Rules About Avatars

[Neoteny]

And Cicero, the stick figure picture he is referring to, is actually ONE of the mohammad cartoons, so it is hardly inoffensive.

In which case I stand corrected. I was assuming it was one of DiM's cartoon avatars of stick men running around generally.

Indeed. Sorry for the confusion. And it's like pulling teeth trying to get a post through here...

[jbrettlip]

No, someone posted all the images,I think on PAge 2 of this thread.

I just fail to realize why my tick caused so much uproar, but the black face avi, Piss Christ and now Mohammad cause little to no conversation. In other words, there needs to be a rule.

The mods apparently voted on the "blackface" avi and approved it. Said it was art. Owen has the PM. They told him to appeal to the user himself. Several people appealed to me to remove my tick avatar. One was Twill, who said "Take it down". Hardly an appeal, so I can only assume that racism is ok, and humor is not.

[Night Strike]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

[Juan_Bottom]

for a user to use hate imagery,

How is "PISS CHRIST" hate imagery? No, for really?

I'm sure nobody would mind if I used David's penis as an avatar. It's art.

No, it's lewd. The whole of David(including the penis) is art. But to focus strictly on the genitals is not art, and was never created to be.
Just like the whole of me is a man, but my penis alone is not. It's lewd.

Ridiculing Muslims is both racist and religion bashing.

Agreed.

"I just fail to realize why my tick caused so much uproar, but the black face avi, Piss Christ and now Mohammad cause little to no conversation. In other words, there needs to be a rule. "
I think I did a fair job.

[owenshooter]

Yes, Cicero, I do think you also are missing the bigger point the rules are meaningless if they affect no content. Blackface is racist. Ridiculing Muslims is both racist and religion bashing. So enforce the rules or get rid of them.

how is brett religion bashing by displaying a drawing that was published the world over? please, explain that. it is not ridiculing muslims... brett did not create the image himself, he gathered it from the internet. you can find it in the archives of the new york times, los angeles times, herald, el paso times, ohio tribune, etc... you can go to your local library right now and find the image. again, the image in his avatar is a published piece of art that was shown and displayed in major media outlets... please, tell me how brett is pushing the limits with the use of an image published the world over?-0

[cicero]

Yes, Cicero, I do think you also are missing the bigger point the rules are meaningless if they affect no content. Blackface is racist. Ridiculing Muslims is both racist and religion bashing. So enforce the rules or get rid of them.

Again - to state my own personal subjective position - I too find the "black face" avatar offensive. I agree that hurtful ridicule of anyone due to their race, religion, sexuality etc is unacceptable.
My "reason" for joining in this discussion was to state my opinion that it was a difficult discussion, but one worth having which the OP - jbrettlip - was defending his right to do.

To continue that discussion - ie what to do about rules about avatars - I don't think it helps for each of us to keep posting what we do or don't find offensive and then being offended when others disagree. This simply reaffirms the problem. It doesn't address the solution which, I sincerely believe, is what jbrettlip was trying to do ... (in his own sweet way )

[Frop]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

It's by far the worst mod decision ever, you lot disgust me. 'Lewd'... I think I could cry.

And you claim not to allow nudity? What about the plethora of semi-clad and/or nude ladies most girls on this site are sporting in their avatars and sigs?

[Neoteny]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

It's by far the worst mod decision ever, you lot disgust me. 'Lewd'... I think I could cry.

And you claim not to allow nudity? What about the plethora of semi-clad and/or nude ladies most girls on this site are sporting in their avatars and sigs?

Well, that's just hawt...

[Juan_Bottom]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

It's by far the worst mod decision ever, you lot disgust me. 'Lewd'... I think I could cry.

And you claim not to allow nudity? What about the plethora of semi-clad and/or nude ladies most girls on this site are sporting in their avatars and sigs?

Again, awesome, but WHY?

Otherwise, whatever!

[Frop]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

It's by far the worst mod decision ever, you lot disgust me. 'Lewd'... I think I could cry.

And you claim not to allow nudity? What about the plethora of semi-clad and/or nude ladies most girls on this site are sporting in their avatars and sigs?

Again, awesome, but WHY?

Otherwise, whatever!

Could you at least try to make sense?

[Night Strike]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

It's by far the worst mod decision ever, you lot disgust me. 'Lewd'... I think I could cry.

Sorry, but I'm sticking by it. People have posted pictures (photography) that showed nipples while others have posted nude anime, but all those have been removed.

[mpjh]

When I was trying to make my last post, I got an alert that another post had taken place. It was the groin of David that flashed up on my screen. That post is gone now. I can only assume that you removed the post as offensive. Now, this is a really strange site that will not allow Michelangelo's David but will allow racist blackface and religion bashing for the sake of simply bashing the religion.

I think there are minors playing games on this site and none of this should be taking place. Please, monitors, get this under control or you may find action from agencies outside the site taking an interest.

[Night Strike]

When I was trying to make my last post, I got an alert that another post had taken place. It was the groin of David that flashed up on my screen. That post is gone now. I can only assume that you removed the post as offensive. Now, this is a really strange site that will not allow Michelangelo's David but will allow racist blackface and religion bashing for the sake of simply bashing the religion.

I think there are minors playing games on this site and none of this should be taking place. Please, monitors, get this under control or you may find action from agencies outside the site taking an interest.

Wow, does everybody threaten with lawyers just to make their viewpoints more "effective"?

If you read the edit, I removed the picture because it showed genitalia.

[Frop]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

It's by far the worst mod decision ever, you lot disgust me. 'Lewd'... I think I could cry.

Sorry, but I'm sticking by it. People have posted pictures (photography) that showed nipples while others have posted nude anime, but all those have been removed.

One of your former mods used to have avatars like that all the time and you did nothing. What about this one?

[cicero]

how is brett religion bashing by displaying a drawing that was published the world over? please, explain that. it is not ridiculing muslims... brett did not create the image himself, he gathered it from the internet. you can find it in the archives of the new york times, los angeles times, herald, el paso times, ohio tribune, etc... you can go to your local library right now and find the image. again, the image in his avatar is a published piece of art that was shown and displayed in major media outlets... please, tell me how brett is pushing the limits with the use of an image published the world over?-0

Now apply the same argument - word for word - to the "black face" image ...

Again, for emphasis, I also find the "black face" image offensive and as it happens I do not find jbrettlip's current avatar offensive (and I completely missed the "limes" reference since the spelling was as for the fruit when I saw it) ...

But that is all besides the point. Being offended is a subjective personal state of mind. There is really no point in arguing with anyone as to why they should or should not be offended by something ...

[Juan_Bottom]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

It's by far the worst mod decision ever, you lot disgust me. 'Lewd'... I think I could cry.

And you claim not to allow nudity? What about the plethora of semi-clad and/or nude ladies most girls on this site are sporting in their avatars and sigs?

Again, awesome, but WHY?

Otherwise, whatever!

Could you at least try to make sense?

The same thing that I have been saying ths whole time. You need to explain yourself, otherwise, why would anyone care about your opinions?

Why was that a bad decision? Why does it disgust you? It was a large picture of a penis, and I haven't seen any others on the site.

[Neoteny]

When I was trying to make my last post, I got an alert that another post had taken place. It was the groin of David that flashed up on my screen. That post is gone now. I can only assume that you removed the post as offensive. Now, this is a really strange site that will not allow Michelangelo's David but will allow racist blackface and religion bashing for the sake of simply bashing the religion.

I think there are minors playing games on this site and none of this should be taking place. Please, monitors, get this under control or you may find action from agencies outside the site taking an interest.

[Ray Rider]

Like Night Strike said, I just don't see why people can't have a little more respect for others rather than always trying to push the limits and offend people.

nobody cared when i was offended by a users avatar which depicts black face. i presented it to the mods, and was told it was ART WORK and not offensive. i lived with the decision and moved on. ray rider, you had NO IDEA what my avatar was until i said what it was in CALLOUTS, so don't try to act as if you did. if you had a problem with it, you should have contacted me directly and asked me what my reason was for flying my current avatar, which is an award winning, government funded photograph. i no longer have an issue with the user being allowed to use black face in his avatar, i am now simply trying to find out what are the guidelines, what are the rules, and who decides what is and isn't obscent. as i've stated before, the supreme court decided the image in my avatar was not obscene or offensive, and that decision still holds today. funny, i am catholic and am not offended by an image of a tiny plastic crucifix in a field of yellow, which i know to be urine. and neither was anyone else for over 2 weeks. the instant brett stated what it was, you became offended. that is ridiculous. why are you offended? what makes it offensive to you? how does it cross a line for you? i stated why i found black face images in an avatar offensive, and i lost the argument. i accepted it, and am now questioning what is and isn't offensive for avatars on this site. ray, you find my avatar offensive, but no others on this site? what else is offensive to you? please, tell me. that way, we can remove all the avatars you find offensive on this site. you need a stronger argument than the one you are presenting to persuade this product of catholic schools and university. funny, no outrage about the black face from you.. however, the moment you find out the cross is in urine, you are ready to declare war...-0

Correction--you have no foundation for your allegation that I didn't know what your avatar was until you posted about it the Callouts. I had it adblocked long before that. I never mentioned to to you because, as I already stated, I didn't think you would care what I thought about it. As far as I was concerned, I would never see it again. However since this thread was started expressly for the purpose of discussing your avatar and other offensive ones, I decided to express my opinion of it. And for the record, I'm not American and what your Supreme Court decides about a picture isn't worth a hill of beans to me.

however, the moment you find out the cross is in urine, you are ready to declare war...-0

Reread what I posted and tell me if I said anything even remotely close to "declaring war."

I have known what it was since you first put it up as your avatar and found it very disturbing. I considered sending you a pm asking you to remove it, but was quite sure you would not have the decency to do that, so I never even tried. Instead, I simply adblocked it (I love the Adblock add-on for Firefox ).

Exactly! You talking to him didn't make a difference--he said he only removed it after the mods started talking to him.

Like Night Strike said, I just don't see why people can't have a little more respect for others rather than always trying to push the limits and offend people.

[owenshooter]

Saying something is art cannot be the standard on this site because the site does not allow nudity. Many people consider nudity (and even porn) as a form of art, but it's still showing body parts that are not allowed to be seen on this site. (Hence why I edited Frop's post of David.)

night strike, it is the standard i was told. however, i agree with night strike, to a degree, because this was explained to me by a mod. first, i was told the BLACK FACE avatar was deemed art work, and thus, not offensive. then, i was told if i used an image by mapplethorpe of male genitalia or male nudity, it would be deemed offensive, despite being recognized as art... this is the problem. that is pretty much a double standard. one piece of art work is offensive, the other is not. david is pretty much as unoffensive a piece of art work depicting male nudity, as you can get. perhaps he went too far just posting just the genitalia... anyway, real nudity is not allowed, but cartoon or partial nudity is allowed... interesting... again, where are the guidelines, where are the rules, who deems avatars offensive, and how do they come to this conclusion? i am fine with the black face avatar being deemed art work and non offensive. it just sets a very precarious standard that is going to be very difficult to uphold... on that note, something to ease our eyeballs from another thread. all the ballbusters avatars at your fingertips for your enjoyment!!-0

[mpjh]

When I was trying to make my last post, I got an alert that another post had taken place. It was the groin of David that flashed up on my screen. That post is gone now. I can only assume that you removed the post as offensive. Now, this is a really strange site that will not allow Michelangelo's David but will allow racist blackface and religion bashing for the sake of simply bashing the religion.

I think there are minors playing games on this site and none of this should be taking place. Please, monitors, get this under control or you may find action from agencies outside the site taking an interest.

Wow, does everybody threaten with lawyers just to make their viewpoints more "effective"?

If you read the edit, I removed the picture because it showed genitalia.

Personally I find genitalia unoffensive. However offensiveness is not the issue here. The issue is whether the site will enforce its rules on racism and religion-bashing. Black face may not be offensive to you, but it is patently racist in its use and implications. Displaying Muslims as stereotypical terrorists is both racist and religion bashing when it is used solely to create an insult. You need to address this.

[Juan_Bottom]

Firstly, swimsuits are not offensive, or beaches would be closed everywhere....
Secondly, all the avys that I recognize there are held by women. Was the Black-Face avy held by a black guy?
Thirdly, there are no visable 'lady parts' in any of those pics.
Finally, is anyone offended by those?

[Night Strike]

Owen, none of those pictures you posted show any of the body parts that are not allowed. If the picture include genitalia, anus, or areola (I think is what it's called), then it WILL be edited. None of those avatars show any of that.

[AndyDufresne]

A lot of this comes down to common sense, for now. We try not to be too hard about Rules...remember we are here to have fun as much as you all. But if you continue to test and push the line, and want harder Rules, we may just have to end up going that route in the long run.

Just use common sense.


--Andy

[Frop]

How about Venus de Milo then? Should be perfectly fine.

[Frop]

Owen, none of those pictures you posted show any of the body parts that are not allowed. If the picture include genitalia, anus, or areola (I think is what it's called), then it WILL be edited. None of those avatars show any of that.

Most of them are naked or scantily clad. The first one has a clear bondage theme, but OK. Enjoy your double standards.