.

[bigbro101]

.

[Lauren]

Could it not be considered nudity? You have to bare in mind the majority of people seeing your avatar are 13 year olds and so I personally don't feel it is appropriate to have.

However, I'm not sure what the mods/admins view on this is.

[Rory]

If you have to question it, you probably shouldn't use it.

[Ashleee:)]

yeah, i personally have no problem with it, but theres a lot of youngsters on here :puzzled:

[Matt]

I personally wouldn't post any sexually suggestive shots of myself on a forum which anyone can read, but it's up to you...

[Lauren]

If you're under 18 it's illegal anyway, so mods will remove it as soon as they can if they're unsure on age. It falls under pornography of a minor (despite the fact you put it up).

But really, on a BB forum I don't see why you feel the need for a semi naked sexually suggestive avatar? Your body is your temple and you're allowing any paedophile or pervert who wants to - stumble across your picture, and well...Not nice.

[Ashleee:)]

maybe cover up a little :thumbs:

[bigbro101]

but saying that i did see someone post a naked pic of rebecca's boobs up on the forum today and that wasent censord :conf:

[Lauren]

Originally posted by bigbro101
but saying that i did see someone post a naked pic of rebecca's boobs up on the forum today and that wasent censord :conf:

Yeah, that shouldn't have been allowed either - but some things do slip through the net as mods can't be on 24/7. Members are meant to 'report posts' if they see anything dodgy to bring it to mods attention.

[andyman]

myself i thinks its a nice pic, you have a good body but... We have to have rules coz many people will be sending in sexual pics and there some under 18s that use this site. Best to ask admin than them taking you off the site, maybe do another pic. X

[Lauren]

Keeping the pic on the site is illegal anyway, cos you could very easily be under 18 and then it's (in theory) child pornography.

[andyman]

good point there.

[James]

Yeah, it's not really appropriate for this site... for the reasons that have been mentioned in the replies. Though you did say in a previous post you were 18.

(Mods and admin can use the search function btw, in case people are wondering how I searched, it will return soon).

[Bright-Eyes]

Um.... am I the only one who is uncomfortable with her sig? Not only because of the content but also because is so large.:shrug:

[mlwfan]

I just figured she was advertising her services for a fee.

[Lauren]

Originally posted by Bright-Eyes
Um.... am I the only one who is uncomfortable with her sig? Not only because of the content but also because is so large.:shrug:

I think both are within the rules of the site. If you're really uncomfortable though - let a mod know.

I remember another signature aaages ago that was removed despite it not breaking rules, just cos it was inciting arguments and people were uncomfortable with it. (It was an anti-war sig btw, not a half naked woman :laugh: Slightly different, but still).

[Kaz]

Haven't received any official complaints about the signature yet, however I have now resized it to comply with Forum Guidelines, i.e. no wider than 550 pixels.

[Bright-Eyes]

Well I do not want to make a fuss I was just wondering. But when it loads up and in my sitting room or at college im going to look like a right prev. I know her profile says she is 18 but she does look younger.

[mlwfan]

I thought she was about 15 to be honest. I'd turn sigs off if I were you.

[MarkWaldorf]

Well if no one else is going to say it.

Tis a bit skank - dont you think?

[Bright-Eyes]

Originally posted by mlwfan
I thought she was about 15 to be honest. I'd turn sigs off if I were you. Yup I thought that age but she has 1989 in her profile. Not that it is hard to change it.

[mlwfan]

Originally posted by Markus
Well if no one else is going to say it.

Tis a bit skank - dont you think?

Lmao! I did say it. In a u2u to bright eyes.

[Lauren]

I've already made comment to James on her age when her avatar was what this thread is about. Apparently she's previously mentioned she is 18 and James is agreeing with that.

I still think she looks ~15 though, and I think the half naked pictures are hardly necessary on a site children use - but still, she's following rules I suppose so it's not her fault.

[GiRTh]

Are you on about the one thats currently up? I dont see anything wrong.

[Billy]

I think she looks 18.
And skanky? Respecting other members I dont thinkso

[Lauren]

Originally posted by GiRTh
Are you on about the one thats currently up? I dont see anything wrong.

She had a different one. The one in her sig with "censored" on it, but it didn't have censored written on it...

[GiRTh]

Was there any beaver? I'm sorry I missed it.

[Lauren]

Originally posted by GiRTh
Was there any beaver? I'm sorry I missed it.

No, but also I think she's under 18. LOL.

[MarkWaldorf]

Originally posted by Billy21
I think she looks 18.
And skanky? Respecting other members I dont thinkso

I don't see other members displaying pictures of themselves with their legs wide open with "censored" plastered on top.

It is skank. I don't mean it against her, I just don't think its appropriate for this forum.

[mlwfan]

That settles it then. We are all agreed on the fact that it's "skank".

Meeting adjourned. lol

[Ashleee:)]

Originally posted by GiRTh
Was there any beaver? I'm sorry I missed it.


:laugh2:

Ewwww 'beaver'

[MarkWaldorf]

Originally posted by mlwfan
That settles it then. We are all agreed on the fact that it's "skank".

Meeting adjourned. lol

Lmao!! :laugh:
At least that's settled.

[Bright-Eyes]

Originally posted by Kaz
Haven't received any official complaints about the signature yet, however I have now resized it to comply with Forum Guidelines, i.e. no wider than 550 pixels.

Thanx for that It a looks less "in your face" now.

[Nurse57]

Marks out of 10? I'd give her 1.

[Billy]

And someone takes it a tad too far :)

[mlwfan]

Why am I not surprised Nurse.

[Nurse57]

:whistle:

[Scarlett.]

From what I'm guessing was in the picture, I have to ask

Why would you want that in your avvy?

[Hugo]

What was the avatar?

[mlwfan]

It's in the sig now.

[Bright-Eyes]

Originally posted by mlwfan
It's in the sig now. yea the last one Legs open and the black bar over it.

[Nurse57]

So hers was not ok but bright-eyes can have a man with his legs open and his hands down his pants?

[Bright-Eyes]

Originally posted by Nurse57
So hers was not ok but bright-eyes can have a man with his legs open and his hands down his pants?
Have you read the theard no one said she could not.

Plus we all know dale is over 18.

[Nurse57]

Yes, but it was called into question, where as yours has not. I personally could not care either way.

We know she is 18. Why should we not believe her. Don't you have to be 18 to get a tattoo?

[Bright-Eyes]

Originally posted by Nurse57
Yes, but it was called into question, where as yours has not. I personally could not care either way.

We know she is 18. Why should we not believe her. Don't you have to be 18 to get a tattoo?
No. I knew people who had tattoos when I was in year 9/10.

[Nurse57]

"No. I knew people who had tattoos when I was in year 9/10."

Well who ever did it broke the law. Have just checked. You have to be 18.

So, they are both 18 or over and have a photo with their legs open. What is the difference?

[Billy]

Loads ofpeople in my year have tatoos and they are 15/16

[Christina]

My friend is getting a tatoo shes only 15, id like a small cross on the back of my shoulder but im scared lol. Or id get angel wings on my back x

[Bright-Eyes]

Originally posted by Nurse57
"No. I knew people who had tattoos when I was in year 9/10."

Well who ever did it broke the law. Have just checked. You have to be 18.

So, they are both 18 or over and have a photo with their legs open. What is the difference?

Well thank you for researching. I do not have a problem with the sig right now (and I never mentioned the av myself) but there was a difference when the sig was well over twice the size it is now. I still think she could be underage and a tatto does not prove anything. But right now the fact it does not take up 1/4 of my screen means I do not mind as much.

[KKBL]

i think its inapropriate,but if it is then bemji and brigh-eyes avatar is kinda to.but i supose thats not actualy pics of themselves.

[Lauren]

Originally posted by Nurse57

So, they are both 18 or over and have a photo with their legs open. What is the difference?

People would've seen Dale regardless because they watch BB.

However, having semi naked pictures of herself as a signature isn't relevant to the forum and not necessary (though as I said before, not against the rules so it's not something to be held against her).

I guess if people feel uncomfortable about it and make a formal complaint then admins can see whether it's necessary. As Kaz said, no complaints have been made so bigbro101 is not in the wrong.

Just personally I feel its not necessary.

[Bright-Eyes]

Originally posted by KKBL
i think its inapropriate,but if it is then bemji and brigh-eyes avatar is kinda to.but i supose thats not actualy pics of themselves.
I think the fact it is not us makes a diffrence I can not think of why but it does.

[Jack_]

I didn't have a problem with it tbh, and I am 13. :laugh:

But I would understand if someone had a problem with it, as some people find it uncomfortable to look at, which is fair enough.

But like I say, I had/have no problem with it.

[KKBL]

Originally posted by Bright-Eyes
Originally posted by KKBL
i think its inapropriate,but if it is then bemji and brigh-eyes avatar is kinda to.but i supose thats not actualy pics of themselves.
I think the fact it is not us makes a diffrence I can not think of why but it does.

i just think if shes not aloud her picture because its a picture of herself then fine but if shes not allowed her picture just because its a nudity then neither should yours or Benji's

[mlwfan]

I don't think whether it's allowed has come into question as much. I think people have just expressed their personal opinions on it thus far.