Community Relations Archive
Thread: Permission to put GIF or JPG in my sig?
Quiet420 wrote:
RagNoRock5x wrote:
Quiet420 wrote:
Virrago wrote:
Unfortunately, we had to remove those permissions from everyone. They will not be coming back.
Dontblink wrote:
We're not mature enough to handle pics in our sigs.
That is the feeling that I got too!!! Too bad, I got the perfect JPG for my character. If it is thatmuch of an issue, just moderate it and delete those that don't fit the bill.
anything you can display in a picture, you can describe with words....this just doesn't make sense
200k+ registered users to moderate the sig of.
A pic of a person shooting some one else is a bit different than some one discribing it.
Also lithium cant even handle a regular Save Username/Password so pics in sigs would be even harder.
The truth remains that anything disturbing in a pic can be described just as easily in words....anything improper could result in loss of privelage for that individual......and under the Fair Use section of the copyright laws, there is no risk for SOE regarding allowing users to place their own pictures....I actually suspect the copyright issue is the true reason......and it just doesn't make sense....I find copyrighted info on this sitewhile searching the web all the time....it's easier to find text...and again, fair use provides for usage in situations like these so it doesn't matter anyway.
The fact remains that to socity a Picture of a nude person is much more offensive than just discribing it with words. As seen on tv, you can talk all you want about nude people, but ya cant show a picture unless some one has payed specificaly to have the service of seeing nude people.
Thise forums are a free place, no money required (other than a SWG subscription to post) that people of all ages come to view and post on. (ages 8-80) If there were pics allowed into sigs or posts then when some 8 year old saw it and his/her mother cought it there would be alot of trouble for SOE and the mods.
There is no way for the moderaters to keep up with this many posts by this many people and keep all the filth off the forums, they got enuf trouble as it is now w/ no pics.
No major Official game forums allow pics in sigs to my knowledge, and if one does it is most deffinatly in the manority.
Yes and guns will be taken away from violent criminals after they get cought from shooting some one.
Does not mean that they have not shot some one before, and in either case the damage has already been done.
Same with offensive forum avitars, just cuz it will eventualy be cought, some might be up for days and that is plenty of time to do damage.
Also I do not belive that people would put topless African Tribe women in there avitars.....
This is just another case of the few ruining it for the majority. Happens all the time in politics, socity, internet, school and every where.
you see, in america, we have this thing called the bill of rights....which allows us to bear arms to free ourselves of oppressors and guarentee our own security...the problem is not the criminals with guns, it's those who are unwilling to defend themselves, their community, and their country with responsible use of firearms....look at the states that allow open carry...or relaxed standards for concealed carry....there is far less violent crime....far far far less.
even if it was topless native people, it would still be improper for the forums, but that doesn't mean that everyone, or even a sizable minority would misuse the feature for any purpose...sure, you'd have GNAA fanboys who did something wrong and get banned, but those would be the minority, and overall it would be a positive addition, not a detriment.....seriously....anyone who is worried about their child seeing a body part, or a scene of death or carnage would be much better off talking with their child than trying to prevent the world from existing.
Message Edited by Quiet420 on 09-29-2005 01:09 PM
Quiet420 wrote:
you see, in america, we have this thing called the bill of rights....which allows us to bear arms to free ourselves of oppressors and guarentee our own security...the problem is not the criminals with guns, it's those who are unwilling to defend themselves, their community, and their country with responsible use of firearms....look at the states that allow open carry...or relaxed standards for concealed carry....there is far less violent crime....far far far less.
even if it was topless native people, it would still be improper for the forums, but that doesn't mean that everyone, or even a sizable minority would misuse the feature for any purpose...sure, you'd have GNAA fanboys who did something wrong and get banned, but those would be the minority, and overall it would be a positive addition, not a detriment.....seriously....anyone who is worried about their child seeing a body part, or a scene of death or carnage would be much better off talking with their child than trying to prevent the world from existing.
Message Edited by Quiet420 on 09-29-2005 01:09 PM
Its not a would be it is a was.
Images used to be allowed in sigs. It had to be taken away due to many people abbusing it.
Bill of rights applys to public things not privatly run, operated and payed for things.
We pay to post here, we are part of the SOE "Club" and thus must follow the rules of SOE's "Club" and there rule is no pics in sigs.
Just how private organisations can discriminate who they hire or alow in legaly. Boy Scouts of America for example, is a Privatly run and founded organisation that in its club rules does not allow homosexuals to be leaders orfemales to be members (untill 18) and they have every right to do that.
Nothing stops them from making there own club where they are allowed. Females did this with the Girl Scouts program.
Also the main thing they are concerned about is not just nudity, but pics from ebauns world (how ever you spell) and other just nasty sites which have pics of human mutilation, gross sexual content, animal cuilty and more.
- Pictures are hard for computers to comprehend and therefore all images must be viewed by the moderators directly to determine if they are offensive or not - this means that every image would have to be individually vetted.
- Words can be sent through a word filter that can ban or replace offensive language without moderator interaction. This means the work load on moderating text is significantly less