been shopped blank (think real life barbie and ken here). It was rather humorous to look at, but still clearly should have been NSFW.

 

[Deleted User]

{{}}

 

[DeathStrudel]

snip

I reported your sig. I didn't report it because I found it personally offensive. I reported it because it involved nudity/see-through-panties. I've reported many sigs/avatars that involve questionable images just as everyone else should be doing (that is why there is a "report" button). People here think they need to push every rule to the limit... This is supposed to be a "friendly" community. It is supposed to be "SFW". Saying, "Well kids can see worse things in other places!" isn't a valid argument here. This isn't about other places, it is about THIS place. It's sad when it gets to the point that you have to block everyone's sigs/avatars when visiting a forum...

I'd have posted much sooner in this topic but seeing the title "What is your definition of NSFW" led me to believe it was either a troll thread or that tagzard started it...

That is actually NOT why the report button is there. It is NOT there so that you can judge what other people might possibly find offensive, it's so you can report stuff that YOU find offensive. Basically it seems that nobody actually had a problem with it, but you took it upon yourself to decide what others could find offensive. Why don't you just let people speak for themselves?
Reminds me of South Park:
"I like to think we speak for the children." - Stephen Spielberg
"But we're the children!" - Children

Use the report function! If you see someone breaking a rule, report it. Don't reply to a post you've just reported and don't write an essay for the report reason but DO make it clear why it should be removed.

This was not an ass for the sake of education. It was an ass for the sake of an ass. I like Eva Mendes. I like her ass. But I can also recognize that questionable images have no place out in the open for all to see. There is no problem with OPs first post since it is marked NSFW and put in a spoiler. In a sig/avatar though, it's out there for all to see and forces other members to take extra steps if they don't want to see it.

P.S. I'm not speaking for anyone else. I'm speaking for myself. I'm not personally offended by the image but the fact remains that it does not belong here.

P.P.S. You spelled Steven Spielberg's name wrong...

First of all I don't see how a rule was broken. Secondly once again YOU are defining what is "questionable." Nobody else seemed to think it was questionable or else they would have reported it themselves. People walk around in public with hardly any clothes on but no one makes laws banning that just because some people have to "take extra steps if they don't want to see it." There is no "fact" that it doesn't belong here, there is your personal opinion that it doesn't belong here.

And why does it matter if I spelled his name wrong? To point that out is just childish as it was a very simple mistake.

 

[retKHAAAN]

snip

Where in the rules are the levels of inappropriate defined? The ambiguity of the rules and the existence of the report button leave it on the members to decide what's appropriate and what is not. That is what a "community" does. And for the third time, the "people can see worse in other places" argument doesn't work here. This isn't the street or the bar. This is an internet forum, and believe it or not, a controlled setting. I am defining what is "questionable" as much as you are attempting to define what is not "questionable". It goes both ways there bud.

I've yet to see you (DeathStrudel) make a post that hasn't left me wondering, "Is that guy constipated?" As you can see, the OP doesn't appear to be nearly as butthert about the situation as you do and he's the one who was actually affected by it. Of all the pictures of Eva Mendes floating around on the interwebs, why did he pick that one? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that her ass was hanging out? It must feel good to be fighting for a cause...

My report said: Member's signature has a woman in see through panties.
Nowhere did I suggest to the mod how to handle it. Nowhere did I say that I was particularly offended. I simply made the mods aware of an image that was walking a fine line along the rules. The OP didn't complain about the mod's decision. He started the thread asking for opinions. When I noticed the thread I made him aware of events he may not have been aware of. He now knows why it was reported. He may not agree with it but at least he's no longer left wondering...

P.S. I find it funny that the person who mentioned South Park is calling me childish. I was merely saving you from repeating your mistake. Should I have PM'd you with the correction?

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Of all the pictures of Eva Mendes floating around on the interwebs, why did he pick that one? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that her ass was hanging out?

I know you'd like to think that, but that actually wasn't it at all. I could explain, but no matter what I say, you'd just think I was lying, so it'd be a waste of my time, and yours.

Should I have PM'd you with the correction?

Should have just left it alone. One mistake on the internet. If it was someone constantly:

typing like this because they think
it's easier to read or some stupid shit

Then yeah..

 

[retKHAAAN]

Of all the pictures of Eva Mendes floating around on the interwebs, why did he pick that one? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that her ass was hanging out?

I know you'd like to think that, but that actually wasn't it at all. I could explain, but no matter what I say, you'd just think I was lying, so it'd be a waste of my time, and yours.

I've never called someone a liar on the internet. I'm kind of curious now
And I wouldn't "like to think" anything. As I've said before, were that pic to have been in a spoiler I wouldn't have reported it. In fact, it might soon be my wallpaper on my iPod. My comments towards DeathStrudel were written in a tone that fit his over-reaction. You've said nothing ignorant here so I have nothing ignorant to respond to

 

[Etheboss]

I think GBAtemp is too strict in their policy, and i know for sure my boss does not mind the sig. from the person in the first post (as do prolly most ppl. in my country), on the other hand, what might be acceptable in one country, might not be acceptable in the other, so i do understand their policy...