A question about avatar rules

You are not logged in
Log in | Register to Post

New Pornstar Interviews - [more]

Chloe Temple Interview

"I’ve hooked up with multiple people in one day, just bounced from one to the other."

Participate...

log in
register

Browse...

Etiquette
Active Topics
Popular Topics
Member List
Search

All Forums > Tech Talk > Tech Talk Forum Page 35 > A question about avatar rules

Author	Post
BigMatt Member Sunrise Adams, Queen of Cute. 498 Posts 12/04	Posted - Apr 22 2007 : 7:10PM I have been looking at the image policy rules, and there is still something that is a little bit unclear. I hope some administrators can help me out. If this question belongs in another category, please move it. https://www.adultdvdtalk.com/adtalk/info/images.asp It says: No images displaying the pubic region., including images where the pubic region is digitally blurred or blocked by means of digital editing. No pictures of camel toes, upskirt shots or pictures where the primary focus is the subject's genitals. No sadistic or masochistic abuse. Topless images are OK as long as the person(s) depicted in the image are not touching themselves or others in any way. No pictures of simulated masturbation even if clothing is worn. If the image is questionable don't use it. Click to expand A topless picture works, but how about a topless picture of a woman from a cowgirl scene? Only showing from breasts and up, but with a slightly more "excited" facial expression. Or just a picture of her face from a solo masturbation scene? Does that count as "simulated" masturbation? I'm not looking to push limits here, but there are some pictures I'd love to use. I want to make sure it is ok first though. Topic Moved by - hardware on Apr 24 2007 [Link]
Baggio Member 451 Posts 7/04	Posted - Apr 23 2007 : 3:44PM I don't think so, considering No pictures of simulated masturbation even if clothing is worn is banned. Regardless why would this be allowed on a site that is for adults and is 100% porn talk. Describing scenes, requests for porn, favorite porn stars, where to buy porn, links on reviews to porn, links to buy porn, porn, porn, porn porn.... But no dirty avatars [Link]
chin_dribbler Member 8 Posts 2/07	Posted - Apr 23 2007 : 9:39PM Because this site is located in america who have some nonsense obscenity laws against this thing [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 1:28AM Well, you can't blame the site administrators. They're most likely just protecting themselves. I'm not sure why it would be a problem to have adult images displayed on an adult site but if they feel it would put them at risk, they must have a reason for believing that it would. [Link]
HeyNow Oblivious Gold Star Hey! 5965 Posts 1/03	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 1:46AM BigMatt wrote: ...how about a topless picture of a woman from a cowgirl scene? Only showing from breasts and up, but with a slightly more "excited" facial expression. Or just a picture of her face from a solo masturbation scene? Does that count as "simulated" masturbation? Click to expand I think what you describe would be fine since they aren't showing anything below the waist but make sure there isn't any sexual contact. The first example is boobies and whatever face she is making (hooting and hollering?) and the second example is a close up on a face during orgasm. They sound within the guidelines. [Link]

BigMatt Member Sunrise Adams, Queen of Cute. 498 Posts 12/04	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 8:10AM Thanks for the replies. I decided to upload a new one, and I hope this one will pass. I have a few that look more explicit when it comes to facial expression and the obviousness of what is going on, but still doesn't show any other persons or anything below the waist. I can link to some examples if anyone in charge would want to comment. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 8:19AM Read some of the threads about the new 2257 laws and you might begin to understand why we have the policy that we do. If an image is a sex act (as defined in the law) we would be required to maintain specific types of records and make our place of work available to the FBI for records inspections during regular business hours. We would have to post the location the records are kept so the Feds can stop by whenever they want. We work out of our home. I'm not willing to post our home address on this site or open ourselves up to the liability of 2257 records maintenance just so people can have sex acts in their avatars. I think that's reasonable. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 9:04AM I forgot that I have a PDF version of some of the DOJ's rules for 2257 inspections available on our server: DOJ's rules for 2257 inspections It's not pleasant. These rules have yet to be amended to incorporate the new 2257 changes enacted in the Adam Walsh Act last year. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 12:20PM Drew Black wrote: It's not pleasant. These rules have yet to be amended to incorporate the new 2257 changes enacted in the Adam Walsh Act last year. Click to expand (Sigh) I completely understand your POV. What I don't understand is what Adam Walsh has to do with camel toe? [Link]
BigMatt Member Sunrise Adams, Queen of Cute. 498 Posts 12/04	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 1:55PM I'm not willing to post our home address on this site or open ourselves up to the liability of 2257 records maintenance just so people can have sex acts in their avatars. I think that's reasonable. Click to expand It is perfectly reasonable and the last thing I want is to get you in trouble. I am probably not the only person who wondered about this so I am only asking to make things clearer. [Link]
Tinaka Member 953 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 3:57PM The Adam Walsh name is so people will support the law. Who would stand up and argue against a law named a after a boy who had his head chopped off? Bit like the Patriot act. [Link]
jayo All-Star Member 2117 Posts 7/04	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 8:45PM BigMatt wrote: I'm not looking to push limits here, but there are some pictures I'd love to use. I want to make sure it is ok first though. Click to expand Nice to see messages from people who want to cooperate and respect the ground rules (even if they don't agree with some of them) than simply piss and moan about them. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 9:13PM I certainly appreciate it. The image policy may change at some point in time to allow a more encompassing set of images. Not sure if/when that will happen though. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 10:14PM Tinaka wrote: The Adam Walsh name is so people will support the law. Who would stand up and argue against a law named a after a boy who had his head chopped off? Bit like the Patriot act. Click to expand I suppose you're right. Still hard to believe nobody has the guts to call BS on it though. It's obvious what they're doing. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 11:13PM Most of what's in the Adam Walsh act has to do with child predators. It's not all bad. [Link]

licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 25 2007 : 12:23AM I'm not sure how the game of legal precedents and status is played in the U.S., but I sometimes wonder if 2257 has given erotica a legitimacy that it did not have before. By stating that images of sex are o.k. if they meet a particular set of rules, have they not in fact, established an official, government sanctioned, modus vivendi for the porn industry? If it makes it harder for the religious right to ban porn in the future, perhaps the victory will be worth the inconvenience. [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 25 2007 : 12:48AM Drew Black wrote: I forgot that I have a PDF version of some of the DOJ's rules for 2257 inspections available on our server: DOJ's rules for 2257 inspections Click to expand Yuck. What a scary mess of ambiguity that document is. I certainly would not want to put my liberty at risk by trying to interpret it. It's quite clear to me why a blanket ban on explicit images is your safest option here. [Link]

All Forums > Tech Talk > Tech Talk Forum Page 35A question about avatar rules

Previous topic: *chuckle*
Next topic: Recommend DVD burner software