OVC, your signature....

[Chicky]

yeh but OVC sounds better then OSC, doesnt it? and it looks teh 1337

-OVSC

[Peter Thomas]

Look closer, Sully...There are nipples.

But of course, YOU weren't looking closely, were you.  

[TerranRich]

You're all idiots (most of you anyway). Shut the hell up now.

[RickJ]

I'm with Brusie on this one guys.   We should consider eliminating all images in signature lines or restricting them to 20x60 pix non-animating images.  Further we should also consider banning avatar image not directly accessable.  Why do you ask?

1.  The forum performance has been getting worse and worse.  My browser sit there  with the feakin hourglass while someone's sig is loading a useless cartoon via invis or some other anomomyizer.  

2.  Many of us have down time at work and could contribute to the forum.  Before any of you try lecture me about cheating or being on my companies time, keep in mind I work for myself and lately have been doing fixed price contracts (i.e. mucho waiting time while client catches up and completes their part of the project).   Even though it's my own time, it's not appropriate to have of big busted cartoon, giant pack mem runnign around the computer screen at my client's p[lace of business.  

3.  Images in sigs are completely useless and do noting but slow everything down.  They are also hugely redundant and very annoying.  

That's all of my rant!!!  How's that for an old fart Brusie?

Cheers!!!

[edit]
delete crap ....
[/edit]

[AGA]

I agree. I have 1Mbps cable, and it still takes up to a minute to load some forum pages, all because of FREAKING ANONYMISER! Either get some decent hosting, or don't use images.

[MrColossal]

I don't like the image in your sig because it can be extremely alienating. But whatever, you don't care and I guess no one else does.

but RickJ, your second point doesn't make any sense. Is it our responsibility what a grown man looks at on his off time at work? You don't like the giant pac-man I had, don't come to the forums at a time when it may be inappropriate.

and to continue your point 3, doesn't that mean avatars are also pointless?

[DGMacphee]

They're just a set of boobs, for crying out loud.

No need to be a crybaby just because someone posts a pair of boobs flopping around the place.

If you want score one for women's lib, post a pair of manboobs flopping around -- Yeah! Right on sister! That'll score one for equal opportunity!

But if Bruised wants to post a picture of a vein-filled dick, then I reserve my right to post a picture of a freshly-shaven beaver -- I think it's only fair!

Man, I hate how people are all in an uproar about boobs.

Who cares?

They're boobs -- get over it!

I mean, everyone got so puritanical when Janet Jackson exposed her knockers -- why does it have to also happen here?

What, pray tell, is wrong with a little sex in the forum?

I like sex -- In fact, scratch that: I LOVE sex.

I think sex is something to be talked about openly and honestly, for all men and women.

Yahtzee also agrees with me:

"I LIKE those areas of hentai which depict acts that aren't illegal or sexually deviant. I LIKE seeing pictures of tits. I LIKE to drop momentarily into a little fantasy world where everyone is beautiful and blowjobs are offered in return for fixing the sink. And why not? I'm 100% red hot hunk of man, and all men like watching boobies jiggling around, when they're not lifting weights, grunting and messing around under the bonnets of expensive cars (the men, that is, not the boobies). So there. I've said it. I like hentai. Poo on you."

And here's what Hard from SexyLosers (the most sexually-deviant, tasteless, best comic there is on the internet) has to say:

"And I live in a place [Japan] that shares the fascination. Nudity is commonplace in manga and anime, even those aimed at kids. In December, when it's calendar buying time, the latest nude calendars are proudly hung from the walls of bookstores. Porn is read openly on trains and in raamen shops, the sex trade is alive and well, and love hotels are available everywhere should you feel the need to have sex with someone you're with for a couple of hours.

On the other hand, America is so fucked up about sex, that it can't joke about it. Canada isn't much better, but it's ahead by a small fraction, and that small fraction is due to a woman named Gwen Jacobs who took her top off in the heat a decade ago, and ended up having to fight decency laws. She won the right to take her top off in public, though it was a fight every step of the way. Maybe Janet Jackson will be the Gwen Jacobs of America... it surprises me that this isn't making America take a cold hard look at itself."

In OVC's case, a pair of gigantic, bouncing cartoon juggs isn't going to give me or anyone unrealistic expectations about women.

It's a goddamn cartoon, for christsake.

Now, Helen Lovejoy, you're probably going to scream at me: "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

That's a poor excuse -- young boys are still going to be interested in sex whether OVC has his signature or not.

I grew up around a fairly porn-free family household, but I was still interested in sex regardless, and I'm sure there are many people here with the same attitude.

Yet, I still have a mature view of women and don't expect them to all be size triple-F nymphomaniacs.

And I especially like talking about sex with women too -- Esepcially how they view things.

And some of the women I know have a very open view about sex.

So, my advice is stop taking such a simple and small thing so seriously!

It's a pair of over-sized cartoon breasts -- they're not going to damage anyone's precious mind.

Besides, I think posting something like this is way more disturbing and alienating:



It's just that we've become so desensitised by images of violence and war on the evening news, that we suddenly place it on a lower scale than sexual material.

In Australia, most films get R or X ratings for sex-related content, and in some cases are banned (Case in point: our government banned Larry Clark's "Ken Park" due to graphic sexual depictions, despite that the film was called a brilliant study into suburbian alienation -- so I'll never get to see that now, which is a shame cause I liked Larry Clark's "Kids"), yet we give violent movies something like M, MA, or R.

The recent Passions of Christs got only an MA.

Bad Boys 2 got an MA.

Kill Bill got an R rating, but the violence was still described as cartoonish.

I think people should stop being so puritanical, take another look at the signature, say "Hey, it's just a pair of cartoon boobs! Big deal!", and get over it!

[RickJ]

DG  I guess you missed the point!  Boobs in the sig is spam!  Images in sig is spam!  Images that use anomizers and lousy servers is worse than spam!   I hate spam!!!  

Get it ?  SPAM  sucks, it doesn't matter what kind of spam it is, it still sucks.  

... they're not going to damage anyone's precious mind.

No but they may be enough to pissoff/embarass/whatever  someone's girlfriend, wife,  mother, kids, etc  or percipitate a sexual harassment lawsuit.   Besides I didn't know this was the place to come for sex.  

Posting a disturbing pic in a thread is quite different than posting it in one's sig.   It's easy enough to scroll past  a single entry in a thread  but you can't avoid the sig being repeated post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post.....

It's just annoying and rude INMHO  ....

[MrColossal]

With all due respect DG, eat my boner...

I don't know where you're getting half of this stuff from... Just tell me you like to argue and I'll never bother replying to you again in matters like this.

Women's lib? What are you talking about?

Everyone got puritanical about Janet's boobs? So what? What does this have to do with anything? Is this what we're talking about? Are you lumping me into the "everyone" category because I think the image can be alienating?

Unrealistic views of women? Who said anything about that?

taking a simple and small thing so seriously? what? where? who's really freaking out about this? only person I can see is you. [and now i guess me]

the image you posted:
I'd ask the person who posted that image to please make it a link because some people might not want to see it... Jesus christ who do you think you are? Are you the enlightened one who's going to shock everyone into accepting your view? Maybe it's just common courtesy to not post the image directly and to put a link...

Kill Bill, The Passion of the Christ... What?

What does any of this have to do with anything? Since no one posts image after image of pictures from wars and stuff from rotten.com where are you getting this idea that the AGS Forums are used to death and not used to sex?

so if you're just posting to argue then so be it... in the meantime can i buy you a cinnabon?

oh and can you please link to that image, there are some people who may not want to see it, and since it would be common courtesy to either link to it or put a warning in the thread title maybe it's a good idea.

[Nine Toes]

I think what DG means when he brings up the Janet Jackson incident is how Americans get their panties all in a bunch because of a little nudity.  I'm not going to get into this any farther, but there's nothing wrong with a little nudity, in my humble opinion.

I don't really think getting rid of avatars or sigs is the answer (it might actually piss a few people off...).  Sigs and avatars are what everyone uses to create their personality on here.  Now, I understand, signatures in a sense, can be considered spam, like my signature for instance, I use it to promote my site with the banner I created, but it just looks so much better than this:
South Of Heaven

I mean, we want people to take an interest in what we have to offer, and you need to be able to catch people's eyes in some way.

As for Chicken's sig... I don't see the point behind it, but nonetheless, I don't see why it's really such a big deal.  If it ultimately is decided that Chicken has to remove it, it's not going to be the end of the world, but as long as it stays, I don't have a problem with it personally.

[DGMacphee]

RickJ: In that case, we should remove all pics from sigs.

I don't see why OVC should be selectively targeted.

No but they may be enough to pissoff/embarass/whatever someone's girlfriend, wife, mother, kids, etc or percipitate a sexual harassment lawsuit. Besides I didn't know this was the place to come for sex.

A wife/girlfriend/mother wouldn't be offended if you sit down with them and calmly explain why there's a pair of cartoon boobs swinging wildly on an adventure game forum -- I'm sure if you do this, they won't take any lawsuits out on you.

As for kids, if they don't know what they are or are embarrassed by them, then you haven't done your job as a parent properly -- Perhaps explaining what they are might be a good first step.

Women's lib? What are you talking about?

It's what's known as sarcasm -- re-read my original comment.

(Oh crap, I forgot the smiley! Of course no one would think it's sarcasm!)

Everyone got puritanical about Janet's boobs? So what? What does this have to do with anything? Is this what we're talking about? Are you lumping me into the "everyone" category because I think the image can be alienating?

First, I'm not pointing my finger or lumping anyone here.

I used everyone to mean the majority of society -- Sorry for not being exact in my phrasing, as I didn't realise I had to.

And secondly, I don't see what's so alienating about a pair of cartoon boobs.

Perhaps if you actually explained why you found them alienating, I'd understand more.

Unrealistic views of women? Who said anything about that?

Read the very first few posts in this thread.

taking a simple and small thing so seriously? what? where? who's really freaking out about this? only person I can see is you. [and now i guess me]

And Bruised, who started this thread.

the image you posted:
I'd ask the person who posted that image to please make it a link because some people might not want to see it... Jesus christ who do you think you are? Are you the enlightened one who's going to shock everyone into accepting your view? Maybe it's just common courtesy to not post the image directly and to put a link...

My point in showing that link was to say that there are worse things than a pair of cartoon boobs.

I didn't want to shock anyone into accepting my view -- I just chose an image.

Believe me, there are worse images I could have chosen.

Kill Bill, The Passion of the Christ... What?

What does any of this have to do with anything? Since no one posts image after image of pictures from wars and stuff from rotten.com where are you getting this idea that the AGS Forums are used to death and not used to sex?

In my opinion, most of society is used to death and violence.

Modern media shows graphic depictions of violence to shock viewers into watching shows.

And my point is that I think it's hypocritical for someone to complain about a pair of cartoon boobs when there are way worse things out there.

so if you're just posting to argue then so be it... in the meantime can i buy you a cinnabon?

Please, don't patronise me, Eric -- I expected better things from you.

I don't see why my opinion is worth less than anyone else's here -- thus, I don't see why I should be the only one to "eat your boner".

Are you holding some kind of grudge against me? I ask, because lately, you seem to be focusing a lot of your aggression on me, and more so than anyone else.

If so, why don't you speak to me in private where we can discuss my "argumentive" behaviour?

I thought you, as a moderator, would be above phrases like "eat my boner" too -- I mean, that's something that I'd say.

oh and can you please link to that image, there are some people who may not want to see it, and since it would be common courtesy to either link to it or put a warning in the thread title maybe it's a good idea.

Well, if you think the image is offensive, then censor it yourself -- you are a moderator, so moderate my image.

Besides, you see the same things (and much worse) in the papers and on the news.




Anyway, I think Eric's pissed off with me now and I'm guessing he doesn't want me to post in here any more, so I'll quit posting -- Apparently, I'm too "argumentive".



Adios.

[Peter Thomas]

Wow... this has become very...political, in a sense.

Although I disagree with RickJ on the whole, I DON'T think it's appropriate for other people to say "Hey man! Get over it! They're Boobs! No one Cares!!"

The fact that RickJ started a whole thread on it is an indication that SOMEONE cares. And we should respect that, even if only one or two people want it gone.

Maybe OVC should turn his sig upside down and invert the colours. That way, small children will be confused, and 'older' viewers can have a good old riot staring at a pair of black breasts bouncing upside down. I know I'D laugh... 8)

[Timosity]

It's funny that no one has noticed that in my sig, I have naked men, women, sex scenes, stripping, mooning, cross dressing and drug use.

[Peter Thomas]

It's funny that no one has noticed that in my sig, I have naked men, women, sex scenes, stripping, cross dressing and drug use.

I HAD noticed, but I didn't want to mention it, in case people started a campaign agains you. I'd feel kind of responsible then... but now..... THOUGH HAS BROUGHT IT UPON THYSELF!

[TerranRich]

I DO agree that large signature images are pointless and annoying. Take, for instance, one chemically-named AGS newcomer whose signature consists of a large Windows-XP style parody error message.

I hope people know I was joking earlier when I told everybody off.

[rodekill]

I don't get the whole 'unrealistic expectations' thing.
I grew up with playboy and porn and everything, but I've never actually expected real women to look like that, you know, since I've actually seen real women hanging around the planet once in a while.
Men like big boobs and nurse outfits. Women like guys with huge muscles cowboy hats.
I think we can all agree that most people can separate fantasy from reality.
If anyone out there is actually worried about these things, then the real problem is probably a self-esteem issue. Nobody's perfect. Do what you can, and accept yourself for the person you've made yourself into.

[RickJ]

In that case, we should remove all pics from sigs.

I guess that would be my point... A spamless forum,what a concept

[Chicky]

ok well this has created quite an uproar, and i hope your sorry beaver.

people are complaing about signature pictures being 'spam' but isnt this whole thread a waste of bandwith?

im no expert im just trying to get my point across

i myself really enjoy looking at peoples signatures and i did even when i was on dialup. But doesnt the text load before the images? So you dont atachally have to wait for the images to load.

If people dont like MY perticular signature, because of the obvious attention to the womans breasts. Then i will change it.

And towards the annomiser point, my signature doesnt use annomiser because of the site (that i recently posted about) www.photobucket.com So that doesnt effect me.

anyway, its up to the community, i'll change it if you want

cheers

-nath

[Nacho]

People can make long posts trying to convince you... :o

Some other times they can with just a sentence... :

RickJ says that large sigs are a problem for him...

I don't want to bother RickJ.

I've changed my signature. 8)

(This post has to be taken like an example of cool use of the smileys)[/boasting]

[SSH]

Actually, I didn't relasie that anonymizer was slowing things down for folks, too, so I've moved my avatar to somewhere I can direct link to...