When asked to clean it up a little...
 

I added to your reputation.

Why's my avatar down?

Could be a paths issue, we'll look into it.

I missed it. What posts and 'members'?

He'll take an enormous shit and spread it all over the floor. Then he'll adjust the Rep system.

Ok, seriously, that's kind of gross and I'm past tired of tolerating the attitude problems. We'll do what we can to make the systems work well.

Breakin' the law! Breakin' the law!

Looking over your posts... you're going to need to clean up your act. Consider this a warning. I have far too many post reports accumulated for your account already.

I was wondering if you baleeted my avatar. I mean, seriously. It's a dude in a skirt. There are no nasty bits or anything.
For...? Swearing? Joking? It strikes me as odd that anything 'rude' I've said here really sticks out, if that's what you mean.
However, you've gotten me curious. How many reports of my heinous sins against humanity are there?

Well... someone didn't answer my questions. >.>

Seriously, GNet. Did you baleet that stuff or should I just go ahead and put it back up?

That stuff?

Oh. My profile stuff. I'm guessing from that that it wasn't you, so I guess I'll re-ad the Avatar/Title.

For someone who complains that they didn't get a specific answer to their question, you sure didn't come with the specifics yourself.

Here, I'll answer it for you:

AM: Seriously, GNet. Did you baleet that stuff or should I just go ahead and put it back up?

GN: What stuff?

AM: My amazingly tacky aesthetic pollution of an avatar has suddenly gone missing and I'd like to know if it would be a good idea to throw it up on there again.

GN: Well, I guess... but IMHO, and don't take this wrong, you could do better.

Oh, and yes, I did change your subtitle, because it's clearly inappropriate for the audience. I'd strongly suggest fixing it.

Well.
blacktext

I'd get on changing that subtitle... quickly.

Fixed it for you.

Because... it implied that I'm gay?

And now you see the POWER of the dark side. Didn't that feel good?

edit: Doh. I don't know if it's intentional, but I can't put a smiley face emoticon in my post. It gets automatically redacted.

To imply that being gay requires you to be grossly sexually inappropriate is kind of offensive to actual gay people.

I didn't mean to imply that it's a requirement. I meant to imply that when a male fellates another male, there's a very good chance that both are homosexual.

Of course, I acknowledge that they could be bisexual, bicurious, pansexual, or even straight under some circumstances.
Even so, it still implies heavily that one is homosexual. I have yet to see a graph which says that the number of males from those other groups giving head to other males is larger than -or even equal to- that of the homosexual community.

Therefore, such an act is generally considered homosexual. My title was hardly explicit about it, and I wouldn't be afraid to use the phrase around children 13 or older (an age group in which many people have already had sexual experiences or desires). Take note that in numerous places it's illegal for children under that age to even use computers!

What Gnet is saying Albert is that you could have just said "homosexual" and it would have been acceptable rather than your explicit description.

Discretion dude. Subtlety compliments oneself when used.

Where's the humour in that?

Amen, brother.

I don't know if I'm going to like everyone policing each other, OR the mods deciding what's appropriate and what isn't. One of the things I love about G-net is that, although there are many members who are crude, stupid, vulgar, etc., we mainly manage to keep things manageable with social ostracism and don't have to resort to slaps on the wrist from higher authority figures. The way I interact here on G-net is similar to how I would interact in real life; I don't have to think of a sugar-coated way to say anything unless the situation calls for it. Do we really want to engage in censorship?

We can't reference the licking of sex organs anymore? I personally do not grasp in what way Mond's title was 'inappropriate for the audience'. I'm pretty confident that nearly everyone here has not only been priorly made aware that such activity is undertaken by a considerable majority of the human population, but has partaken of the foresaid activity themselves. In fact, I might propose, if any gnet member should actually be startled to an upsetting realization by Mond's user title, that this member be banned so to facilitate his or her leaving the computer and actually living on some level.