Is this still classed as a family site?

JohnnyG said:
That's BS and I don't know whether you just made it up to be argumentative or if that's what you've been led to believe:confused:
He'd had more suspensions than anyone else I can think of and was on at least his 4th final warning for general stupidity, it was his attitude that earned him a ban not his signature, tough luck.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17887288
Click to expand...

Oooh while you're here, what's your opinion on a new random pictures thread?
 
JohnnyG said:
That's BS and I don't know whether you just made it up to be argumentative or if that's what you've been led to believe:confused:
He'd had more suspensions than anyone else I can think of and was on at least his 4th final warning for general stupidity, it was his attitude that earned him a ban not his signature, tough luck.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17887288
Click to expand...

Well he was banned because of a signature with two males about to kiss judging by Zefan's reply.
 
Tibbs said:
Wow. Wasn't expecting that. Anyway I actually did get the answer. It's a family site but the rules were 'loosened' so to speak. People I know got banned as this was before these rules were 'not as strict'. Got my answer. Simple.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I remember the post your girlfriend thread, and I wasn't even aware it was removed until a couple of weeks ago.

Only problem I had with it was when the guys where posting pics of they're girlfriends in underwear...Why they would want to post and show other blokes pictures of they're girlfriends in that position, I do not know. :p

Sadly, rules do change though, just like in the real world, but I shant go into that :)

bigmouse64 said:
Because it says don't browse at work, or whatever. Surely a family forum could be browsed at work, on a dinner break etc.
Click to expand...

Don't browse at work...that's common sense though, any person with a job knows they shouldn't be on websites during work time, and if you where caught looking on a website, with half underwear clad girls, what do you think would happen? Job lost much? Probably.

Vix said:
Even if I didn't agree with the babe threads etc I certainly wouldn't post about it! We're too much in the minority here to be expressing our opinions.

I'd love an 'OcUK members in their pants' thread ;) Maybe that would be taking things too far though :D
Click to expand...

There being less females than males in a forum, should not stop you from posting issues or threads, what has that got to do with anything anyway? Post away I say, everyone else does, be nice to see more people being involved.

See, now, people would have a rite paddy if that thread did come about! :p
 
Face it dude, apart from homosexual men, males of all ages generally like to see boobs. FACT.

There's no more flesh shown in the babes thread than what you'd see at the local swimming pool or at the beach, and "I'd hit it" threads get shut down nearly as soon as they are made.

Tibbs just needs to get over himself. Bigtime. Classic troll behaviour. :rolleyes:
 
If this is classed as indecent why does the thread of members posting pictures of them themselves with out tops on in the Sports Forum not offend you?

It's generally of guys (and a beastly hairy French Don) wearing not a lot posting for comments, where as I see the babe thread is one which can be seen as Obscene its just fun really, people keep pushing the boundaries of it and it will get deleted like the other thread.

On a side note I remember when the "Hit It" threads were removed and iirc it wasn't the pictures which were getting posted but the comments which followed and the number of threads springing up.

KaHn
 
Delvis said:
Plus other warnings, and the fact he posted two threads about it :)

Well, that's what that thread says.
Click to expand...
Still stands that sig got removed for being 'not family-friendly' though. Which given the 'new' approach where it seems that as long as there's a piece of film covering a bird's nipples/camel toe then it's a-ok seems a little uneven :p
 
i wouldn't of thought many kids would be interested in overclocking anyway? i certainly wouldn't have bothered visiting the forums if it hadn't been for buying some bits from ocuk and trying to OC my pc.
 
Rich_L said:
Still stands that sig got removed for being 'not family-friendly' though. Which given the 'new' approach where it seems that as long as there's a piece of film covering a bird's nipples/camel toe then it's a-ok seems a little uneven :p
Click to expand...

Your missing the point, this was before the rules changed as far as I am aware...If someone wanted to do it now, it probably would be allowed. Hell, its on Hollyoaks all the time now that sort of thing..and that's on at 6:30pm.

That's like saying how come I goto prison now for mugging someone and not when it was the year 1745?

Obviously the above is extreme, but you catch my drift, thing's change. :)
 
Yeah fair point, guess a Don could clarify for those people that want men kissing in their sigs, lol
 
Whilst I am in aggreement with the majority that the OP is overreacting, I still do find it a bit hypocritical that some posters refer or make comment about other websites which contain extrememly questionable content. There is one site in particaular which appears to be "fashionable" to refer to, it is a 5 letter name, well a number and 4 letters, which if you do a search for on the forum gives 125 hits. This site appears to be an image exchange site and within a couple of clicks you can be looking are extreme harcore pronography and worse. Whilst just mentioning the names of sites like these probably isn't against any rules it does seem to me to be at odds with the supposed family nature of the forum.
 
FunkyT said:
If Nuts is a family magazine then OcUK are family forums. GD is a lads forum with controls to make sure things don't get out of hand.
Click to expand...

Except OCUK forums draw the line at weekly photos of impalings, shark bitings, hand severings and general bodily mutilation, which Nuts seems to specilize in. :)
 
Bubo said:
Except OCUK forums draw the line at weekly photos of impalings, shark bitings, hand severings and general bodily mutilation. :)
Click to expand...

Well yeah, that's because they are graphic images.

Even though they are posted over daily newspapers sometimes.

I think the rule is, if its allowed on day time telly, it's allowed on here (Within reason, and depending which don / Mod is looking at the thread...??) I guess.
 
Bubo said:
Whilst I am in aggreement with the majority that the OP is overreacting, I still do find it a bit hypocritical that some posters refer or make comment about other websites which contain extrememly questionable content. There is one site in particaular which appears to be "fashionable" to refer to, it is a 5 letter name, well a number and 4 letters, which if you do a search for on the forum gives 125 hits. This site appears to be an image exchange site and within a couple of clicks you can be looking are extreme harcore pronography and worse. Whilst just mentioning the names of sites like these probably isn't against any rules it does seem to me to be at odds with the supposed family nature of the forum.
Click to expand...

While it does annoy me that everyone thinks quoting the *chans is cool (gb2b already newfags) there is a disclaimer on the site saying over 18s. Not that this makes a scrap of difference as, ironically, the majority of the people who visit /b/ are below 18 and are the people you're trying to 'protect'.

Though /b/ isn't as bad as it used to be, it's still a hub of comedy on the internet; not all the stuff is graphic. But, if a child is able to read a forum, pick out where this website is, google for it, go on to it, lie to get round the disclaimer, and then understand Yotsuba, then they're probably old/intelligent enough to leave if they don't like what they see.
 
p4radox said:
Exactly, so there's no contradiction with "family site" then is there?

Women exist, as long as it's not graphically explicit I don't see a problem with posting images of them...
Click to expand...

agreed theres no difference between that and loads of womens forums, thatll probbably have the same type of threads but with men .... a pink ocuk for those women out there lol ?
 
JohnnyG said:
That's BS and I don't know whether you just made it up to be argumentative or if that's what you've been led to believe:confused:
He'd had more suspensions than anyone else I can think of and was on at least his 4th final warning for general stupidity, it was his attitude that earned him a ban not his signature, tough luck.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17887288
Click to expand...

As already said, Zefan solely said the reason for his banning was due to the sig. If you're calling me a liar, then you're calling him too. I didn't just make it up for the sake of it.

Would Basmic's sig be allowed now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom