naked avatar poll
Comments
-
Everybody is being very accomodating anyway. I think I was the only person to have a naked avatar and I have now gotten rid of it to allow others not to worry about their kids being corrupted by it or their bosses firing them over it. My personal opinion is that if a person chooses to use company time to "chat" here on this forum, they are already likely violating their firm's policy anyway....
-
mypasswordwontwork wrote: Everybody is being very accomodating anyway. I think I was the only person to have a naked avatar and I have now gotten rid of it to allow others not to worry about their kids being corrupted by it or their bosses firing them over it. My personal opinion is that if a person chooses to use company time to "chat" here on this forum, they are already likely violating their firm's policy anyway....
I agree regarding your own avatar and think that it is a largely dead issue now.
As far as work place policies on internet usage go there is actually quite a big difference in policy from one workplace to another. However, most companies would prefer you were not viewing nude pictures in the workplace as this opens up all sorts of worm cans for them. -
so I looked in a corporate handbook, and "the display of suggestive pictures" gets mentioned on the sexual harrassment page, under the "less obvious" forms of harassment creating what is know as a "hostile work environment."
The finer point they put on it is that the pictures/actions creating a hostile work enviro don't have to be specifically addressed to an individual, but simply occur in the employee's presence.
Some work sites allow surfing, some don't. That's a different issue. -
It's a difficult one, isn't it? I think that few people realize quite how much time they spend on forums like this during a working day. I used to employ an assistant a couple years ago and she always seemed to be on some kind of fashion website. Obviously you can't keep employees chained to their desks, and they ARE allowed to take or make personal phone calls and chat to coworkers at the water cooler etc. But I think personal web use at work has reached the point where it's the equivalent of spending two hours at a time gossiping at the water cooler, or taking several 2 hour-long personal calls during the course of the working day. And then bear in mind that employers can actually read what their workers post on sites like this one. It's a big risk.
If I wasn't self employed I don't think I'd find it appropriate to visit sites like this one during working hours. -
If you were to do as much stretching to show consideration as you do to rationalize your actions, you'd be a regular Mother Teresa.
-
WhyFi wrote: If you were to do as much stretching to show consideration as you do to rationalize your actions, you'd be a regular Mother Teresa.
Your constant baiting is getting tired. Excuse me while I yaaaawn. -
mypasswordwontwork wrote: Caahyoko, its a naked woman crawling on all fours wearing a pair of black stilettoes and nothing else. Her head is cropped. You don't see any of her female parts, just a bit of breast from the side but no nipple. Some peopel were very very upset by it. Several male members PM'd me to say it was hot and ask if it was me or not. I can send it to you if you want. I don't want to upset you though.
No nipple? So what's the problem people? Maybe I'd have to see it, but if that's it I really don't see what the big deal is, and even how an IT department would care. Do they really open every cashed photo???? -
At my previous and future employer's offices, viewing even mypass's current avatar within sight of others would be grounds for censure or potentially dismissal. Ditto to viewing a blog with foul language on it. Naturally, excessive browsing of the internet at all is frowned upon but that's not a management issue, not an HR issue. My company does monitor and restrict all email traffic and web activity, so you would be more likely than not to get caught. And I don't work for the religious police--due to the massive amount of litigation over the past couple of decades, this level of strictness if pretty normal at mainstream companies nowadays.
I'm not saying that we have an obligation to consider other people's office environments when posting, I'm just stating a fact. -
caaahyoko wrote: [quote=mypasswordwontwork]Caahyoko, its a naked woman crawling on all fours wearing a pair of black stilettoes and nothing else. Her head is cropped. You don't see any of her female parts, just a bit of breast from the side but no nipple. Some peopel were very very upset by it. Several male members PM'd me to say it was hot and ask if it was me or not. I can send it to you if you want. I don't want to upset you though.
No nipple? So what's the problem people? Maybe I'd have to see it, but if that's it I really don't see what the big deal is, and even how an IT department would care. Do they really open every cashed photo????
It was not graphic at all I think the outrage was more about what the picture supposedly implied (one poster felt that the headless woman in the pic was 'waiting to be fucked') You see as much as that (if not a little more) typically at the beach. -
caaahyoko wrote: [quote=mypasswordwontwork]Caahyoko, its a naked woman crawling on all fours wearing a pair of black stilettoes and nothing else. Her head is cropped. You don't see any of her female parts, just a bit of breast from the side but no nipple. Some peopel were very very upset by it. Several male members PM'd me to say it was hot and ask if it was me or not. I can send it to you if you want. I don't want to upset you though.
No nipple? So what's the problem people? Maybe I'd have to see it, but if that's it I really don't see what the big deal is, and even how an IT department would care. Do they really open every cashed photo????
Caaahyoko, I'd encourage you to read the entire thread. A lot of people felt it was a really objectionable image, and as you can see from the poll results above, the majority of those who voted in the poll felt this kind of image wasn't something they wanted to come up when they're visiting Brooklynian, for a variety of reasons. -
Idlewild wrote: What's to be ignored? If you're not supposed to be web surfing on the boss' time and you're caught because a nudie av is spotted on your screen and you're either reprimanded or fired for it, then tough titties. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. One shouldn't use nude avs because you're afraid of being caught by the Man? I can make the argument that a flamboyant av, such as a brightly colored fully garbed Liberace av will catch the boss' attention and you'll still get in trouble. As for the kid issue, fuck 'em! Personally, I'm tired of hearing the politically correct nonsense about children's best interest. Either go on the computer with your child or keep them off of it. This is the web for crying out loud. What do you think they are going to find if left unattended? Ever since this nonsense started with substituting Saturday morning cartoons with "stuff that educates" I have noticed that todays children are either rude or are pussies or are both. You want to address a child's concern? Prosecute parents who still wheel their kids in baby strollers even though they're very capable of walking. Too me that harms a child much more than seeing a underlit nude av of a woman on all fours in fuck me pumps.
Yeah, really. My parents didn't censor anything they watched for my sake when I was a kid--I saw Sex, Lies and Videotape and Clockwork Orange when I was 6 or 7, for example--and I have ended up well adjusted. Why? Because THEY are good people, and have always had a great relationship. If they ever argued, I never saw it, and their actions were the only guidelines I followed. I could see all the R rated movies in the world and still understand, at that age, what is right and wrong.
As much as some people think their kids are brilliant, you would think they would treat them as such and let them think for themselves. They may actually be smarter than you! -
apollonia666 wrote:
I did read it. All of it.
Caaahyoko, I'd encourage you to read the entire thread. A lot of people felt it was a really objectionable image, and as you can see from the poll results above, the majority of those who voted in the poll felt this kind of image wasn't something they wanted to come up when they're visiting Brooklynian, for a variety of reasons. -
caaahyoko wrote: [quote=apollonia666]
I did read it. All of it.
Caaahyoko, I'd encourage you to read the entire thread. A lot of people felt it was a really objectionable image, and as you can see from the poll results above, the majority of those who voted in the poll felt this kind of image wasn't something they wanted to come up when they're visiting Brooklynian, for a variety of reasons.
Okay, fair enough. Several people already articulated in the thread why they thought this particular image was objectionable, and your post led me to believe that maybe you hadn't read those posts. My bad. -
I wasn't offended by the original avatar, I just thought it was tacky. I was surprised by it because it was at odds with what I expect to see on these boards. Even the current one makes me feel like I've stumbled into the America's Next Top Model forum by mistake. Either that or an escort site.
-
laura wrote: . Either that or an escort site.
-
apollonia666 wrote: [quote=caaahyoko][quote=mypasswordwontwork]Caahyoko, its a naked woman crawling on all fours wearing a pair of black stilettoes and nothing else. Her head is cropped. You don't see any of her female parts, just a bit of breast from the side but no nipple. Some peopel were very very upset by it. Several male members PM'd me to say it was hot and ask if it was me or not. I can send it to you if you want. I don't want to upset you though.
No nipple? So what's the problem people? Maybe I'd have to see it, but if that's it I really don't see what the big deal is, and even how an IT department would care. Do they really open every cashed photo????
Caaahyoko, I'd encourage you to read the entire thread. A lot of people felt it was a really objectionable image, and as you can see from the poll results above, the majority of those who voted in the poll felt this kind of image wasn't something they wanted to come up when they're visiting Brooklynian, for a variety of reasons.
The poll is biased. You have three "yes I'm offended..." and two "no I'm not offended..." with one "no.." being suspect. -
iowagirl wrote: Not keen. Our computer is in the kitchen. I have three boys (oldest is 11, and he'd probably looooove a naked avatar....) who have been known to peer over my shoulder occasionally before I shoo them away. They should be able to choose their own porn.
http://vegas.napkinnights.com/pics/index.php?f=s_17
Thanks for asking. But when is the next porn convention, anyway? I haven't heard anything about it. -
I'm just not a fan of avatars in general. Waste of bandwidth that could be better spent talking about ridiculous things to get picked up by Gawker on slow news days.
-
special for you, I added a neutral "no" option
The poll is biased. You have three "yes I'm offended..." and two "no I'm not offended..." with one "no.." being suspect.
the poll was formed with text from the original thread
i.e. "and this is what is wrong with america"
still it's an informal straw poll of our users
highly unscientific!
jenntrixie you're a sensible person
and I'm *shocked* that this much talk about hooking has not been Gawkered -
pitu wrote: and I'm *shocked* that this much talk about hooking has not been Gawkered
wait. who's talking about hooking?
i thought we were talking about escorts
unless you mean precious "hooking up" with armchair O:) -
pitu wrote:
Too late. The damage is done. This might as well have been on a Florida chad ballot.
special for you, I added a neutral "no" option
The poll is biased. You have three "yes I'm offended..." and two "no I'm not offended..." with one "no.." being suspect.
the poll was formed with text from the original thread
i.e. "and this is what is wrong with america"
still it's an informal straw poll of our users
highly unscientific!
jenntrixie you're a sensible person
and I'm *shocked* that this much talk about hooking has not been Gawkered -
Idlewild wrote: [quote=pitu]
Too late. The damage is done. This might as well have been on a Florida chad ballot.
special for you, I added a neutral "no" option
The poll is biased. You have three "yes I'm offended..." and two "no I'm not offended..." with one "no.." being suspect.
the poll was formed with text from the original thread
i.e. "and this is what is wrong with america"
still it's an informal straw poll of our users
highly unscientific!
jenntrixie you're a sensible person
and I'm *shocked* that this much talk about hooking has not been Gawkered
What do you mean? -
Oh my... #-o
-
Idlewild wrote: [quote=pitu]
Too late. The damage is done. This might as well have been on a Florida chad ballot.
special for you, I added a neutral "no" option
The poll is biased. You have three "yes I'm offended..." and two "no I'm not offended..." with one "no.." being suspect.
the poll was formed with text from the original thread
i.e. "and this is what is wrong with america"
still it's an informal straw poll of our users
highly unscientific!
yeah, cause the future of the nation rests on the outcome
i.n.t.e.r.n.e.t. p.o.l.l.
I daresay this one is more accurate than most, since at least we can only vote once each, and are unlikely to get everyone in our office to vote too to skew the results. -
there's a pretty major difference, as pitu pointed out, between images and words. a lot of IT departments filter images and randomly look at what users have been looking at because of the potential HR issues w.r.t. sexual harrassment.
how much individuals are surfing the web at work is a management issue. a company can lock down access to specific sites or set up word filters. where I work, we don't employ any sort of word filter or site lockdowns: lawyers are notoriously foul mouthed. a few years ago the junk mail filter was pulling anything with the word "fuck" in it - that got removed maybe 24 hours after installation. also, no one monitors internet activity beyond the image filters and bandwidth usage (spikes in use generally indicate spyware problems) unless that user is already being reviewed by management for doing a lousy job at work. thankfully, I don't need to worry about that - I get all of my work done and do a damn good job of it. I'd probably go completely insane if my internet use were restricted - this past week, for instance, has been so dead at work I can't imagine not having the distraction of the internet. as such, the only thing I really worry about are images, which is why I slected "yes, I could lose my job over this". it probably wouldn't be that dramatic, but still, I'd rather not find out. -
pitu wrote: [quote=Idlewild][quote=pitu]
Too late. The damage is done. This might as well have been on a Florida chad ballot.
special for you, I added a neutral "no" option
The poll is biased. You have three "yes I'm offended..." and two "no I'm not offended..." with one "no.." being suspect.
the poll was formed with text from the original thread
i.e. "and this is what is wrong with america"
still it's an informal straw poll of our users
highly unscientific!
yeah, cause the future of the nation rests on the outcome
i.n.t.e.r.n.e.t. p.o.l.l.
I daresay this one is more accurate than most, since at least we can only vote once each, and are unlikely to get everyone in our office to vote too to skew the results.
Right, you're only allowed to vote once. So adding the last option after all the votes are in makes that option moot. I have a feeling Kathy Dent is behind this. -
alafairnadia wrote: there's a pretty major difference, as pitu pointed out, between images and words. a lot of IT departments filter images and randomly look at what users have been looking at because of the potential HR issues w.r.t. sexual harrassment.
how much individuals are surfing the web at work is a management issue. a company can lock down access to specific sites or set up word filters. where I work, we don't employ any sort of word filter or site lockdowns: lawyers are notoriously foul mouthed. a few years ago the junk mail filter was pulling anything with the word "fuck" in it - that got removed maybe 24 hours after installation. also, no one monitors internet activity beyond the image filters and bandwidth usage (spikes in use generally indicate spyware problems) unless that user is already being reviewed by management for doing a lousy job at work. thankfully, I don't need to worry about that - I get all of my work done and do a damn good job of it. I'd probably go completely insane if my internet use were restricted - this past week, for instance, has been so dead at work I can't imagine not having the distraction of the internet. as such, the only thing I really worry about are images, which is why I slected "yes, I could lose my job over this". it probably wouldn't be that dramatic, but still, I'd rather not find out.
With all due respect if you're not supposed to be web surfing at work, and you get caught because your supervisor spots a offensive image, you have no right to be angry at the poster of said image. And posters shouldn't have to watch their step because someone who is browsing on the net might get by their boss or the person's kid might see what is appearing on the screen. The web is a free for all. Their are plenty of filters and nanny watches and everything else available to block this kind of stuff. And let me say this as well. If the owner of this site decided to enforce family friendly rules then I would live with the decision. -
Idlewild wrote: If the owner of this site decided to enforce family friendly rules then I would live with the decision.
dailyheights wrote: ok, somebody just pointed out to me that "NSFW" avatars can be a problem for people who are logging on from work. So let's keep the avatars SFW, K?
-
Idlewild wrote: And let me say this as well. If the owner of this site decided to enforce family friendly rules then I would live with the decision.
Well, DH has already posted that he wants images in avatars to be "safe for work" from here on out. That makes this whole thing a dead horse, then, I would think. -
Idlewild wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]there's a pretty major difference, as pitu pointed out, between images and words. a lot of IT departments filter images and randomly look at what users have been looking at because of the potential HR issues w.r.t. sexual harrassment.
how much individuals are surfing the web at work is a management issue. a company can lock down access to specific sites or set up word filters. where I work, we don't employ any sort of word filter or site lockdowns: lawyers are notoriously foul mouthed. a few years ago the junk mail filter was pulling anything with the word "fuck" in it - that got removed maybe 24 hours after installation. also, no one monitors internet activity beyond the image filters and bandwidth usage (spikes in use generally indicate spyware problems) unless that user is already being reviewed by management for doing a lousy job at work. thankfully, I don't need to worry about that - I get all of my work done and do a damn good job of it. I'd probably go completely insane if my internet use were restricted - this past week, for instance, has been so dead at work I can't imagine not having the distraction of the internet. as such, the only thing I really worry about are images, which is why I slected "yes, I could lose my job over this". it probably wouldn't be that dramatic, but still, I'd rather not find out.
With all due respect if you're not supposed to be web surfing at work, and you get caught because your supervisor spots a offensive image, you have no right to be angry at the poster of said image. .
I agree. And with that in mind I am shocked by how some people have continued to complain about the Avatar, even though the darn thing is long gone anyway...
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds