The original was less pixellatedTherefore people with bad eyesight could make out the details apparently - which is ironic.
(
Guy Incognito was last seen SLAM DUNK'N HOES on,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:01,
archived)
Didn't see the originalConsider everything I have written void.
(
WormuIus,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:02,
archived)
the original was a coinflip either way as far as im concerned.i think the people that bitch about nsfw should spend more time working than dicking about on the net :)
(,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:07,
archived)
if it looks like pornthen it's not safe. That's the only rule. If one member says that it looks like porn to them then it needs to be linked. end of.
(
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:18,
archived)
hear heari find it bizarre that so many are so militant. if anyone works for a company who has a highly sensitive IT department / internet policy, why are they persistently using a high risk internet site at work?
you know, a site that is renowned, neigh exclusively popular due to the edgy, bad taste comedy it provides*
i chose not to listen to certain music that i enjoy at work, for fear that the language and tone of much of it could be mis0interpreted by colleagues. why risk the same with the internet? only have yourself to blame if you get in trouble for using B3ta at work.
*i am aware the site has a mandate to creative work, but come on, most people are here for the tits and wounds, so to speak.
(you know, a site that is renowned, neigh exclusively popular due to the edgy, bad taste comedy it provides*
i chose not to listen to certain music that i enjoy at work, for fear that the language and tone of much of it could be mis0interpreted by colleagues. why risk the same with the internet? only have yourself to blame if you get in trouble for using B3ta at work.
*i am aware the site has a mandate to creative work, but come on, most people are here for the tits and wounds, so to speak.
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:19,
archived)
I totally agree thatanyone browsing b3ta at work is a lazy cunt and ought to be fired but it does not alter the fact that there is a strict 'no images that can be mistaken for porn' policy on b3ta and always has been.
( Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:23,
archived)
i don't disagreewith the policy, but the zealous application to the point of daily mail conservatism, is more unpleasant than most images that are accused of overstepping the mark.
despite the hand wringing to the contrary, my employer would be as likely to find a page full of dancing magenta cocks as pornographic as pixel tits.
having fallen foul of the pious porn police over an image (that was ultimately decided by the mods (as also stated in the terms) to be safe for work, it rankles.
(despite the hand wringing to the contrary, my employer would be as likely to find a page full of dancing magenta cocks as pornographic as pixel tits.
having fallen foul of the pious porn police over an image (that was ultimately decided by the mods (as also stated in the terms) to be safe for work, it rankles.
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:32,
archived)
just don't post naked women or women in bikinisand you are safe with anything less controversial than that. It says so, in the faq. Quite clear.
( Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:34,
archived)
in that casewhy do you take a line of 'if one person doesnt like it, then link it'? that isn't the policy.
just for the chew that is.
(just for the chew that is.
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:48,
archived)