We're leaning towards making the application of the rule more lenient as a direct result of the comments in this thread (i.e. we are listening), particularly with respect to videogame characters, and to give more discretion to mods to ignore aspects of the rules when the images clearly aren't sexualised.

The first three rules I think are fine though imo, because they cover quite clearly NSFW material - something we already say is against the rules. For those wondering about the 'with cleavage/backsides/genitals on display' bit, which is causing some confusion, by 'on display' we mean where those features are mostly bare, not where they're clothed.

To use examples from this thread, at the time of writing I would say that outlaw, chrissindahouse, Plezba, Kangi, carl, kyliedog and monkeymonk are all clearly fine, whereas psrock would need to change his, and BasilZero and hatmoza's are up for debate.

I appreciate the full response, but I still feel the best solution is the option to hide avatars (and make that the default selection for all users, meaning that you have to enable them to see any avatars or sigs). This way all parties win and you have to consent to a possible situation where your environment is suitable to mild sexual innuendo.

You might have not notice it but gamrfeed has been gone for a month... I know I know.. I also didn't noticed it for weeks..

Of course if Pezus just would not have lost his bet to Man bear then non of this would have happened.