Poll for Avatar/signature showing in public

[Dennis S.]

I'm going to comment directly on topic.


I prefer to attend forums with no avatars and no signatures allowed. I really like a streamlined, content-filled forum. I dislike having to see one line posts with signatures that are bigger than the content I read, and I really cannot refer my 50+ co-workers, my friends, and my family to a site that throws sexual and violent avatars and sigs into their face.

That's refer, people. Not recommend. I'll wholeheartedly recommend people check out AllDeaf, but the minute I say, "check out this thread" I'm going to be slapped with a sexual harrassment violation. At least two coworkers have been fired for sexual harrassment since I've worked here. Very serious.

So, I can't show off something cool I've found in the tech forums, or display something I've learned in the ADA forum, or even review the current events during work time because of the risk that I'll have something on my screen jiggling or bouncing or bending over. No, thanks. The avatars and sigs have been turned off so that risk is minimal to me now, but there's still no way I can refer people to threads and get more people to come to AD and get Alex some more ad revenue.

 

[GalaxyAngel]

Dennis,

No.. You're responbile "know how turn it off the switch at opnion"

Not Alex or AD's fault because of caused you of sexual harrassment violation. Nope

Try remmy that, you're on the responbile showing them.. first of all you try reminder that "avatar/sig" turn it off before you show them.. and also respect other AD'ers members who likes humor sense avatar or sig... which it's PG 13.
Isn't harm that way.

And also I've seen so many different hearing forums and there's flithy sig/avatars... Aren't they complain about issues.. reason their own business sig/avatars.. Not really R "rated" Actually reasonable.

compares here.. and another Deaf Forums quite make sense have pg 13.
No difference.

 

[javapride]

U seem to forget and this will be my last post in this thread, Dennis works at a goverment agency therefore he can NOT show certain areas in the threads with the sexually degrading comments and or icons and etc. because of that. some areas of employment are very strict about sexual harrassments, whilist I can not show this site because of this sure i turned off my sigs and avtars, but think about the titles UNDER the avtars. u know ur user name the title right under that.. that's exactly why i can not show those type of things because children are around and not only that where i show them certain areas, i cant show alldeaf, which harms the ad revenues for alex to increase his business.... and i support why dennis can't do this.... hence it being G rated its better than PG 13.

you're in canda and thats alright the laws here are VERY different than your laws in canda, so we have to respect our laws with the sexual harrassment suits and not be fined for it . we dnt want to be paying 1k or more for this...

 

[Cheri]

Seems like some of the posts here are making Alex looking real bad, it isn't the first time either, I've seen some members here ranted about AllDeaf in other forums yet have a nerve to post here. I would never say anything bad about AllDeaf, in matter of fact, I stood up for Alex a lot of times when his name was being brought up so much times in another forums bashing him right and left. Nobody seems to care what Alex had provided for us, a free forum where we can share our opinions with each others regarding what topic it is about. Yet, some of you are saying that AllDeaf is a forum shouldn't be shown in public. Signatures and Avatars are just images chosen by each members here for their own display. If people view this AllDeaf, They're viewing only discussion that we have shared to the public, I don't think they would really care about an avatar or signature showed by members. When I look in other forums, I view the page, reading each members opinions, that's how people learn from others.

To be honest, I believe that Alex's forum is the best site out of anywhere else on the net for the deaf.

 

[javapride]

i don t intend to make alex look bad either, he does a great job with posting information IMO just the sigs and avtars and user titles shld be toned down so we can be able look good plus, also not be slapped with sexual harrassment or any other innuedno (sp) just IMO i know i said last post... i just wanted to share that i would not intend to make alex look bad....

 

[Dennis S.]

Dennis,

No.. You're responbile "know how turn it off the switch at opnion"

Not Alex or AD's fault because of caused you of sexual harrassment violation. Nope

Try remmy that, you're on the responbile showing them.. first of all you try reminder that "avatar/sig" turn it off before you show them.. and also respect other AD'ers members who likes humor sense avatar or sig... which it's PG 13.
Isn't harm that way.

And also I've seen so many different hearing forums and there's flithy sig/avatars... Aren't they complain about issues.. reason their own business sig/avatars.. Not really R "rated" Actually reasonable.

compares here.. and another Deaf Forums quite make sense have pg 13.
No difference.

Er, I have control over what I display on my screen. That's not a problem. I do not have any control over what other people see, and that is why I cannot refer them to any AD threads that may contain those avatars or sigs. Guests to this site do not have any way of not viewing sexually explicit stuff when it's permitted to be everywhere.

Personally, I can handle the freaky stuff on my personal time. I'm cool with it. But this is in no way accessible in my professional line of work. Which means that if a great thread comes up, AllDeaf will not get visitors or ad revenue referred to by me.

I guess it comes down to this, in my mind -- does Alex make the choice of pleasing those people who want sexually explicit avatars and sigs, or does he believe he will get any more ad revenue or traffic by dropping the raunchy stuff? It's not a freedom of speech issue here, the U.S. government isn't oppressing you here.

 

[BabyAngel]

To be honest, I believe that Alex's forum is the best site out of anywhere else on the net for the deaf.

I AGREE!!!!

 

[BabyAngel]

Voted!

 

[Reba]

Hey Liebling I found it, my mistake and yes you have got me right link. I see that United states got almost 4 times more sex crimes than in Germany where sex is pretty much open down there! So, this is the real proof that censoring only makes them worse anyway!

United States Rape (per capital) is .301318 per 1,000 poeple, comparing to Germany that got .09091731 per 1,000 people.

This proves that the more stricter law or controls encourage mischievous behavior no matter how good intention they were.

This sames goes to narcotics, we have the ugliest drug problem down here comparing with other countries where they generally lenient with dope fiends.

P.S. one big exception about sex crimes is that since Nevada is the only state that allows prostitution and they don't have serious rape issues like the rest of the states in the United States... Hey Closed Minded people, isn't it enough to show strong proof??? Sure there are plenty of kids in Las Vegas, Reno, and other cities and they see plenty of prostitutions around... Yet they don't commit much sex crimes like the rest of the America... Wake up!!!

Thanks again, Liebling!

Don't forget the disclaimer with those links:

"Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence of crimes."

For example:

In countries where drug use is legal, obviously there are no arrests for drug use. That doesn't mean that drugs aren't being abused; it just means no one is being arrested.

In countries where rape is ignored, or societies blame the woman, guess what? The number of reported rapes is very low. That doesn't mean rapes aren't happening; it means no one is reporting them.

Just something to keep in mind when using international statistics.

 

[Reba]

...I prefer to attend forums with no avatars and no signatures allowed. I really like a streamlined, content-filled forum. I dislike having to see one line posts with signatures that are bigger than the content I read, and I really cannot refer my 50+ co-workers, my friends, and my family to a site that throws sexual and violent avatars and sigs into their face.

Good points!

 

[Reba]

...Dennis works at a goverment agency therefore he can NOT show certain areas in the threads with the sexually degrading comments and or icons and etc. ...

True. Same when I use the computer lab at work; it is a state college, so I have to be careful with the content that I view there.

 

[Reba]

...To be honest, I believe that Alex's forum is the best site out of anywhere else on the net for the deaf.

I agree!

 

[javapride]

right reba exactly..... thank u for understanding my point.

 

[Reba]

Er, I have control over what I display on my screen. That's not a problem. I do not have any control over what other people see, and that is why I cannot refer them to any AD threads that may contain those avatars or sigs. Guests to this site do not have any way of not viewing sexually explicit stuff when it's permitted to be everywhere...

True.

That's why I wish there was a way to make the default for non-logged-in viewing with avatars and sigs "OFF". Then, only after logging in, the avatars and sigs would show up, IF the member has that setting "ON".

 

[Reba]

One problem that I see with the rating system is, who will enforce it? Do Alex and the mods really want to become avatar/sig judges? Do they really want to spend the extra time monitoring each new avatar and sig? Do they really want the extra grief (whining and complaining) they will get each time they tell someone that their avatar/sig is not acceptable? What will be the guidelines for judging? It does open up a whole new can of worms.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Don't forget the disclaimer with those links:

"Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence of crimes."

For example:

In countries where drug use is legal, obviously there are no arrests for drug use. That doesn't mean that drugs aren't being abused; it just means no one is being arrested.

In countries where rape is ignored, or societies blame the woman, guess what? The number of reported rapes is very low. That doesn't mean rapes aren't happening; it means no one is reporting them.

Just something to keep in mind when using international statistics.

Can you show me link where rapes are ignored? Everywhere in the world except Islaim countries consider rape as serious crime. I only heard the Rape situation was denied/ignored in Cyprus at around 15 years ago. It was happened to 2 Germans who was raped by Greek in Cyprus where they spent their holiday. One of 2 Germans killed Greek to defend herself. She was arrest for "murder" in Cyprus... Rape issues was being denied by court... German Government fought to get them out of prison and go back to Germany. They made it done to get them out.

Drugs are illegal in most countries including Germany. I know kind of drugs are legal in Holland.

For your information: I received a story from my British friend who spend 6 months in America. She was threatened with knife by man to get her go to her apartment and forced her to take clothes off... She do what he wants... What a terrible... After that he gone, she called police straight way. Guess what? Police was like "yeah" with boring impression and told her that toooo many rapists around ... and advised her to do something to defend herself. She was like because she CAN´t do something to defend herself because the man is too strong. She felt that Europe is only country who take sex crimes as serious.

It can´t be possible to deny what the statistic shown because the statistic I provided is not only one... I would suggest you to search more statistic in websites...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Originally Posted by Cheri
...To be honest, I believe that Alex's forum is the best site out of anywhere else on the net for the deaf.

Yes I´m with you...

 

[Cheri]

I see that some members are worried about sexual harassment at work if a coworker saw some sexual avatars and signatures over your shoulders while you are at work, Aren't you supposed to be working? I'm certain that no boss would pay anyone to sit around and fool around in AllDeaf {has no related to work} You get paid to work. So, if you were caught posting in AllDeaf at work, It doesn't make it our fault or Alex's fault. It makes it your fault because you are supposed to be working at your job, doing your job that's what you get paid to do.

 

[Reba]

I see that some members are worried about sexual harassment at work if a coworker saw some sexual avatars and signatures over your shoulders while you are at work, Aren't you supposed to be working? I'm certain that no boss would pay anyone to sit around and fool around in AllDeaf {has no related to work} You get paid to work. So, if you were caught posting in AllDeaf at work, It doesn't make it our fault or Alex's fault. It makes it your fault because you are supposed to be working at your job, doing your job that's what you get paid to do.

I'm not worried about sexual harassment at work. My situation is different from the others.

I work as an interpreter at a state college. Sometimes I have an hour between assignments. I can use the college computer lab during that time. I do NOT surf the web when I am actually working. The computer lab rules prohibit accessing obscene sites.

 

[RainGurl]

Pg.