[Acky.]

Hey users/members of the GTAForums.

I am here today, to argue a case of a signature, being told it isn't suitable for the forums, yet, from what we can tell, is a mild exposure, BUT it doesn't break any rules.

My friend, reform, has been told his signature goes against the rules of the forums, YET it isn't breaking any rules.
It is a signature, which has a pornstar, during performances, but hides any sort of nudity that isn't accepted within these forums.
However, the signature is not allowed.

Appearing to be unsuitable, yet not breaking any rules, he was told it wasn't acceptable on these forums, but let's look at the GTA series, to find more serious offences within the games, that we are signed up to this forum for.

There is a number of controversial scenes within the GTA Series, such as hookers, strip clubs, the Hot Coffee mod that was traditionally in the game; GTA San Andreas, which exposed explicit nature of sex, between the protagonist and his girlfriends. In GTA IV we see that hookers are able to climb ontop of the protagonist in the car, to have sex with them, give them hand jobs or engage in oral sex, and the latest of full frontal nudity in GTA IV:TLAD.


Yet, the signature is not allowed to stand? I'm sorry but it isn't going against any rules, and is far more mild compared to the recent controversy surrounding the very games we love, and I dismiss the understanding of why his signature isn't allowed to be used.

Hopefully, forum staff will look into this, and see that there is nothing wrong.


Thanks, Acky.

[Xcommunicated]

Actually, it's clearly mentioned in the signature rules thread:

QUOTE

•ADDENDUM (8th Jan 2005): Sexual imagery is banned in signatures and avatars. Women or men in signatures is no problem, including bikinis, hotpants, the usual glamour modelling outfits, and all the other stuff we see in the everyday media. However sexually suggestive images, even if they don't technically contain nudity, are not considered appropriate for this forum.

As for why we censor stuff that can otherwise be found in GTA? Because this site has to uphold rules and terms of service set by advertisers and hosting.

[blitz]

I don't agree with you Acky. GTA having sex scenes in it doesn't at all mean that nudity or sexually suggestive images should be allowed on an internet forum about GTA.

They're two different things, mainly since the forums are fan based and free.

[radioman]

QUOTE

but let's look at the GTA series, to find more serious offences within the games, that we are signed up to this forum for.

Yeah, but there is a big difference there, as you have to be at least 17 years old to BUY a GTA game, whereas the Forums can be accessed by anyone with internet access-this means that anyone who knows how to use the internet-people from 5+ can access the forums.

As you mentioned the "Hot Coffee" in SA-that is a modification, and is NOT in the game otherwise-the only thing it shows in-game is: After you press the "Y" key to confirm with a Yes reply, the view remains on the outside of the house and that's it-nothing that would tell ya what's going on inside, unless you know what the term means...I confirmed this on the PS2 version, PC V2 and V3(the Steam version)... Keep in mind, that there are only 4 GTA's which have Strip Clubs-VC, SA, IV, and EFLC. So, really the only bad things that you are actually exposed to is: the language, violence, and in the 3 out of 4 games above, the Strip clubs-as they are not required to be entered in SA...just a few friendly heads up.

[Acky.]

My argument is, that his signature doesn't contain any nudity, theres no breasts, rear or frontal nudity within them, it just shows parts of the body (shoulders, back, stomach, etc)...

[sonnyBlack]

Lemme bold it for you:

QUOTE

•ADDENDUM (8th Jan 2005): Sexual imagery is banned in signatures and avatars. Women or men in signatures is no problem, including bikinis, hotpants, the usual glamour modelling outfits, and all the other stuff we see in the everyday media. However sexually suggestive images, even if they don't technically contain nudity, are not considered appropriate for this forum.

That's why.

[Acky.]

QUOTE (sonnyBlack @ Friday, Mar 9 2012, 23:04)

Lemme bold it for you: QUOTE •ADDENDUM (8th Jan 2005): Sexual imagery is banned in signatures and avatars. Women or men in signatures is no problem, including bikinis, hotpants, the usual glamour modelling outfits, and all the other stuff we see in the everyday media. However sexually suggestive images, even if they don't technically contain nudity, are not considered appropriate for this forum. That's why.

Don't entirely see the problem, but alrighty then.

Please close this topic, as it is no longer useful.