Should the Totenkopf be banned as a avatar??

[GeneralRisk]

Did the Freemason, (arguably nefarious but well known as an active charitable {children's hospitals for example} organisation) just get lumped in with the nazis?

i didn't but you guys are mixing up everything. skull and bones is a symbol used by many different organizations that have nothing to do with each other, the discution here is not about another conspiration theory...

this particular skull and bone logo is the SS one, so stop deviationg with yale, freemasons, pirates and ancient prussian army logo or whatever. this particular skull and bone is the one from the SS.

Is it ok if i have an american flag burning as an avatar? or a coran burning?

I think a coran burning is probably ok , not sure about American flag, maybe ask sniffee.

[thegreekdog]

the che is responsible for thousands of death. anyway, here people argue for the sake of arguing. Is that particular wolf the one from the nazi party? so stop being an assclown.

My avatar is a critique of Che and yes I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good use of the word assclown.

There needs to be intent here, I think. He needs to have intended to have a Nazi symbol as his avatar. If it is intended as something other than that, regardless of where he got it, then there should be no problem.

As to your other questions, I would personally have no problem with a burning American flag.

[Haggis_McMutton]

you guys are weirdos... so it's ok to make an apology of slaughter war crimes, deportation by using it as an avatar? survivors of the hollocaust are still in this world, nice respect for thm tolerating that some ignorant idiots make the apology of SS.

So in your mind, having a nazi associated insignia as an avatar = making an apology for the SS.

Care to explain that rather big step in reasoning there? What if he just likes how the damn thing looks ?

why wouldn't it be ok then to use KKK, al qaeda, serial killers and britney spears avatars?

Wouldn't it?
I'm really tempted to put up a serial killer avatar now.

Yes, it should be ok to have a flag/book burning as an avatar. Why the hell wouldn't it be?
Does seeing a flag burning cause you so much distress that you need to ban certain types of pictures from the world to maintain your mental health? If that's the case you may be in need of counseling.

[Qwert]

Second, it will be interesting to see which side of the line this skull-and-bones falls on. It makes logical sense that if the swastika--a symbol of Nazism--is prohibited, the symbol of the "worst" part to the Nazi party should likewise be prohibited. However, it also makes sense that, at least in modern times, the swastika is so visually unique as to be recognized as a symbol of Nazism; whereas, a skull and crossbones could mean many things.

Ok, now i must saz that swastika are not unique symbol for nazi. this is big problem here, every time when someone see swastika, they scream " NAZY GLORIFICATION!! PLEASE REMOVE SWASTIKA!!!"

How about this picture, can i put in mine avatar and signature?


note: this is figurine from 5000 years BC.

[2dimes]

I'm not really arguing. I thought I'd point out a fairly old use of the skull and cross bones.

If someone wants to wrap a bible and a quoran in the flags of every country, then burn it wearing a complete Hitler disguise video tape the whole thing then create a gif. To use as an avatar it does not bother me.

Then again I'm also ok with you asking Persian to stop using the thing here.

[betiko]

the che is responsible for thousands of death. anyway, here people argue for the sake of arguing. Is that particular wolf the one from the nazi party? so stop being an assclown.

My avatar is a critique of Che and yes I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good use of the word assclown.

There needs to be intent here, I think. He needs to have intended to have a Nazi symbol as his avatar. If it is intended as something other than that, regardless of where he got it, then there should be no problem.

As to your other questions, I would personally have no problem with a burning American flag.

well i don't think people should have an avatar disrespectfull to others. Anyone using a burning flag, or a burning religious symbol is an asshole or an attention whore. Those might mean a lot to others and it's pure provocation. regarding the SS symbol, you are missing a point. try to find it on google without using the words SS, or nazi, or totenkopf. search for skull and bones or anything like that, you won't find anything like that. as i told you, make an inverted search with the avatar of this guy on google, the image only lings to SS badges and totenkopf.

[Haggis_McMutton]

If someone wants to wrap a bible and a quoran in the flags of every country, then burn it wearing a complete Hitler disguise video tape the whole thing then create a gif. To use as an avatar it does not bother me.

Now that would be impressive.

[thegreekdog]

the che is responsible for thousands of death. anyway, here people argue for the sake of arguing. Is that particular wolf the one from the nazi party? so stop being an assclown.

My avatar is a critique of Che and yes I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good use of the word assclown.

There needs to be intent here, I think. He needs to have intended to have a Nazi symbol as his avatar. If it is intended as something other than that, regardless of where he got it, then there should be no problem.

As to your other questions, I would personally have no problem with a burning American flag.

well i don't think people should have an avatar disrespectfull to others. Anyone using a burning flag, or a burning religious symbol is an asshole or an attention whore. Those might mean a lot to others and it's pure provocation. regarding the SS symbol, you are missing a point. try to find it on google without using the words SS, or nazi, or totenkopf. search for skull and bones or anything like that, you won't find anything like that. as i told you, make an inverted search with the avatar of this guy on google, the image only lings to SS badges and totenkopf.

I read the C&A thread and agentcom had the best post there.

I don't think people should have avatars disrespectful to others either, but those aren't the rules and enforcing that rule would leave to absurd results where, in the end, the moderators would be making judgments as to whether something was actually offensive or not.

Given that the user has had the same avatar for three years and has not been reported, is he really offending anyone (regardless of the rules)? I partially agree with Haggis in that people need to stop being offended by what appears to be an avatar held for three years and which you, apparently, only just realized was a Nazi symbol. I disagree with Haggis in that there are some symbols that, on this website at least, should be bannable offenses (the KKK symbol for example) - that are there purely to offend. This user's avatar does not appear to be used for offensive purposes. It is a little troubling that he's not changing it if, as you've shown, there are viable alternatives. Personally, I wouldn't ban him.

[betiko]

qwert, I lived in india as a child and i perfectly know where the nazis took the symbol from. the indian one is usually straight and usually has dots around it, the nazi one is standing up on it's point and is dark blue/black with a red background.
I have no problem with people using the original one, there is a difference, but I think only idiots would use the nazi one.

[betiko]

the che is responsible for thousands of death. anyway, here people argue for the sake of arguing. Is that particular wolf the one from the nazi party? so stop being an assclown.

My avatar is a critique of Che and yes I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good use of the word assclown.

There needs to be intent here, I think. He needs to have intended to have a Nazi symbol as his avatar. If it is intended as something other than that, regardless of where he got it, then there should be no problem.

As to your other questions, I would personally have no problem with a burning American flag.

well i don't think people should have an avatar disrespectfull to others. Anyone using a burning flag, or a burning religious symbol is an asshole or an attention whore. Those might mean a lot to others and it's pure provocation. regarding the SS symbol, you are missing a point. try to find it on google without using the words SS, or nazi, or totenkopf. search for skull and bones or anything like that, you won't find anything like that. as i told you, make an inverted search with the avatar of this guy on google, the image only lings to SS badges and totenkopf.

I read the C&A thread and agentcom had the best post there.

I don't think people should have avatars disrespectful to others either, but those aren't the rules and enforcing that rule would leave to absurd results where, in the end, the moderators would be making judgments as to whether something was actually offensive or not.

Given that the user has had the same avatar for three years and has not been reported, is he really offending anyone (regardless of the rules)? I partially agree with Haggis in that people need to stop being offended by what appears to be an avatar held for three years and which you, apparently, only just realized was a Nazi symbol. I disagree with Haggis in that there are some symbols that, on this website at least, should be bannable offenses (the KKK symbol for example) - that are there purely to offend. This user's avatar does not appear to be used for offensive purposes. It is a little troubling that he's not changing it if, as you've shown, there are viable alternatives. Personally, I wouldn't ban him.

first of, i don't want this person banned. I just would him to put a "normal" skull and bones, one that is not related to nazis.
On this site people get banned for nipples (yes, the thinggy used for love and feeding newborns) but think that it's ok to wear symbols of people that did experiments on other people, like making lamps with their skin, gas them, burn them, rape them, starve them to death and so on.
Use such a symbol as your avatar only looks like one thing, you are promoting, in spite of you or not, that out of the many things on earth you could use, nazis is the first thing you could think of to represent yourself.

[GeneralRisk]

qwert, I lived in india as a child and i perfectly know where the nazis took the symbol from. the indian one is usually straight and usually has dots around it, the nazi one is standing up on it's point and is dark blue/black with a red background.
I have no problem with people using the original one, there is a difference, but I think only idiots would use the nazi one.

Here is 2 images from the now defunct automaker Krit, years before the nazis used it. A watch fob from Coca Cola circa 1925

[ghostly447]

@All people saying its okay because its "Just bones and a skull". Are you blind? Look up "Skull and bones" in google/bing. You wont see a single one like this for the first 10+ pages.

@All the IDIOTS saying "Your wolf is offensive, take it off" get real, and quit acting like you have no head on your shoulders. Dont mean to be an ass, but how the hell could he not know what it means? To even find a picture with the bones aligned in that direction, you would have to look up the specific symbol without pouring tons of time into looking for one (lets face it, if he wanted a skull and crossbones, he could have gone for a pirate one, or even a very decorative one before he found the one in question).

Now I dont know about anyone else, but I dont think Shi**ing on an entire nation by burning an nations flag, or symbol (like the bible, etc) is showing respect. Maybe its just because I respect people by nature, so shi**ing on someone is unacceptable in my mind.

the che is responsible for thousands of death. anyway, here people argue for the sake of arguing. Is that particular wolf the one from the nazi party? so stop being an assclown.

My avatar is a critique of Che and yes I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good use of the word assclown.

There needs to be intent here, I think. He needs to have intended to have a Nazi symbol as his avatar. If it is intended as something other than that, regardless of where he got it, then there should be no problem.

As to your other questions, I would personally have no problem with a burning American flag.

well i don't think people should have an avatar disrespectfull to others. Anyone using a burning flag, or a burning religious symbol is an asshole or an attention whore. Those might mean a lot to others and it's pure provocation. regarding the SS symbol, you are missing a point. try to find it on google without using the words SS, or nazi, or totenkopf. search for skull and bones or anything like that, you won't find anything like that. as i told you, make an inverted search with the avatar of this guy on google, the image only lings to SS badges and totenkopf.

I read the C&A thread and agentcom had the best post there.

I don't think people should have avatars disrespectful to others either, but those aren't the rules and enforcing that rule would leave to absurd results where, in the end, the moderators would be making judgments as to whether something was actually offensive or not.

Given that the user has had the same avatar for three years and has not been reported, is he really offending anyone (regardless of the rules)? I partially agree with Haggis in that people need to stop being offended by what appears to be an avatar held for three years and which you, apparently, only just realized was a Nazi symbol. I disagree with Haggis in that there are some symbols that, on this website at least, should be bannable offenses (the KKK symbol for example) - that are there purely to offend. This user's avatar does not appear to be used for offensive purposes. It is a little troubling that he's not changing it if, as you've shown, there are viable alternatives. Personally, I wouldn't ban him.

Oh, but I should be allowed to carry a KKK symbol because (for the time being for the example) my father was raised like that. We may have hunted down every last "African American" in an overall goal to eradicate the race, but by your logic I should be able to carry it with pride. I dont mean to offend anyone, I just simply found a guy in a sheet lynching someone and thought it would make a good avatar. Do you see why there is no difference except that one of them went after blacks and one of them went after jews? Why would it be treated any different?

[betiko]

qwert, I lived in india as a child and i perfectly know where the nazis took the symbol from. the indian one is usually straight and usually has dots around it, the nazi one is standing up on it's point and is dark blue/black with a red background.
I have no problem with people using the original one, there is a difference, but I think only idiots would use the nazi one.

Here is 2 images from the now defunct automaker Krit, years before the nazis used it. A watch fob from Coca Cola circa 1925

and? what is your point? i don't care about this. I only care if someone uses a symbol that represents the nazis. those don't.
Or like the signature you once did with a fucked up nazi flag that you tried to use with the name of our clan. I see by the way that you used again a look alike flag in your signature, and even if it's not really a nazi flag i know what you are doing.
by the way, who is this guy on your avatar? kind of makes me think of mussolini with a german uniform.

[Haggis_McMutton]

first of, i don't want this person banned. I just would him to put a "normal" skull and bones, one that is not related to nazis.
On this site people get banned for nipples (yes, the thinggy used for love and feeding newborns) but think that it's ok to wear symbols of people that did experiments on other people, like making lamps with their skin, gas them, burn them, rape them, starve them to death and so on.
Use such a symbol as your avatar only looks like one thing, you are promoting, in spite of you or not, that out of the many things on earth you could use, nazis is the first thing you could think of to represent yourself.

granted our society's view that nudity is more offensive than gore and death is bizzare to say the least.
However, moving in the way of more censorship hardly seems like a good thing.

I agree with you that the choice of avatar says some things about the person, and it is indeed reasonable to judge a person and call him out based on that.
However imposing rules that avatars must be non-offensive? That's going too far. It creates more problems than it solves. subjectiveness and all that.

[thegreekdog]

@All people saying its okay because its "Just bones and a skull". Are you blind? Look up "Skull and bones" in google/bing. You wont see a single one like this for the first 10+ pages.

@All the IDIOTS saying "Your wolf is offensive, take it off" get real, and quit acting like you have no head on your shoulders. Dont mean to be an ass, but how the hell could he not know what it means? To even find a picture with the bones aligned in that direction, you would have to look up the specific symbol without pouring tons of time into looking for one (lets face it, if he wanted a skull and crossbones, he could have gone for a pirate one, or even a very decorative one before he found the one in question).

Now I dont know about anyone else, but I dont think Shi**ing on an entire nation by burning an nations flag, or symbol (like the bible, etc) is showing respect. Maybe its just because I respect people by nature, so shi**ing on someone is unacceptable in my mind.

the che is responsible for thousands of death. anyway, here people argue for the sake of arguing. Is that particular wolf the one from the nazi party? so stop being an assclown.

My avatar is a critique of Che and yes I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good use of the word assclown.

There needs to be intent here, I think. He needs to have intended to have a Nazi symbol as his avatar. If it is intended as something other than that, regardless of where he got it, then there should be no problem.

As to your other questions, I would personally have no problem with a burning American flag.

well i don't think people should have an avatar disrespectfull to others. Anyone using a burning flag, or a burning religious symbol is an asshole or an attention whore. Those might mean a lot to others and it's pure provocation. regarding the SS symbol, you are missing a point. try to find it on google without using the words SS, or nazi, or totenkopf. search for skull and bones or anything like that, you won't find anything like that. as i told you, make an inverted search with the avatar of this guy on google, the image only lings to SS badges and totenkopf.

I read the C&A thread and agentcom had the best post there.

I don't think people should have avatars disrespectful to others either, but those aren't the rules and enforcing that rule would leave to absurd results where, in the end, the moderators would be making judgments as to whether something was actually offensive or not.

Given that the user has had the same avatar for three years and has not been reported, is he really offending anyone (regardless of the rules)? I partially agree with Haggis in that people need to stop being offended by what appears to be an avatar held for three years and which you, apparently, only just realized was a Nazi symbol. I disagree with Haggis in that there are some symbols that, on this website at least, should be bannable offenses (the KKK symbol for example) - that are there purely to offend. This user's avatar does not appear to be used for offensive purposes. It is a little troubling that he's not changing it if, as you've shown, there are viable alternatives. Personally, I wouldn't ban him.

Oh, but I should be allowed to carry a KKK symbol because (for the time being for the example) my father was raised like that. We may have hunted down every last "African American" in an overall goal to eradicate the race, but by your logic I should be able to carry it with pride. I dont mean to offend anyone, I just simply found a guy in a sheet lynching someone and thought it would make a good avatar. Do you see why there is no difference except that one of them went after blacks and one of them went after jews? Why would it be treated any different?

If I was the man in charge, you could use whatever you want as your avatar because there is an option not to view said avatar. But that's me.

That being said, if we're operating within the rules of this website, we may come to a different result. Let me use your scenario, albeit with changes to make it less ludicrous.

Let's say your avatar was of a white sheet with a cross on it. You had the avatar for three years. Someone, three years later, figures out the white sheet is representative of the KKK and tries to get you to change your avatar. You suggest that you only took that avatar because it "looked cool" and did not realize it was representative of the KKK. The person reports you to C&A. Now, it's troublesome if you don't remove it and replace it with someone else. I agree that's a problem because it could mean that the player does want that specific symbol and what it represents (or it could mean the player is pissed that he's being accused of using a KKK symbol in the first place, which is less troublesome).

So now the moderators have to make a judgment call. They have to determine whether there is intent by the user to have an avatar to be offensive. And they must make this judgment call while understanding that the player has had the avatar for three years without anyone saying anything. That's a hard judgment call to make, despite all of your hemming and hawing about how offensive the image is... you didn't even notice it for three years.

[betiko]

first of, i don't want this person banned. I just would him to put a "normal" skull and bones, one that is not related to nazis.
On this site people get banned for nipples (yes, the thinggy used for love and feeding newborns) but think that it's ok to wear symbols of people that did experiments on other people, like making lamps with their skin, gas them, burn them, rape them, starve them to death and so on.
Use such a symbol as your avatar only looks like one thing, you are promoting, in spite of you or not, that out of the many things on earth you could use, nazis is the first thing you could think of to represent yourself.

granted our society's view that nudity is more offensive than gore and death is bizzare to say the least.
However, moving in the way of more censorship hardly seems like a good thing.

I agree with you that the choice of avatar says some things about the person, and it is indeed reasonable to judge a person and call him out based on that.
However imposing rules that avatars must be non-offensive? That's going too far. It creates more problems than it solves. subjectiveness and all that.

(our society = american society because all across europe we don't find any logic in that)
let me put it this way; freakns has a clan called otpisani. it's a yougoslavian tvshow from the 80s or whatever about resistance fighting the germans. his avatar was the one of the show on which you see the characters and behind nazi flags burning. a report was made and he had to remove it.

So why on earth would he have to remove something about fighting nazis, and why would this guy get to keep his SS symbol?

[bedub1]

you guys are weirdos... so it's ok to make an apology of slaughter war crimes, deportation by using it as an avatar? survivors of the hollocaust are still in this world, nice respect for thm tolerating that some ignorant idiots make the apology of SS.

why wouldn't it be ok then to use KKK, al qaeda, serial killers and britney spears avatars?

It's perfectly fine to use any of those objects as your avatar. See in the world of "free speech" that means also that people get to say things you don't like. You are going to be offended, and there is nothing you can do about it. Else the second you start to take away somebody else's rights, they will turn around and take away yours.

You find the avatar offense? I find yours offense. You find my religion offensive, I find yours offense. You find me offensive, I find you offense. You want to ban his avatar, I want to ban your existence.

You want the freedom to state you think his avatar is bad? You have to allow the Westboro Baptist Church to state what they think is bad.

[GeneralRisk]

qwert, I lived in india as a child and i perfectly know where the nazis took the symbol from. the indian one is usually straight and usually has dots around it, the nazi one is standing up on it's point and is dark blue/black with a red background.
I have no problem with people using the original one, there is a difference, but I think only idiots would use the nazi one.

Here is 2 images from the now defunct automaker Krit, years before the nazis used it. A watch fob from Coca Cola circa 1925

and? what is your point? i don't care about this. I only care if someone uses a symbol that represents the nazis. those don't.
Or like the signature you once did with a fucked up nazi flag that you tried to use with the name of our clan. I see by the way that you used again a look alike flag in your signature, and even if it's not really a nazi flag i know what you are doing.
by the way, who is this guy on your avatar? kind of makes me think of mussolini with a german uniform.

The image in my avatar is of Field Marshal Paulis. As far as this flag..you think you know what I am doing , but in fact you a a small and narrow minded individual who like the Nazis wants to impose your beliefs on others.

[betiko]

greekdog... i don't understand what is so hard to understand.
" Someone, three years later, figures out the white sheet is representative of the KKK and tries to get you to change your avatar"

no. this is not what it is. that's what it is.
" Someone, three years later, figures out the white sheet is from the KKK and tries to get you to change your avatar"


there is nothing to argue about his fraking skull and bones used, unless you are blind.

[ghostly447]

@All people saying its okay because its "Just bones and a skull". Are you blind? Look up "Skull and bones" in google/bing. You wont see a single one like this for the first 10+ pages.

@All the IDIOTS saying "Your wolf is offensive, take it off" get real, and quit acting like you have no head on your shoulders. Dont mean to be an ass, but how the hell could he not know what it means? To even find a picture with the bones aligned in that direction, you would have to look up the specific symbol without pouring tons of time into looking for one (lets face it, if he wanted a skull and crossbones, he could have gone for a pirate one, or even a very decorative one before he found the one in question).

Now I dont know about anyone else, but I dont think Shi**ing on an entire nation by burning an nations flag, or symbol (like the bible, etc) is showing respect. Maybe its just because I respect people by nature, so shi**ing on someone is unacceptable in my mind.

the che is responsible for thousands of death. anyway, here people argue for the sake of arguing. Is that particular wolf the one from the nazi party? so stop being an assclown.

My avatar is a critique of Che and yes I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good use of the word assclown.

There needs to be intent here, I think. He needs to have intended to have a Nazi symbol as his avatar. If it is intended as something other than that, regardless of where he got it, then there should be no problem.

As to your other questions, I would personally have no problem with a burning American flag.

well i don't think people should have an avatar disrespectfull to others. Anyone using a burning flag, or a burning religious symbol is an asshole or an attention whore. Those might mean a lot to others and it's pure provocation. regarding the SS symbol, you are missing a point. try to find it on google without using the words SS, or nazi, or totenkopf. search for skull and bones or anything like that, you won't find anything like that. as i told you, make an inverted search with the avatar of this guy on google, the image only lings to SS badges and totenkopf.

I read the C&A thread and agentcom had the best post there.

I don't think people should have avatars disrespectful to others either, but those aren't the rules and enforcing that rule would leave to absurd results where, in the end, the moderators would be making judgments as to whether something was actually offensive or not.

Given that the user has had the same avatar for three years and has not been reported, is he really offending anyone (regardless of the rules)? I partially agree with Haggis in that people need to stop being offended by what appears to be an avatar held for three years and which you, apparently, only just realized was a Nazi symbol. I disagree with Haggis in that there are some symbols that, on this website at least, should be bannable offenses (the KKK symbol for example) - that are there purely to offend. This user's avatar does not appear to be used for offensive purposes. It is a little troubling that he's not changing it if, as you've shown, there are viable alternatives. Personally, I wouldn't ban him.

Oh, but I should be allowed to carry a KKK symbol because (for the time being for the example) my father was raised like that. We may have hunted down every last "African American" in an overall goal to eradicate the race, but by your logic I should be able to carry it with pride. I dont mean to offend anyone, I just simply found a guy in a sheet lynching someone and thought it would make a good avatar. Do you see why there is no difference except that one of them went after blacks and one of them went after jews? Why would it be treated any different?

If I was the man in charge, you could use whatever you want as your avatar because there is an option not to view said avatar. But that's me.

That being said, if we're operating within the rules of this website, we may come to a different result. Let me use your scenario, albeit with changes to make it less ludicrous.

Let's say your avatar was of a white sheet with a cross on it. You had the avatar for three years. Someone, three years later, figures out the white sheet is representative of the KKK and tries to get you to change your avatar. You suggest that you only took that avatar because it "looked cool" and did not realize it was representative of the KKK. The person reports you to C&A. Now, it's troublesome if you don't remove it and replace it with someone else. I agree that's a problem because it could mean that the player does want that specific symbol and what it represents (or it could mean the player is pissed that he's being accused of using a KKK symbol in the first place, which is less troublesome).

So now the moderators have to make a judgment call. They have to determine whether there is intent by the user to have an avatar to be offensive. And they must make this judgment call while understanding that the player has had the avatar for three years without anyone saying anything. That's a hard judgment call to make, despite all of your hemming and hawing about how offensive the image is... you didn't even notice it for three years.

My main point is there is no way he did not know what it means. Like in my scenario where the player clearly knew the meaning, but LIED, you would clearly have to know the meaning of white robes and a cross (lets face it, we dont have 2 year olds here, and most nobody thinks a couple a white sheets are "cool"). There is no way he found this skull and bones in the picture by simply looking up skull and bones.

Do not show me that I can block avatars. If CC went by that, then no symbol would be blocked ever and we wouldnt be having this discussion.

[thegreekdog]

greekdog... i don't understand what is so hard to understand.
" Someone, three years later, figures out the white sheet is representative of the KKK and tries to get you to change your avatar"

no. this is not what it is. that's what it is.
" Someone, three years later, figures out the white sheet is from the KKK and tries to get you to change your avatar"


there is nothing to argue about his fraking skull and bones used, unless you are blind.

I understand the issue perfectly. And your change to my scenario doesn't change my conclusion. Here is what you are missing:

(1) Is it the intent of the user to offend? The answer could be yes because he's not changing his avatar. The answer could be that he's not changing his avatar because he's pissed that someone is insinuating that he's a Nazi sympathizer.

(2) Why did it take three years to find this avatar offensive?

(3) What happens when other items are deemed offensive? How are the moderators supposed to react?

I think you need to think about those questions.

[betiko]

you guys are weirdos... so it's ok to make an apology of slaughter war crimes, deportation by using it as an avatar? survivors of the hollocaust are still in this world, nice respect for thm tolerating that some ignorant idiots make the apology of SS.

why wouldn't it be ok then to use KKK, al qaeda, serial killers and britney spears avatars?

It's perfectly fine to use any of those objects as your avatar. See in the world of "free speech" that means also that people get to say things you don't like. You are going to be offended, and there is nothing you can do about it. Else the second you start to take away somebody else's rights, they will turn around and take away yours.

You find the avatar offense? I find yours offense. You find my religion offensive, I find yours offense. You find me offensive, I find you offense. You want to ban his avatar, I want to ban your existence.

You want the freedom to state you think his avatar is bad? You have to allow the Westboro Baptist Church to state what they think is bad.

your logic is flawed; freedom of speach comes from human rights, and the human rights mention that your freedom stops where everyone else's start. War butchers aren't anywhere on the human rights and in the respect of other people's freedom. War butchers and their worshippers are offensive to others and affect other people's freedom. therefore they should not be tolerated.

[thegreekdog]

My main point is there is no way he did not know what it means. Like in my scenario where the player clearly knew the meaning, but LIED, you would clearly have to know the meaning of white robes and a cross (lets face it, we dont have 2 year olds here, and most nobody thinks a couple a white sheets are "cool"). There is no way he found this skull and bones in the picture by simply looking up skull and bones.

Do not show me that I can block avatars. If CC went by that, then no symbol would be blocked ever and we wouldnt be having this discussion.

I didn't know what the symbol meant, so that is not really a good explanation. You can't infer intent, especially for something this allegedly egregious.

CC clearly doesn't go by blocking avatars. I'm saying that would be my rule. Freedom of speech is so ingrained in me that if something offends me I would rather just not look at it than have it changed to something else.

[ghostly447]

greekdog... i don't understand what is so hard to understand.
" Someone, three years later, figures out the white sheet is representative of the KKK and tries to get you to change your avatar"

no. this is not what it is. that's what it is.
" Someone, three years later, figures out the white sheet is from the KKK and tries to get you to change your avatar"


there is nothing to argue about his fraking skull and bones used, unless you are blind.

I understand the issue perfectly. And your change to my scenario doesn't change my conclusion. Here is what you are missing:

(1) Is it the intent of the user to offend? The answer could be yes because he's not changing his avatar. The answer could be that he's not changing his avatar because he's pissed that someone is insinuating that he's a Nazi sympathizer.
Perhaps, perhaps not. He would never admit to it even if he did. This, in mafia, is called WIFOM. Can go either way.
(2) Why did it take three years to find this avatar offensive?
Because he isnt a select 1 of 10 players on this game. There are several players with several opinions on here. Just because someone finally saw it and thinks it offensive, does not mean he is crazy or something.
(3) What happens when other items are deemed offensive? How are the moderators supposed to react?
Well IDK, perhaps force the change of the avatar if someone deems it offensive. Just like if it was one of the past ones that got blocked.
I think you need to think about those questions.

[Woodruff]

While I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that this user's avatar is fine, didn't CC make the statement that swastikas were not to be put on maps?

Or am I misremembering that?

If that is the case, then I think there is precedent here.