Conquer Club

I was using a cropping of one of my oil paintings for an avatar. It was a depiction of a nude lady, the portion of which I used was from the navel up. This did therefor show her painted bare breast, as well arms,hands, stomach, throat, face & hair (for emphasis). But in no way, manner or meaning was it depictively pornographic.["Yet"] after a 5 round whoopin' I put on one (unnamed) higher ranker, I now have to ask. While losing this person began furiously chatting at me & between the many expletitives was the mentioning of "reporting my avatar." So being the socially perfuct person I tend to be, I immediately changed my avatar. But have been bothered over this retalitative affront I felt compelled to accept. Was I breaking CC rules? I see in the forum guidelines that "porno" is unacceptable as an avatar. Yet is non-photographical art which depicts all or some part of a denuded figure, in CC, tossed in along with "pornographic"?

As much as I disagree with they way this rule is enforced in this manner, it was, in fact, against the rules. I wish it wasn't, but it is. Sorry

Nipples are no-no's unless they are male.

imo man nips are should also be a no-no, if only because they are disgusting

Why is there a 7 on that dice?

Oh, and let's just survey the other "safe for family entertainment avatars we see on this site"

There's Jesus's "flicker":

David Hasselhof's package:

A little "crack":

But you don't get there until without opening the top button first

gdeangel wrote:Why is there a 7 on that dice?

Oh, and let's just survey the other "safe for family entertainment avatars we see on this site"

There's Jesus's "flicker":

David Hasselhof's package:

A little "crack":

But you don't get there until without opening the top button first

[mod edit]Image Removed[/mod edit]

Any pictures depicting nudity, whether they are pornographic in nature or not are against the guidelines.

If you have questions about a particular avatar, just create an e-ticket on it or PM a mod.

So in short, the above examples are fine, but Michelangelo's David is not (unless you put a monkey hand over the pee pee part).

Hey, wait a second, TSM all changed their sig to a monkey with a chainsaw. How lame is that!

gdeangel wrote:So in short, the above examples are fine, but Michelangelo's David is not (unless you put a monkey hand over the pee pee part).

Surprisingly yes, at this time they are.

gdeangel wrote:Hey, wait a second, TSM all changed their sig to a monkey with a chainsaw. How lame is that!

*snicker*