Should BC Have The Right to Censor Avatars

Discussion in 'UPS Discussions' started by UpstateNYUPSer, Mar 6, 2009.


Should the moderators and/or Cheryl have the right to censor avatars?

Poll closed Mar 8, 2009.
  1. Yes--questionable avatars can offend members and are a violation of TOS

    59 vote(s)
  2. No--freedom of speech includes "questionable" avatars

    13 vote(s)
  3. I have no opinion

    3 vote(s)
  1. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    I am starting this poll to guage opinions as to whether the mods or Cheryl should have the authority to censor "questionable" avatars. This is a result of some of the complaints that I have read regarding the pictures posted by sexyupsman.

    I chose to keep the voting results private but will state that I voted Yes. I find them objectionable.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2009
  2. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    This is Cheryl's site, she does have the right to set her rules. As mods, we are to enforce what she wants. I think that some avatars are borderline, they could go either way. We have deleted some immediantely that were vulgar or offensive. We have one now that most of our community finds objectional, and steps were taken last night to give the member the chance to change it.
  3. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    This message board belongs to Cheryl, she has the right and authority to censor any damn thing she wants. If the posters don't like it, nothing says they have to stay here.
    The Mods work under her authority.
  4. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member

    YES, there are many sites for smut. This aint it.
  5. Ms.PacMan

    Ms.PacMan Well-Known Member

    There are a couple of "female driver" avatars that I'm not fond of that are just as revealing so why the fuss over a man scantily dressed?
  6. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I would agree. It's no secret who this poll is aimed at, and while I personally don't care to look at men in underwear and would prefer not to see that used as an avatar, there are a couple members who have used the porn star dressed in a revealing faux UPS outfit as their avatars and no one has said anything, at least publicly. Fairness would dictate that if you get rid of one, you get rid of all of them.
  7. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    If it was Kramer in his tighty-whities, it might be funny. But, for some reason I find that guy in his undies offensive but I can't explain why. I'm not usually a prude.

    When I see it, I bypass what's written there.
  8. browndevil

    browndevil Active Member

    Who are we kidding? I would kill to have the abs in sexyman's avatar! I agree with Upstater, of course Cheryl and the mods have a right to delete an objectionable avatar. I just don't think his is. I also agree with Ms. PacMan I have seen a couple of them that objectify women. I wouldn't want my daughter to be in one of those pictures. So censor away.
    Now isn't my handsome black lab mix a clean and wholesome avatar?:happy2:
  9. brownmonster

    brownmonster Man of Great Wisdom

    This is why I keep a full pelt on my avatar.
  10. Channahon

    Channahon New Member

    We need to keep in mind that some members have young children, who just might look at avatars, for amusement.
    I think an avatar has alot to say of a person, we generally choose an avatar to reflect part of our lives.

    Now I think sexyupsman, as a screen name, projects that member's personality, no need to have soft porn as a avatar.
  11. over9five

    over9five Hillary for prison 2016 Staff Member

    Hmmm, good points all.

    We've deleted more avatars than you probably know, and YES, we have every right to do so.

    I like the point that was made about the scantily clad UPS girl that no-ones complained about. What IS the difference? I'll tell you the difference. One avatar is made by an openly gay man, and I think some of you may have more of an issue with that.
    That being said, I personally don't like either as an avatar on BrownCafe, but I also don't think one has crossed the line any more than the other.

    As members here, you all have the responsibility of reporting any post, signature line, or avatar that you find objectionable. We honestly do value your input.
  12. sexyupsman

    sexyupsman New Member

    Dont worry you big fat babies. I have deleted my avatar and bowed to your pressure! Good for you all. You win! I just feel sorry for any employee at UPS that may be struggling with the fact they are gay and dealing with a bunch of homophobic, uptight, cant grasp on to the fact that people are out there and really do exist in the year 2009. I have been targeted and I will accept the judgement of the BC members. This is your website not mine. I will continue to visit. You won the battle just not the war! Congratulations to the winners. And thanks to the members out there that supported my avatar.
  13. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    I have no problem with your sexuality--I do have a problem with your picture. Call me whatever you want--I have been called far worse by much better.
  14. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member


  15. Tater's Dad

    Tater's Dad New Member

    I agree that we need to be careful with avatars... I have no issues with someone's desire to express themselves; however, we do need to be careful with what we portray. This is not an "adult" only site, it is open to the public and we need to be careful of what our youngsters can see.

    If I am on here with my son, and I come across a posting from sexyupsman, I will srcoll past it without reading it so as my son does not see his avatar. I do enjoy reading his thoughts and comments and will go back to read them later.
  16. Tater's Dad

    Tater's Dad New Member

    Now I can read all of sexyupsman posts with my son and not worry about the avatar. As I said earlier, I enjoy your comments and thoughts, you seem like a very nice person and I look forward to continue to read and enjoy your posts.
  17. JimJimmyJames

    JimJimmyJames Big Time Feeder Driver

    I object to any avatar that has overt sexual overtones to it, man or women. No discrimination here. If you want to post a picture of a man go right ahead, but why does he have to be in his underwear with his legs spread eagle?
  18. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Sexyupsman, If you read my post you will see that I did not say a word about you, your avatar, or your personal life. I just said that I believe Cheryl and her Mod squad had the right to censor anything they thought need deleting.
    Look, you have your opinions, so does everyone else on here. Some are offended by your (now old) avatar. I was not, but after I saw it once, I didn't need to look at it again.
    As far as you posting your opinions here, same as anyone else, I have no problem with you being here.

    Ya know, if your avatar had been wearing UPS brown shorts and not "spread eagle" (which would be offensive to many regardless) I doubt anyone would have said a word about it. Just use a little common sense. Oh, BTW I think the term "soft porn" is a bit extreme for even that pic.
  19. sortaisle

    sortaisle Livin the cardboard dream

    I don't know, I don't have a problem with most pictures, however, there are people with small children who probably don't need to see half necked women. And there are people with sexual addictions out there that probably don't need to see that. I guess it's okay to express your personality, but this really isn't a sexual personality forum. It's a brown cafe forum. If you don't know the crowd your addressing, modesty usually goes a looooong way towards figuring out if you can express yourself without offending the majority.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2009
  20. pickup

    pickup Well-Known Member

    I could swear there is at least 1/4 pitbull in that dog