Meta: Keeping the board SFW
Would it be possible to keep some of the more racy profile pics off of user profiles? I remember this was enforced maybe a year or two ago, but it seems that there have been lots of new posters/new avatars lately with mostly-naked women on them, which isn't conducive to reading MGoBlog in a work environment. I'm not sure if the mods wish to continue the policy that they enacted awhile back, but it's sort of starting to get to the point that I don't feel comfortable reading MGoBlog at work any more.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
gotta respect our sisteren
January 6th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
Woah, let's not be crazy here.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
January 6th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
Guys and Girls,
This might be too much. What is next, no offensive words in posts? Can' t use Indian names? If Brian decides to change it, no problem. But for frequent readers to strongly suggest it? Sorry.
I personally don't use an avatar of half naked women, but it does not really bother me.
The work angle is lame, your on a michigan football blog???? I am on this damn site over an hour a day at work. That will get me fired, not a teeny photo of a fine looking lady.
Magnus did have this issue at TTB and I think he handled it well. I do like some of his photo's but they were pretty close to nudity and took over the screen. He now has you click to see those photos and warns you. But those are way more risque and larger photos.
This seems lke a silly discussion. But obviously it is bothering a lot of people. I do tend to disregard some of the posts by people with half naked women as their avatar, but that is just me.
I say no nudity, but what we have now is fine.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:27 AM ^
Yeah, I don't think it would have been an issue at TTB if the pictures were thumbnail-sized like they are here. When I thought it was becoming a hindrance, I made people click the jump to see them.
I think the bikini pictures here, Kate Upton gifs, etc. are generally reserved for posbangs and/or threads that are well known to potentially have slightly racy photos in them. For example, it's unlikely that the thread "Tyrone Wheatley interviewing with Michigan today" will have anything notably NSFW. On the other hand, "OT: Kate Upton is at the Tigers game" would best be avoided if you're worried about your boss.
January 6th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
For those of you that don' think this is censorship, what would you call it? Guidelines? who decides what the guidelines are?
Remember, this is a blog about the University of Michigan football team. I travel a lot for a living and love Ann Arbor, NY, SF, Madison, Berkely, etc..
M is an extemely liberal university in a very progressive town, not the most, but pretty well up there. I don't think censorship is an area that the university would be happy to promote. This is not a government sponsored website and these are not naked pictures of women. The only person who decides what is appropriate for the site is Brian. If I disagree with his decsion, then I don't come back.
It can be argued they are derogatory towards women. but once again, free speech anyone?
Sorry for political slant, but I truly think it applies here.
January 6th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^
The logical fallacies in this post are almost too numerous to detail... but what the heck.
1. Not a free speech issue b/c Brian/mgoblog isn't a government entity.
2. Neither would it be censorship because it would not be a policy backed by state enforcement power.
3. Mgoblog is in no way affiliated with the university, so it would not be the university promoting censorship.
4. If mgoblog were to decide to eliminate such avatars, the guidelines would be decided by the owner of the site, and those he has delegated to act in his stead.
5. If only Brian had provided some type of guideline...
- It's a picture of boobies!
- Ever open a fifteen-post thread at work and get two different 800x600 pictures of impossibly fake boobs alternating for pages and pages? And then have your boss walk up behind you? Thanks, internet hero, for turning my idle surfing of a sports site into a firing offense! No one needs to see the same set of fake gazongas eighty times accompanied by your three words of deep insight into the team of your choice.
January 6th, 2015 at 2:10 PM ^
by the owner of private property upon the contents of that private property.
Which is a good thing. Brian owns the site and has the right to decide what appears on the site. Posters/readers own their eyeballs and their decisions to visit the site.
January 6th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
It is censorship. Plain and simple. But that is OK if it comes from Brian.
Here's a thought for fun. Please explain your criteria for what is permissible,
- Are Side boobs OK?
- one piece swimsuits ok?
- two piece OK?
- How much cleavage can be shown?
- Are naked men permissible?
- Ass cheeks = good, boobies = not so good?
- Can we show belly buttons?
- Is there any age limit for photos of women, no teenagers, nobody over 40?
Since your so worried about work, what if they see the word Fu*k, Sh&t or cocksu*ker on this site you in trouble then?
Your definition, Brian's definition or somebody else's definition of what is acceptable are all different. That is my point. I think we all no "porn" when we see it. But I honestly can't recall too many photos that are even close. The original OP, just seemed a little high strung to some.
I have no problem with my wife seeing me on this blog, my kids or any co-worker who is female. These avatars, in my mind are not a big deal.
I would not feel the same way about TTB, those are explicit photos.
If Brian wants to impose stronger standards on avatars and photo's, No problem. Most of us come here for the content, humor and excellent writing. The avatars may be immature, but i really don' t notice that much.
January 6th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^
For good reason. It's not a politics blog and Brian doesn't want unnecessary fights leaving people with a sour taste. It's not a skin site either and if Brian think it's making his readers upset he should ban the bikinis. I don't think it's necessary, but I also don't think it would be an act of offensive censorship.
January 6th, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^
In fact, if you do not monitor the boards you could find yourself in a law suit
January 6th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
So that was you, huh?
January 6th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
Shouldn't you be, you know, working??
I would imagine most bosses would be mad that you are wasting company time perusing non-work related websites. Some places consider that "stealing time".
January 6th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
When you work 70 hours a week, your boss doesn't really care if you take a 15 minute break to surf the internet.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^
You get the same content and you won't have to worry about the boss looking over your shoulder.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^
He doesn't mind if you surf the internet for 15 minutes, but he does care if michigan4thewinGOBLUE has a tiny picture of a girl in a bikini as his avatar?
January 6th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^
I'm not worried about my boss at all, but I do want to make sure my female coworkers feel comfortable stopping at my desk. Not everyone has wall-facing monitors that they can alt-tab out of whenever someone walks in; I'd just rather have something that I'm comfortable always having up.
January 6th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^
I hope someone very religious reads the tiny font in the title of this post and now feels uncomfortable stopping by your desk.
This is dumb. Dumb plus dumb to the power of dumb. Oh so dumb.
First it's the boss, then the kids, now the coworker. If it's causing you this much trouble, change your web surfing habits. Maybe keep another tab open that you can switch to when your easily offended coworker/child/boss with eagle eyes stops by your desk.
January 6th, 2015 at 12:45 PM ^
People who have a fascination with woman barely clothed are perverts. I have come to expect the internet is filled with perverts. What I get sick of is people trying to justify it. I don't know what Brian will do and it won't affect me because I don't surf the internet @ work and I don't do it in front of my kids but I find all these posts about it being no big deal as laughable.
Also, no I am not saying that women are innocent. Kate Upton and others take off their clothes because they get paid a lot of money to do so. Advertisers and companies pay them a lot of money because of the fair share of people who will look at them and hopefully notice the product or good associated with them.
There is absolutely no solid reason for having those types of images as your avatar other than "I want to." If that is the case then just have common respect for your fellow man and change it. It really does not have to be that big of a deal.
January 6th, 2015 at 12:55 PM ^
AHHHHHHHhahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHA
breathe.....
AHAHAHAHAHAAAa
/dead
January 6th, 2015 at 1:21 PM ^
I have read many of your posts in this thread and you respond as if you are an adolescent.
The fact that this is your best response does not surprise me.
January 6th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^
January 6th, 2015 at 1:26 PM ^
Relaxation means not pitching a fit when the OP makes a simple request. The very definition of not being relaxed means defending to the death your right to have an avatar of a scantily clad woman.
I know not everyone on this board are the same age, have the same experiences, or even values but is it far-fetched to ask compliance on a simple issue that will keep people from getting into trouble and allow them to enjoy this blog as often as possible?
January 6th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
January 6th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 6th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
I've never seen anything NSFW on this site, unless you happen to work for pencil-necks with pocket protectors who tuck their shirts into their tighty-whiteys.
The vote counts on this thread are confusing. I guess MGoBlog demographics are much different than I thought.
Also, uniquenam...you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that Kate Upton isn't "appropriate" in a professional setting and yet browsing a sports blog with frequent dick jokes in the comments is.
January 6th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^
What if you work around kids and you wanna check out MGoBlog on your lunch break?
Though, to me, the work point is just half of it. If you feel the need to post bewbs in your avatar (especially if its a picture of your sig. other) then you have some serious "check out that hot chick brah would bang" issues.
January 6th, 2015 at 2:57 PM ^
Dick jokes and all sorts of "foul" language exist everywhere here, dude, and it's utterly laughable that you appeal to a small subset of the user base (works around kids). The "reasons" for removing avatars based on arbitrary (read: Puritanical) criteria are getting more and more pathetic as the thread goes on.
It's YOUR goddamn job to not "expose" kids to things if you work around them. If a fourth-grader grabs an eyefull of some girl in a bikini on your computer, you don't blame the website. You blame yourself for both irresponsibility and your crappy standards.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
January 6th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
And it's a sports blog likely dominated by guys. But whatever. Not a big deal either way. I do think the mods should be a little tighter on sexually themed content. While any politically themed content rightly gets an immediate axe, I saw (paraphrasing) " it was raining pussy and I got hit on the head by a dick" just today. That's quite a bit rougher than bikinis imo.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
January 6th, 2015 at 12:16 PM ^
WTF is with your avatar, man?! That's some seriously horrible chin spinach! I just threw up a little in my mouth.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
Hawt avatars aren't really that big a problem to me. The dumb thing is when someone goes "whoa, hawt avatar! upvoat!" like it's the first time they've seen hawtness on the tubes.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
Please remove all women from your avatars and send them to my home instead.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
We probably don't need bikini avatars (please stop calling them naked; they're not).
You should probably avoid threads that say Kate Upton or Posbang at work. Probably also avoid Magnus's site if this sort of thing bothers you.
That seems like a fair compromise.
But when did bikinis become NSFW? I think the closest I've seen to NSFW here is a Kate Upton thread. To repeat: I've seen nothing that is NSFW here.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 6th, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^
Holy moly, that is not even close to the same thing, unless you hang postage stamp-sized bikini calendars around your cubicle.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
Haha, man, I cannot believe that this is a thread.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
As hypnotic as the "Kate Upton dancing while wearing shoestrings for a bathing suit" .gifs are, I usually have to scroll past those posts pretty fast during the Friday Posbangs.
Appreciated, yes! Easy to explain to your boss, not so much...
January 6th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^
January 6th, 2015 at 2:18 PM ^
Thus, I hesitate to go to work.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
I don't think I've seen anything that would make one cover their screen (other than pages of Kate Upton jiggling), so I'm not sure what folks are so upset about. Wait...I get it...I'm not on mgoblog, I logged into mgobarnbuilding.com. My bad.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:20 AM ^
There are literally millions of sites where you can see anything you want. It doesn't have to be here, on a Michigan sports blog.
The more tasteful and classy this site is, the less questions we get from the wifes and GFs about our alleged addictions to the site.
My vote is for "flagging" inappropriate avatars or content? There was a time when this site was a lot more self moderated.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:21 AM ^
I ignore most of the more risque photos just because I was young once. But if there is a policy to clean up avatars, I am all for it. I guess I have officially turned into "off my lawn" old man.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
January 6th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^
Second, I've actually never been bothered by anyone's avatar but I probably use my app 75% of the time so I only see the OP. (There is one avatar I see a lot now of a blinking bikini top that I don't exactly love but it's more distracting than offensive.) After wins I could *maybe* stand to see fewer Kate Upton bouncing gifs...but she is hot and if that's the worst the site has, it's a small price to pay!
January 6th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
Thanks, OP, for bringing this up. It was brought up a month ago or so with the same sort of positive reaction (look at the upvotes). As I have said before, if i want to see Kate Upton, I will Google Kate Upton. If I want want women in bikinis, I will Google "sexy women in bikinis".
If I want Michigan, I come to MGoBlog. This blog is about all things Michigan.
January 6th, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^
I agree. I try to encourage my girlfriend to visit this blog so she knows more about Michigan football (she wants to learn, but she's from Kansas), but it's hard to tell her to look when there's so many half naked girls on here. If you want girls, go to Touch the Banner.