Rules About Avatars

[Night Strike]

I'm a christian, but I don't care much for any religious symbol, unless you count the Bible. But when people like Owen go around with these images clearly created with only one purpose, and that is to cause conflict, it really pisses me off. I think that one rule should be to ban any avatar posted with the intention of strking controversy. As for (I believe it was) Night Strikes coment about not asking for the image to be removed because he is "partialy biased", in my opinion, if a mod with any point of view finds something offensive (with in reason) they should have the right, and the obligation to ask for said object to be removed, and if thier request is turned down, it should be reported to Admin for final judgment.

Edit: went back and checked. it was Night Strike. And just to clarify as to whyI think a removal request dhould be his obligation, Night Strike, if you find it offensive, I can nearly garuntee that somebody else does, too.

Well, I also know that the crowd here (both most of the site and most of the Team CC members) do not share the same views as me. That disappoints me in many ways, but I know that I can't use my moderator position to push any personal beliefs on the site. That being said, I would argue for stricter moderation on potentially offensive content like that, both in public and private if need be. I DID ask for him to remove it, but I've chosen to let someone else handle any moderator viewpoint on it.

[owenshooter]

I DID ask for him to remove it, but I've chosen to let someone else handle any moderator viewpoint on it.

you were ony offended AFTER you found out what it was. and you can not deny that. how does knowing what the image is now, offend you more than it did before, when it didn't offend you? in terms of dealing with what you deem an offensive avater, do what i did. send your concerns to 4 mods, have them debate it in the mod forum, and then you can receive a notice that my avatar is art work, and thus non-offensive. and if that isn't good enough for you, i can dig up the supreme court decision stating that my avatar is not an offensive image or piece of art. go ahead and submit. however, while you are back in the mod forums, please ask andy to hurry up with a response to my PM with the offending users name, and how/why Black Face falls under the "common sense" guidelines he presented, and/or the "art work" guidelines i was presented by the mods. thanks.-0

p.s.-when you submit your concerns to the mods. be sure to include an article showing and outlining exactly WHY the offending avatar is offensive...

p.p.s.-oops, actually, don't submit it directly to a mod. andy said if you put it in Cheats & Abuse, you'll get a faster answer....

[cicero]

you were ony offended AFTER you found out what it was. and you can not deny that. how does knowing what the image is now, offend you more than it did before, when it didn't offend you?

This is not the first time you've posted this 'argument' in this thread owen.

I believe it is all but obvious that knowing what something is or what it means changes ones ability to be offended. When I joined Conquer Club I was unfamiliar with the acronym GFY. Now that I have found out what it means I am offended if someone suggests that I should in thread.

I, like you, find the "blackface" image offensive in and of itself because my cultural experience already gave me a very good idea what kind of reference was being made. However if I had not already had that frame of cultural experience then a visit to the wikipedia article on Blackface would have informed me to the point where it became apparent the image, because of what it represents - literally and implicitly, is offensive.

[owenshooter]

I, like you, find the "blackface" image offensive in and of itself because my cultural experience already gave me a very good idea what kind of reference was being made. However if I had not already had that frame of cultural experience then a visit to the wikipedia article on Blackface would have informed me to the point where it became apparent the image, because of what it represents - literally and implicitly, is offensive.

thank you cicero, and that is why i included that exact link for the mods to browse, to become informed if they were not aware of what black face was/is. i gave the mods the EXACT definition and that link to more info to help them understand what it was they were looking at. one mod was well aware of what it was, because of his racial heritage, another was astounded by what he learned and instantly knew the avatar was offensive. however, it was decided that it was not truly offensive, because it was "art work". i've said it all before, and i've sent it all to andy, since he has stated he was unaware of the situation. and i just want to understand how it falls under the guidelines that either andy or the mods i dealt with, presented me with. again, i am educated and worldly enough to not let an image like this strike me to the core. however, i just want to understand why such an image is allowed.-0

[cicero]

When I joined Conquer Club I was unfamiliar with the acronym GFY. Now that I have found out what it means I am offended if someone suggests that I should in thread.

For anyone who still isn't sure ... http://www.acronymfinder.com/GFY.html ...

[Night Strike]

I was unaware what the "artwork" looked like because I had never seen it. But I had heard about it and thought at that time that it was incredibly distasteful and disheartening that the best artwork used to be majestic religious painting/murals/stained glass while now the popular art degrades religions.

[Fruitcake]

I am not surprised, this is the same group of people who are lead by a man who allows constant attacks on the Catholic religion, but sits shivering with worry should anyone mention the problems we are having with Muslims.

now, now, no personal attacks... this is meant to be a civil discussion. i have sent andy the users name in question, so he can explain to me how it falls under the common sense statute that he explained here. i think it was a BAD decision, but i RESPECT the decision, and am now merely looking for clarification. oddly enough, my presenting this issue to several mods, and it being discussed in the mod forum, is somehow less efficient than posting my issue in Cheats & Abuse.. that i don't understand either. oh well... not looking to name call or tear at the fabric of CC, just looking for a reasonable answer from an admin, as to why/how this avatar was deemed art work and non-offensive.-0

This was not a personal attack owen, I was stating fact.

The fabric of cc is there to be torn at, this is the only way any construct, real or virtual, is tested, and therefore made stronger. New Laws of countries do not come about because existing laws are never tested. This is progress. If a community site such as this exists, then it must be constantly tested for its moral strength, its fairness to ALL, and the service the owners provide. If they are found wanting, then it is the duty of the community to show them in whatever way they feel fit. It is not for us to sit like some sycophants thanking them for poor decisions and poor service.

[BaldAdonis]

I laughed so much at the first page, I had to skip right to the end and save the rest for another day. Cured by limes! Hahahaha! I even turned avatars back on (that's right! you can disable things you don't want to look at! amazing!) but it had already been changed to that boring old Muhammad cartoon.

I see hulmey shows up somewhere along the line. This should be good! People who take trivial things too seriously are highly effective entertainers.

Also, I'd like you all to know that the rules for Avatar (and a nice little story) are clearly outlined by Sierra_Leone here. viewtopic.php?f=213&t=59066

[jbrettlip]

I have already recommended a user panel of forum visitors, not mods, to be an independent judge of avatars and user names. Set up a forum for them, keep their identities secret, and then Twill and Lack could monitor the discussion that takes place on each topic. Kind of like the Supreme Court keeps Congress in check.

I am sure that sugggestion will just be met with "Take down your avatar, because I said so", and one of those dumb smilies.

[jiminski]

I have already recommended a user panel of forum visitors, not mods, to be an independent judge of avatars and user names. Set up a forum for them, keep their identities secret, and then Twill and Lack could monitor the discussion that takes place on each topic. Kind of like the Supreme Court keeps Congress in check.

I am sure that sugggestion will just be met with "Take down your avatar, because I said so", and one of those dumb smilies.

i had the same idea for the Community Comment System Forum Moderation

[imcjb]

Let the mods do their job. Personally I find avatars a much underused opportunity for self expression on this site. I loaded a gif that didnt work....woe betide the day that CC allows GIF's as avatars.

[imcjb]

[hulmey]

I have already recommended a user panel of forum visitors, not mods, to be an independent judge of avatars and user names. Set up a forum for them, keep their identities secret, and then Twill and Lack could monitor the discussion that takes place on each topic. Kind of like the Supreme Court keeps Congress in check.

I am sure that sugggestion will just be met with "Take down your avatar, because I said so", and one of those dumb smilies.

This is lack's site and if you don't like his decision's go elsewhere. Ive been told that many a time!! Some of you fail to understand this site is not democratic and built on the foundations of a corrupt government like the US!!

[owenshooter]

This is lack's site and if you don't like his decision's go elsewhere. Ive been told that many a time!! Some of you fail to understand this site is not democratic and built on the foundations of a corrupt government like the US!!

it wasn't lack's decision, it was a group of moderators decision. despite having the avatar in question and the definition of black face, only one mod (from what i understand), thought that a black face avatar was offensive. kind of ridiculous... as far as going elsewhere if we are not happy with a decision, part of what makes this site great is the user input... look at the maps, look at the rules, look at the forums and discussions that take place before changes are implemented. i am not in any way trying to harm CC, i am trying to get a clarification on a ruling and which guide lines cover that ruling.

do you even know what Black Face is? my question is a simple question, and i'm just waiting for an answer. how does a "black face" avatar fall under the guide lines of "common sense" as andy stated earlier in the thread? i have lived with the ruling, i just want to understand it. so, as soon as it is determined which is correct; the "common sense" or "art work" ruling, and it is explained. i'll be satisfied. i love the suggestion by jim and brett. it isn't like it would take a slew of time to go through whatever offenses people popped up to be reviewed, right?-0

[General Mojo]

I have already recommended a user panel of forum visitors, not mods, to be an independent judge of avatars and user names. Set up a forum for them, keep their identities secret, and then Twill and Lack could monitor the discussion that takes place on each topic. Kind of like the Supreme Court keeps Congress in check.

I am sure that sugggestion will just be met with "Take down your avatar, because I said so", and one of those dumb smilies.

This is lack's site and if you don't like his decision's go elsewhere. Ive been told that many a time!! Some of you fail to understand this site is not democratic and built on the foundations of a corrupt government like the US!!

I don't think anyone's point is that CC can't do whatever it wants...the debate centers around what CC should do. However, this debate is a perfect example of why the United States' system is the best governing system in the world. Hulmey never ceases to amaze me in his ignorance and his ability to consistently embarass himself on these forums....

[jiminski]

I have already recommended a user panel of forum visitors, not mods, to be an independent judge of avatars and user names. Set up a forum for them, keep their identities secret, and then Twill and Lack could monitor the discussion that takes place on each topic. Kind of like the Supreme Court keeps Congress in check.

I am sure that sugggestion will just be met with "Take down your avatar, because I said so", and one of those dumb smilies.

This is lack's site and if you don't like his decision's go elsewhere. Ive been told that many a time!! Some of you fail to understand this site is not democratic and built on the foundations of a corrupt government like the US!!

I don't think anyone's point is that CC can't do whatever it wants...the debate centers around what CC should do. However, this debate is a perfect example of why the United States' system is the best governing system in the world. Hulmey never ceases to amaze me in his ignorance and his ability to consistently embarass himself on these forums....

I think you are all missing the true intent of Hulmeys post.. it is the opposite of what you are interpreting...
his point regarding the US government is distracting of course.
(Although you can't really argue that Bushes 2nd election, at the very least, casts a shadow over your democracy.)

[owenshooter]

dear lord... i did miss the sarcasm in hulmey's post... holy mackeral... and, the puns are not intentional... my bad, hulmey!!! sorry!!!-0

[hulmey]

dear lord... i did miss the sarcasm in hulmey's post... holy mackeral... and, the puns are not intentional... my bad, hulmey!!! sorry!!!-0

np's bro, i thought it might go over your head. Only jiminiski can understand me and thats worrying

[hulmey]

I have already recommended a user panel of forum visitors, not mods, to be an independent judge of avatars and user names. Set up a forum for them, keep their identities secret, and then Twill and Lack could monitor the discussion that takes place on each topic. Kind of like the Supreme Court keeps Congress in check.

I am sure that sugggestion will just be met with "Take down your avatar, because I said so", and one of those dumb smilies.

This is lack's site and if you don't like his decision's go elsewhere. Ive been told that many a time!! Some of you fail to understand this site is not democratic and built on the foundations of a corrupt government like the US!!

I don't think anyone's point is that CC can't do whatever it wants...the debate centers around what CC should do. However, this debate is a perfect example of why the United States' system is the best governing system in the world. Hulmey never ceases to amaze me in his ignorance and his ability to consistently embarass himself on these forums....

Haha best governing system in the world. You sir are deluded and brainwashed!! We wont start that debate here but i did see you were getting called out in the flame wars by one of your kiddies

[oVo]

I confess that this issue has little appeal to me and figure the powers that be need to figure out "the rules" as well as how to deal with it better. I hated the big dust up that occurred years ago over the sensationalized works of Andres Serrano... big fucking whoop. The rotting cow head on a NYC coffee table, Piss Christ and his cum shots that followed were far from great photography and even lesser artworks... focused on the cult of personality (even though he isn't charismatic) and seeking notoriety via public condemnation... the freedom of speech issue (1st Ammendment)... and extensive free publicity. As Ivan Karp (famous NYC gallery director and collector) once pointed out, There is no bad press in art, just the measure of column inches in a newspaper... it doesn't matter what they say, just how much is said. Serrano? FuckHim... when people who know art make a list of great photographers, he isn't on it. Then again... I'm aware of him and still know his name, so FuckMe...
but I also know who shot Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy and that wasn't a particularly good use of 2nd Ammendment rights or significant art either.

The Muslum bashing cartoons are the same animal, those guys knew exactly what they were doing when they were published... and it accomplished everything they hoped for... and even more.

I do find it intreguing that someone here would say they were "offended" by Piss Christ after they were informed what it was. It wasn't just Catholics that denounced the work, but all Christian groups who loudly voiced their outrage. Of course none of this happened at all, until someone promoting Serrano's photography sent them all a press release and images to stoke the fires and get the ball rolling. I'm sure they were absolutely ecstatic with the results... and the extreme money value this notoriety generated.

I'm not a big fan of art where it's greatest intent is to provoke a response via cultural insult... hoping to score dynamic publicity and cash in on the notoriety it generates. Nobody is ever going to call Piss Christ a great work of art, but it will always be a footnote as an image that upset Christians and caused a big stink. Ooh Aah, the power of the photographic image to provoke a response.

Earlier this year a young graphic designer (art star wannabe) rented a space on Times Square NYC ($5k for 3 days) and did an "exhibition" titled THE ASSASSINATION OF HILLARY CLINTON and THE ASSASSINATION OF BARACK OBAMA... the label refers to character assassination, it was nothing but more mediocre art hoping for press on a slow news day. Of course the FBI/Secret Service appeared prior to the opening and insisted that the title lettering be removed from the storefront windows. This received national press coverage and a few mentions worldwide... I first saw it written up in the Washington Post. NONE of the press (not one) even mentions WHAT WAS EXHIBITED... but there was a shitload written about it. Unfortunately a good art controversy doesn't need good art.

I suppose all of the avatars here are meant to express something, but I doubt many really consider alternative interpretations or their ability to offend. Most players just want to present something they think is cool and rarely have another agenda. Since there will always be contradictions the CC staff has to sort this one out and be consistant because one size doesn't fit all.

It might seem that seeking to err on the side of caution, if one mod has doubts about any singular avatar and deems that it might be found offensive, that alone is enough to request it's voluntary removal from the message boreds.

There won't be a shortage of appropriate images available in the near future.

[owenshooter]

Let the mods do their job. Personally I find avatars a much underused opportunity for self expression on this site. I loaded a gif that didnt work....woe betide the day that CC allows GIF's as avatars.

funny.. this users avatar and sig would be illegal in germany, and probably very offensive to more than a few german members of CC... however, will the cultural differences that the mods have with german members, prevent them from seeing
how and why this users image/avatar may be offensive to someone living in a country where the image could be considered illegal? perhaps it is MY cultural differences with the mods that prevent them from seeing why black face is racist. the definition i sent them contained many examples of WHY black face is racist, here are 2 excerpts from what i sent them...

Blackface in the narrow sense is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to take on the appearance of certain archetypes of American racism, especially those of the happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation or the dandified coon.

Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrelsy played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide. In some quarters, the caricatures that were the legacy of blackface persist to the present day and are a cause of ongoing controversy.

hmmm, wondering how black face falls under either the "common sense" or "art work" guidelines set forth by an admin and a few mods... just confounding that this is such a difficult thing to see...-0

p.s.-robinettes pic with a womans nipple showing through a wet shirt was taken down iimmediately by andy... this hitler image has lasted quite awhile... of course, it violates the sig size rules, so that will be why he is asked to remove it...

[Snorri1234]

You know that your sig would also be considered offensive by chinese people who support their government do you?

[owenshooter]

You know that your sig would also be considered offensive by chinese people who support their government do you?

who? me? by putting up a new sig for the Conquer Club Olympics that our clan is participating in, we are offending Chinese people? please explain. i am very open
to learning about all of this. forgive me for my ignorance... i simply thought we were putting up a new sig for the clan olympics, using handcuffs to play off of our slew of warnings and forum bans in the past month or two, and continuing with cooper's oddly mis-spelled words and phrases... however, if you can explain to me how this is offensive to chinese people, i will talk to cooper about this immediately.-0

[Snorri1234]

You know that your sig would also be considered offensive by chinese people who support their government do you?

who? me? by putting up a new sig for the Conquer Club Olympics that our clan is participating in, we are offending Chinese people? please explain. i am very open
to learning about all of this. forgive me for my ignorance... i simply thought we were putting up a new sig for the clan olympics, using handcuffs to play off of our slew of warnings and forum bans in the past month or two, and continuing with cooper's oddly mis-spelled words and phrases... however, if you can explain to me how this is offensive to chinese people, i will talk to cooper about this immediately.-0

Because while handcuffs for your forum bans and stuff sounds hilarious, it can also be interpreted that the Chinese Government who is currently hosting the olympics has a habit of arresting people they don't like or killing them. Mostly it's about freedom of speech and press being non-existent in china and they not letting people know what they do. I don't know whether you made the image yourself or plucked it from the internets, but there are many images like that on teh interwebz. (Check google images: handcuffs olympics.)

In fact, that's not the only way it's used. Check: http://mostlywater.org/why_we_resist_2010_winter_olympics among others.
Or how about:
?

I don't care for whatever reason you use it, mostly because intent doesn't seem to factor into this discussion. It's just that saying people should take offensive images away regardless regardless of their intent is a bit silly if you use that image.



I actually think the image is fine. But I don't live in China and neither do I support the government there so I'm not at liberty to express my opinion it seems.

[owenshooter]

oh my goodness!!! a valid response!! thank you!!! i'll post this in our forum, and double check with a mod if our use of this avatar for the CC Olympics, which is in no way affiliated with the Beijing Olympics or Hasbro, is offensive. however, given that it has taken andy more than a few days to answer my simple question presented to him in this thread and a PM, i am sure the olympics will be over before a ruling is handed down.-0

p.s.-thank you, really!! that was more than i thought you would come up with!