Hello everyone.

Some of you may have noticed a rather nasty trend that has begun to blight the beautiful yellow landscape of DSI. Something so unsettling and hideous that I can barely type the words on the screen. You've seen it, I've seen it, we've all seen it cast it's ugly shadow over our community. No, not racism, not the relentless march of the "Stompin' Cyber Army" (cunts), no I'm talking about: profile pictures that break the hallowed rule

This photo must include your face. If it doesn't, it will be deleted.

Also, profile pictures that clearly weren't taken at the event in question (I'm looking at you GeordieSteve you fucking criminal), or are clearly not of the person who owns the profile (That's you matt). So for example, model shoots that are attached to events they weren't taken at are clearly not allowed as profile pictures.

So to give the mods a hand so they don't have to police this themselves I invite anyone who spots a illegitimate profile picture to post it here so the mods can delete it post haste.

Hmmmm, now where shall I start:

JackofKats


Face clearly not visible. It could be anyone for christ sake! And if you say his face is in the photo, but you just can't see it. Well....that's fucking stupid because photos are things you can see. So if there's something you can't see, then it's not in the photo is it?

good point

Bernie-t


Face not in photo.

How about ones that make you wanna hurl?

rant over?

i dont think it needs to be that strict.. aslong as u can make the person out?
According to DSi rules this pic of me wouldnt be allowed:


but if we're honest... most people see me like that.. my face is often hidden behind the camera!!

JoeyP


Face not in photo.

How about ones that make you wanna hurl?

No, that's not against the rules I'm afraid Kerry.

What a whinge!

hehehe

What a whinge

Not really. It's a valid point. Especially when others get their profile pictures removed for such crimes and others get away with it

The number 1 spotter no less. Disgusting.

H100


Face not visible.

yep... but thats wot most people see when he's out!!! lol

The number 1 spotter no less. Disgusting.

H100

PMSL!!!!

Stompin' Cyber Army" (cunts),

Hardcore, Cyber forever! :).

Ryki's profile pic is a full prize winner.

Well done Si. With everyone's help we can destroy this menace.

There's nothing remotely new about people not using their faces, and plenty get removed every day.

You're right though that there is a grey area.

Plenty of things are clear cut:

. someone's arse
. someone's amusing t-shirt
. a promoter's logo
. pet/fluffy toy

And they do go pretty quick.

Some (and I would include JacK's in this) are definitely less clear cut:

. whole body so face is quite small in background
. silhouette of face
. extreme close-up on someone's eye/nose/ear
. wearing a costume
. wearing a mask
. wearing just an eye-mask?
. wearing a false moustache?

You can see with the last few there, there are some (false moustache) where you might say it's OK, and there are others (full over-the-head Tony Blair rubber mask) where you might think it's not. On the other hand, the full-mask person probably wore it as fancy dress for a recent event and just wants their mates to see it for a couple of days so it might just get ignored.

I know someone who had a pic of them wearing a super-hero eye-mask for about a year and it was fine.

Of course, JacK's takes two of the above (full body plus silhouette), so is more contentious.

So it's not easy for mods to always tell. Sometimes you just have to make a decision along the lines of "is this person actually trying to obscure who they are or mislead who they are in some way?". In JacK's case, I don't think he is. He probably thinks it's just a cool photo of him which does technically contain his face. And he's around a lot, so I don't think most people would think that he was trying to bend the rules.

The Bernie-t one is probably a bit less acceptable, at least to me, and probably at least partly because he's not a user I've ever come across.

And before you point out that I have made a distinction between "users I know" and "users I don't know", yes, I have done. Life's not always fair.

But remember, it's not the mods who remove inappropriate profile photos - it's Admins. So the mods' biases don't count for much (except whether they choose to alert an Admin or not).

I think its admin that need to sort this out as the pics are in no way against DSI rules and as so dont need deleting from the database. I think only admin can delete profile pics.

as the pics are in no way against DSI rules and as so dont need deleting from the database.

Oh indeed - the pics don't go - they just get disassociated from being the person's profile image.

oops well said newt

And before you point out that I have made a distinction between "users I know" and "users I don't know", yes, I have done. Life's not always fair.

Hmm, now I think of it, that probably was one of the reasons why I made this thread.

Hmm, now I think of it, that probably was one of the reasons why I made this thread.

You don't say! Back under the bridge with you! ;-)