Remove custom profile avatar and create ones that are ESRB E Rated approved

[WolfEisberg]

Players have proven to not be trust worthy at all, and there are a lot of softcore to hardcore porn avatars out there, and when a game, even an E Rated game, uses those avatars in an MP game people are exposed to crap they should not be exposed to given the game's rating.

Parents shouldn't have to fear their kids will end up playing with a disgusting person in a game that is E rated.

Reporting it is useless, because I can't report someone that I don't know exists until I see they do and at that point my kid already saw the image from that disgusting person.

If you can't do that, then at least remove the ability to use Steam profile avatar in games, remove it from Steamworks so that it cannot be used.

But it would be better if you just have a bunch of kid friendly avatars that people can choose from and only choose from those, no custom ones.

[WolfEisberg]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Frostbringer:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Skeletor:

Does it matter? my suggestion is that since the avatars can be used in E Rated games, then Valve needs to make it so we can only choose from E-Rated avatars in their system, and remove all custom avatars. Even T-rated stuff can be degenerate, like what largely anime is with their sexualized under age girls/teens like we see on the points store.

In some cultures, it is highly offensive to show skeletal remains since it is seen as disrespectful of ancestors, so much so that Blizzard had to release a modified version of one of theirWow expansions to change the graphics entirely.

Since you want to define what is offensive with your own set of rules,
how would you feel about your own avatar pic being judged as offensive since it goes against not what one person thinks is offensive, but an entire culture?

Perfectly ok with that.

[Frostbringer]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Skeletor:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Frostbringer:

In some cultures, it is highly offensive to show skeletal remains since it is seen as disrespectful of ancestors, so much so that Blizzard had to release a modified version of one of theirWow expansions to change the graphics entirely.

Since you want to define what is offensive with your own set of rules,
how would you feel about your own avatar pic being judged as offensive since it goes against not what one person thinks is offensive, but an entire culture?

Perfectly ok with that.

Then be proactive and change your profile avatar now.

You can easily google that what I stated is true, and you can show your personal commitment in going by your more stricter guidelines for profile pics.

[Mad Scientist]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Zekiran:

I personally would LOVE to know what you consider to be "degenerate crap".

This.

Do tell us, OP. Because the last time someone made a thread like this, they had an issue with anime women in quite conservative swimsuits as a background on some random persons profile.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Damp Wizard Sleeve:

So you want to kill a platform by pre-emptively censoring the use of custom avatars and angering the vast majority of the user base. Risky strategy Kotton.

Let's see how it plays out.

[Yasahi]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alekine:

...
The account would have a default avatar and allow us to set a custom avatar, like we do with our account url. When we set a custom url our ID doesn't go away, it's still there. Do the same with the avatars.

Problem solved :)

Now they only have to create a check box in the settings and if the box is checked the account will only get/see/load the default avatar instead of the custom one. This way when the account requests an avatar in a forum or in a game, it will request only the default avatar, not the custom.

Could potentially be problematic. Games that currently use Steam avatars might need to implement the system for it to take effect. That means hundreds, possibly thousands of games that might not even be receiving any updates any longer.

If the "default" was using the code that the avatars currently use and custom ones got a new part of code then older games would not need to update, they'd always display the default ones. If they wanted to support the whole system then they could always implement it.

[Crashed]

Valve isn't bound to the ESRB except for the marketing of ESRB-rated games. ESRB ratings cannot be legally self-applied to content as the ratings are trademarked.

As for in-game ESRB typically has a disclaimer regarding online play.

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

That's a point someone made that everyone has forgotten. ESRB ratings have this nifty little disclaimer that OP is completely ignoring "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB "

[WolfEisberg]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Damp Wizard Sleeve:

That's a point someone made that everyone has forgotten. ESRB ratings have this nifty little disclaimer that OP is completely ignoring "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB "

Because it's irrelevant. This is about Valve needing to do the objectively moral and ethical thing.

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Skeletor:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Damp Wizard Sleeve:

That's a point someone made that everyone has forgotten. ESRB ratings have this nifty little disclaimer that OP is completely ignoring "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB "

Because it's irrelevant. This is about Valve needing to do the objectively moral and ethical thing.

Wrong it is not irrelevant. You are talking about online interaction. The ESRB does not rate online interactions. Your entire premise is flawed from the get go.

[Crazy Tiger]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Skeletor:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Damp Wizard Sleeve:

That's a point someone made that everyone has forgotten. ESRB ratings have this nifty little disclaimer that OP is completely ignoring "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB "

Because it's irrelevant. This is about Valve needing to do the objectively moral and ethical thing.

As stated before, morals and ethics aren't objective. They're subjective, depending on various things like culture, preferences, parenting and such.

And it's not about that, it's about you wanting Valve doing things cause you don't like how it is, while trying to use "morals and ethics" as a vehicle.

Reporting isn't useless, it works. I keep tabs on my reports and any avatar I reported has been removed.

[Crashed]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Skeletor:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Damp Wizard Sleeve:

That's a point someone made that everyone has forgotten. ESRB ratings have this nifty little disclaimer that OP is completely ignoring "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB "

Because it's irrelevant. This is about Valve needing to do the objectively moral and ethical thing.

Except that most avatars are not licensed by ESRB.

[WolfEisberg]

People, I'm only using esrb as a descriptor, that's it, it's like using the word "red" as a descriptor instead of trying to explain how light works on different objects, I'm using esrb as a short descriptor.

To Crazy Tiger, we as humans have determined what is right and wrong already, every non degenerate human knows for a fact kids seeing porn is bad. Every non degenerate human knows stealing something from Walmart is bad, every non degenerate human knows for a fact murdering your child is bad. So yes, what I am saying is objective, because non degerate humans have already determined it is bad.

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

Wrong. Everything you're typing is subjective with no basis since even the rating organization you use as a descriptor does nothing with online interactions. Everything you are using as an "example" is entirely personally biased and you're even trying to twist in actual crimes as a basis for your argument that anyone not agreeing with you is a "degenerate" which is a really fast way to get reported btw.

[Frostbringer]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Skeletor:

People, I'm only using esrb as a descriptor, that's it, it's like using the word "red" as a descriptor instead of trying to explain how light works on different objects, I'm using esrb as a short descriptor.

To Crazy Tiger, we as humans have determined what is right and wrong already, every non degenerate human knows for a fact kids seeing porn is bad. Every non degenerate human knows stealing something from Walmart is bad, every non degenerate human knows for a fact murdering your child is bad. So yes, what I am saying is objective, because non degerate humans have already determined it is bad.

Why haven't you changed your avatar yet?

If you want to impose rules on things that you define as degenerate and/or offensive, prove you aren't a hypocrite by changing your avatar to a non-offensive one that isn't seen as an direct insult to any player of Chinese descent.

[Zekiran]

gotta say good point about that.

See also: Skeletor is OBJECTIVELY EVIL.

Why do you have a name and image that is literally a guy who is EVIL?

Hypocrisy of this sort is exactly why I've said what I have.

[WolfEisberg]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Damp Wizard Sleeve:

Wrong. Everything you're typing is subjective with no basis since even the rating organization you use as a descriptor does nothing with online interactions. Everything you are using as an "example" is entirely personally biased and you're even trying to twist in actual crimes as a basis for your argument that anyone not agreeing with you is a "degenerate" which is a really fast way to get reported btw.

Nothing I am saying has anything to do with whether the ESRB is rates online stuff or not.

Its a descriptor and nothing else. I could have used "Rated G" or "Rated Y" as descriptors instead as well, though I guess you people would have then argued "MPAA/TV Rating don't rate games" despite the fact what I am saying has nothing to do with organizations literally rating this stuff, but me just using it as a short descriptor instead of typing something else that is longer, another example, I had a grocery list to my wife and say "here is a grocery list" I say "grocery list" instead of saying "Eggs, bacon, Potatoes, Toilet paper, peppers, diapers, deoderant,....." list.