Octopus Overlords

Yo-yos on TED? Yep, this guy's f***ing insane with a yoyo. Watch it.

43 Cartoon Theme Songs performed by the musicians of Carnegie Hall’s Ensemble ACJW.

Listen to the sound of a $45 million dollar viola.

It turns out the movie "Noah" has some biblical references.

No jeggins allowed

6 college girlfriends

stuck in history class

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U74M6gl8tw

Road raging redneck in Florida flips off scared driver as he passes her then karma bites him in the ass.

UFO prank

I wouldn't mind the girl in blue with the jigglies falling onto me either.

An awkward Justice League Christmas....the boobage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotatio ... uYSSoF6gps

Its time to bring back techno viking

Bad Sex ...NSFW

Dang, Taryn Southern has a WHOLE SLEW of those videos. Hahaha.

The First Lady launched the "Take The Field" initiative this week, encouraging Major League baseball players to get active

encourages players once an hour to take a 15 minute break from baseball to do something active.

American muscle cars rusting in Japan....saddens me. I'd want all of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7C-RcMtkcs

Game of Desks - Late Night

Not exactly Youtube, but... Break.com's "Prank it forward" is quite good.

Giving one deserving waitress the best shift of her life... Even better.

Starting with a ... $1000 tip on a $20 bill.

Then a trip for 2 to Hawaii...

Then a dream job to teach yoga...

And finally... A new car!

That's not a youtube video. Can we post that in the other thread. That thread I know i shouldn't visit at work. This thread while it has warnings, at least the links to the video are descriptive and I don't click on those.

naednek wrote:That's not a youtube video. Can we post that in the other thread. That thread I know i shouldn't visit at work. This thread while it has warnings, at least the links to the video are descriptive and I don't click on those.

This. Those gifs don't belong in this thread.

naednek wrote:That's not a youtube video. Can we post that in the other thread. That thread I know i shouldn't visit at work. This thread while it has warnings, at least the links to the video are descriptive and I don't click on those.

Not usually, actually, and many of the links are stills from the videos. I'd have to say that gifs make far more sense in the video thread than the picture thread, and this IS labeled NSFW. You probably shouldn't read a thread labeled NSFW at work. That's what NSFW means.

Really doesn't fit in the silly pics thread..i tried to make a thread for stuff like this and it got shot down.

Daehawk wrote:Really doesn't fit in the silly pics thread..i tried to make a thread for stuff like this and it got shot down.

I thought the NSFW Round Robin thread was the default location for scantily clad women? I agree with Ken that I prefer not going into a YouTube videos thread with giant gifs of half naked women showing on my screen. At least use spoiler tags. I know the thread title includes NSFW, but that seems more related to the video content.

Not to mention that those pics have been posted a while ago. By you. All you need to do is search for 'Kerekes'.

Daehawk wrote:Really doesn't fit in the silly pics thread..i tried to make a thread for stuff like this and it got shot down.

Maybe there should be a T&A/yogapants/name-that-pornstar thread just to keep it all contained.

I feel like OO has starting becoming a softcore spam site lately. There are other places for that.

Also, hotlinked.

Holman wrote:

Daehawk wrote:Really doesn't fit in the silly pics thread..i tried to make a thread for stuff like this and it got shot down.

Maybe there should be a T&A/yogapants/name-that-pornstar thread just to keep it all contained.

I feel like OO has starting becoming a softcore spam site lately. There are other places for that.

Yep, and we had this conversation a short while ago, and he doesn't seem to get it.

Moliere wrote:I thought the NSFW Round Robin thread was the default location for scantily clad women?

Unfortunately, no. That thread has a very specific purpose and posting in it has very specific rules. Random pics of girls/women would actually be against the spirit of that thread (some leeway is given for top of a new page posts).

There is no specifically identified location for sexy animated gifs. Is this the place for these gifs? Probably not, but here is better than the stills thread.

As Daehawk mentions, he got in trouble from specific members of the forums and a fairly large discussion was had.

Contrary naednek's implication, Daehawk was not admonished for posting sexy pictures and a general "common sense" rule was laid down. One that wasn't particularly different from what we had before.

I see nothing in these two gifs that violate the common sense ruling from the metaforum, but I am not a moderator.

While it's clear that some object to certain content, it is not clear that they get their way in every and all things. This thread is specifically labeled as NSFW, and these gifs are not overly sexual. While they are sexy as hell, they are not suggestive of any sex act or vulgarity. Cleavage doesn't count. Underwear doesn't count (taking off underwear? Possibly. Nothing is visible and it's what is implied that is sexy. Sitcoms running during prime time have similar content). Both have been raised as objections previously and neither were found to be unacceptable.

So we simply need to have a moderator/moderators make a ruling on this, using their common sense guidelines.

Given that the very purpose of this thread was to post sexy youtube videos and that we are now 3 years and 57 pages in, I would hope that we'd all understand that by now and stay away if it's going to be a problem for anyone.

Not overly sexual?



Taking off your panties to distract a pool shot?





Yea. Sexually titillating.

Started to share NSFW pictures? Really? Yea, that 16 year old amateur singer was so nekkid. That crazy scary free climb of a 150 meter radio tower was just all about phallic architecture.

What can you do?

Clearly, there is a lack of common sense floating around here.

GreenGoo wrote:Given that the very purpose of this thread was to post sexy youtube videos

That may have been the purpose (honestly, I forget, the thread was originated a long while ago), but it certainly hasn't been the recent purpose of this thread. I thought Daehawk's recent post was pretty far afield of what this thread has been for the past few months. IMO, that sort of in-your-face don't-have-to-click-something-to-see sexuality belongs in some other thread.

Also, NSFW means different things to different people. What Daehawk posted in this thread is extremely clearly NSFW IMO. In a very literal sense, I'd be embarrassed to have that on my work screen, for example (though I think most of us understand that the NSFW acronym is not exactly a literal translation for the workplace, but instead a simple placeholder for the type of content one can expect when clicking into a thread). But please don't let this paragraph become the focus on any sort of rebuttal if it doesn't also incorporate the thought in the paragraph which precedes it (especially the last sentence). These are separate thoughts and separate topics. Something being NSFW does not exclude it from a thread labeled as containing NSFW content.

Finally, I don't think this requires a mod to step in to offer an opinion. We're fully capable as a community to have that conversation and possibly even come to a consensus of adults. Nothing here demands moderation, a moderator's action, or even a moderator's attention. That said, if a mod wanted to give a personal opinion, that'd be cool. A policy-based opinion is asking a bit much for what basically boils down to an off topic post, IMO.

Sigh. My apologies. The very first post was not, specifically for some sexy video although given Daehawk's tastes, I wouldn't put it past him The nsfw in the thread title has been there for years. If it wasn't there when the thread started, it was, at worst added shortly after.

Here's a hane's commerical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b4unjAN2fA We see women walking around in their underwear the entire time. We see a woman in her underwear bent over a counter while eating cereal. In Daehawk's gif, we see a *flash* of the woman's underwear and that's it. The hane's commercial is cleared for prime time viewing. How do you, objectively differentiate between the commercial I linked and Daehawk's gif.

Yes, it is sexually titilating. But it is not overtly sexual as far as our common sense rule goes. Is this one of those "I don't how to define porn but I know it when I see it" things? Because we've already agreed that not everyone sees things the same way.

Do we really have to get into this again? We've had this discussion. You lost. It was agreed that common sense rules were to be applied. If you feel this is a violation of that rule, mark the post and let a moderator decide.

Why are people opening up this can of words again over some cleavage and a fully clothed woman taking off her underwear but showing nothing?

The thread is marked nsfw, there is no nudity, and there are no sex acts, simulated or otherwise.

Let me repeat. No nudity. No sex acts. Unless the act of taking off underwear is by definition porn, I don't see the problem. When your wife changes for bed, do you feel like she's coming on to you every time she takes her off her underwear? Rhetorical.

No. Nudity. No Sex. No pole. Not even a little suggestive dancing.

Honestly guys, you're over reacting.

GreenGoo wrote:

Moliere wrote:I thought the NSFW Round Robin thread was the default location for scantily clad women?

Unfortunately, no. That thread has a very specific purpose and posting in it has very specific rules. Random pics of girls/women would actually be against the spirit of that thread (some leeway is given for top of a new page posts).

There is no specifically identified location for sexy animated gifs. Is this the place for these gifs? Probably not, but here is better than the stills thread.

As Daehawk mentions, he got in trouble from specific members of the forums and a fairly large discussion was had.

Contrary naednek's implication, Daehawk was not admonished for posting sexy pictures and a general "common sense" rule was laid down. One that wasn't particularly different from what we had before.

I see nothing in these two gifs that violate the common sense ruling from the metaforum, but I am not a moderator.

While it's clear that some object to certain content, it is not clear that they get their way in every and all things. This thread is specifically labeled as NSFW, and these gifs are not overly sexual. While they are sexy as hell, they are not suggestive of any sex act or vulgarity. Cleavage doesn't count. Underwear doesn't count (taking off underwear? Possibly. Nothing is visible and it's what is implied that is sexy. Sitcoms running during prime time have similar content). Both have been raised as objections previously and neither were found to be unacceptable.

So we simply need to have a moderator/moderators make a ruling on this, using their common sense guidelines.

Given that the very purpose of this thread was to post sexy youtube videos and that we are now 3 years and 57 pages in, I would hope that we'd all understand that by now and stay away if it's going to be a problem for anyone.

1: Gifs ≠ youtube video. Which is what this thread is about

2: The way the thread is labled, it's easy to construe that the links to the video could be NSFW, not that the thread is NSFW. Normally, because most people are courteous here, there's a small description on what the video is. So yes, while the thread has a NSFW label, it doesn't necessary mean what's in the thread is NSFW but that the links to the videos could be.

3: In my opinon, those type of GIFS actually fit better in the silly pics thread. But that's my opinion.

The Meal wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Given that the very purpose of this thread was to post sexy youtube videos

That may have been the purpose (honestly, I forget, the thread was originated a long while ago), but it certainly hasn't been the recent purpose of this thread. I thought Daehawk's recent post was pretty far afield of what this thread has been for the past few months. IMO, that sort of in-your-face don't-have-to-click-something-to-see sexuality belongs in some other thread.

Also, NSFW means different things to different people. What Daehawk posted in this thread is extremely clearly NSFW IMO. In a very literal sense, I'd be embarrassed to have that on my work screen, for example (though I think most of us understand that the NSFW acronym is not exactly a literal translation for the workplace, but instead a simple placeholder for the type of content one can expect when clicking into a thread). But please don't let this paragraph become the focus on any sort of rebuttal if it doesn't also incorporate the thought in the paragraph which precedes it (especially the last sentence). These are separate thoughts and separate topics. Something being NSFW does not exclude it from a thread labeled as containing NSFW content.

Finally, I don't think this requires a mod to step in to offer an opinion. We're fully capable as a community to have that conversation and possibly even come to a consensus of adults. Nothing here demands moderation, a moderator's action, or even a moderator's attention. That said, if a mod wanted to give a personal opinion, that'd be cool. A policy-based opinion is asking a bit much for what basically boils down to an off topic post, IMO.

Meal, I can't disagree with you more. I have to rebut simple because I feel your comments talk around the discussion that we've already had, in detail and the conclusions reached. While I respect your opinion, it's contrary to what was decided. The moderators went away and came back with a decision. It is clear that they expect people to use good sense. Everyone went away thinking that they knew what good sense was. Now we see not everyone is in agreement.

Even what NSFW meant was discussed. While I agree that it can mean different things to different people, we've already discussed that fact. It's not a new point to be made now. It was already made and given whatever weight the mods decided to give it.

a) The fact that a thread has been fluid as to its topic does not meant that a post that was on topic with the original spirit of the thread is now off topic. Worse, you yourself have championed the notion that off topic posts are a natural extension of thread communication and are not something to forbid. In fact, we have never, as a community, done anything about off topic posts. Hell, half the people here take the bait whenever a troll drops in and completely derails a thread.

b) It requires moderation because Daehawk has already been singled out by several members of the community. He already feels persecuted by certain individuals, even though one of them left in a huff when he didn't get his way right away. He has little trust in the community to give him a fair shake and if I were him, I'd feel the same way. If someone with actual authority says yay or nay, then ok. If random members decide to jump in like he's done something wrong...well, not everyone feels like that. It's a borderline case at absolute worst. Zarathud should take a closer look at himself before implying others are stupid.

So my problem here is that people believe Daehawk has stepped over the line. Again. I don't agree. I also think, in the past, Daehawk has been unfairly targeted. Sometimes fairly, other times unfairly. Given the discussion that we JUST had to cover this, and Daehawk finally being brave enough to step up about what he considered harrassing behaviour, I think the fastest, more efficient and least controversial way to move forward is to have a mod decide and/or move it where they think it's more appropriate. Not because I'm confident they will side with Daehawk, but because we JUST DID THIS, over far more questionable content, with the result being "don't go overboard, use common sense, keep it tasteful".

The people that need to use a little common sense are the ones that are complaining, not Daehawk. This time.

Where's Chaos Raven when I need him?

naednek wrote:1: Gifs ≠ youtube video. Which is what this thread is about

2: The way the thread is labled, it's easy to construe that the links to the video could be NSFW, not that the thread is NSFW. Normally, because most people are courteous here, there's a small description on what the video is. So yes, while the thread has a NSFW label, it doesn't necessary mean what's in the thread is NSFW but that the links to the videos could be.

3: In my opinon, those type of GIFS actually fit better in the silly pics thread. But that's my opinion.

1) agreed. Although we don't have a nsfw gif thread, so while this isn't explicitly defined as the proper location, that's not an automatic rejection.
2) Sure, but the thread is almost 3 years old and 57 pages long. Any ambiguity over what it contains should be cleared up by now.
3) I understand your opinion. I agree more with Zurai as the gif is more like a video than a .jpeg, since it's in motion, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

Listen, I get it. There is a lot of fun stuff in here, most of it isn't nsfw, and with the amount of activity on the board, if you're looking to be entertained/distracted for a few minutes at work , there aren't a lot of options and it's very tempting to take a peek in places that you might not have otherwise. I've done it myself and thought "I gambled and lost". The difference is I don't blame the poster for their content. I knew I was taking a risk and it turned out negatively for me. That's not their fault. It's mine.

And this thread is a nsfw thread. Changing the title doesn't make it sfw, posting 10 pages of sfw content doesn't make it sfw, as it still contains nsfw content.

I don't like seeing people get blamed for things when they did nothing wrong. And that's my opinion here. It's very, very hard to say that Daehawk has done something wrong by posting a sexy gif (which is clearly not porn) in an nsfw thread. Maybe it's not in the right thread, but the content is completely within the guidelines as has existed for years and as has been further clarified by the mods in the meta forum.

I would be very surprised if moderators decided that it was inappropriate. I've been wrong before. But I participated in the meta forum discussion, I read the moderator response to that thread, and I believed I walked away with a better understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. There are a thousand more provocative pictures in the round robin thread. This one is noteworthy only because it's jiggly.

never mind. I don't want to beat a dead horse. My point is, I think the label is misleading if we're to expect anything in the thread is NSFW, not the possibility of the links. I don't have an issue of the content, my issue is not knowing that there's viewable NSFW content in the thread, not by clicking the link.

So I'll stay out, like I do with the similar threads and save those for when I'm not at work.

Take your drama and your GIFs out of this thread, Goo.

Or at least post a funny YouTube video response. Context matters, Mittens.

It's not what you think. <- NSFW

Zarathud wrote: What can you do?
Clearly, there is a lack of common sense floating around here.

Absolutely love that you have a video in your comment!

Yes, we have seen her before.
It's not a video.
Please, not this again.
The link goes to the Meta forum, not the hair scrunchy girl some of you might have wished for. You will have to do an OO advanced search for that on your own

Zarathud wrote:Take your drama and your GIFs out of this thread, Goo.

Or at least post a funny YouTube video response. Context matters, Mittens.

Here ya go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssC77hapv0g

KKBlue wrote: Please, not this again.

Exactly. And that thread, in my opinion, says that Daehawk's post is A-OK, so why complain about it?

You (not you KKB) don't get to complain, and when there's push back make like its the other guys who are creating drama. I sure as hell didn't start this discussion.

naednek wrote:never mind. I don't want to beat a dead horse. My point is, I think the label is misleading if we're to expect anything in the thread is NSFW, not the possibility of the links. I don't have an issue of the content, my issue is not knowing that there's viewable NSFW content in the thread, not by clicking the link.

So I'll stay out, like I do with the similar threads and save those for when I'm not at work.

I know it seems like I'm coming at you hard naednek. I'm not, really. Here's an analogy that is sure to make things worse.

So everyone is gathered for a morning meeting, and amongst other things, they discuss where they are going for lunch. Some people are allergic to curry, some gag when they smell fish, some are meat and potatoes and anything even remotely interesting scares them. After lots of discussion, arguing, gnashing of teeth, the boss comes in and, weighing everyone's opinions, doing his best to satisfy everyone's needs, decides in a semi-democratic but certainly authoritative way that they'll all go to Rob's Spaghetti shack. The volume in the room dies down, some people grumble, some people are happy, but everyone pretty much agrees that Rob's Spaghetti shack will work.

Later at lunch they sit down and start looking at menus when Fred says loud enough for everyone to hear, I hate this place, let's go to the Italian place down the block. Everyone erupts, shouting their personal preferences all over again.

That's the sort of exasperation I feel when reading the recent comments. I'm the guy saying "but, but, but...we decided already". The Meal is the guy saying "let's be rational about this and talk it out like adults so the boss doesn't have to get involved". That's cool, except we already tried that the first time and you know what? The boss had to get involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ

That Zarathud is blaming me for this mess is laughable.

Ok, I'm just pushing back because Daehawk is not good at defending himself, he's already frustrated and feels persecuted, and, quite frankly, I think it's unreasonable to complain about Daehawk's recent posts in the context of this thread.

edit: forgot my funny video link.

Maybe if Daehawk just found the movie bit instead of the big gifs, there wouldn't be much to go back and forth with... partly.
It's been posted already too. I thought it was great and give her credit for doing such a good job with playing pool. Hope she won the game.

What seems to be the problem is the tossing of stuff onto the screen without much thought towards others. Ordering a meat lover's pizza (to mess around with Goo's menu thought) when you know some of the people you are dining with don't eat meat. Yes, I am choosing my words wisely and being a smart ass too.

OO can handle stuff. Again, I give you the Meta link.
Being considerate of where people look at OO, work or otherwise, is something we all should take into consideration.
It's a gaming forum first, information (EBG) and knowledge (R&P) place second. At least that is how I understand OO to be. I would rather OO not be a T&A place third but I am aware the majority of people here are male.