Avatar Blues

[Elden]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
This site is slowly turning totalitarian.

You mean it isn't already?

 

[Hygro]

post 101

You mean it isn't already?

post100

The current one I'm using sure isn't gonna last another 48 hours

post81

But face it, even though it's "shiny" & "new", it's still the same basset.

post8

Sure? Not even if you were offered a shiny new basset...

there's something... mischiveous about this thread

 

[Elden]

Originally posted by Hygro
there's something... mischiveous about this thread

We're just a mischiveous group of posters

 

[Stapel]

What a ridiculous thread this is!

To all: Cut the crap! Grow up! And post interesting things!

 

[CurtSibling]

Welcome back SB!
Long live your original avatar identity!

We all have slips now and then.
So let's all move on and forget this conflict over avatars.



Because mine is the coolest anyway.

PS
That last sentence was a joke!

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I cannot believe anyone here got banned for an avatar that is obviously a satirical comment on current politics.

Satirical being the point.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I thought the Bush picture funny, the title is a bit much.

And as a "did you know", the Vienna Police department had listed, as of 1914, : Adolph Hitler; Homosexual.

So gay Hitler was suspected even back then.

For once, I fully agree with you. The title is too much, but a short PM 'change it' would have sufficed.

 

[Stapel]

Because is it not anti-female! How can showing a woman at her best be anti-female? Thinking so is a typical conservative sexist thing Killer!

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

stapel: I understand why AoA uses it.

BUT: showing a woman reduced to her body (essentailly) CAN and WILL be (mis-)understood by many. This is borderline to an ava-troll, too, IMHO.


Yes, I overdid it a bit, because (as I just said), I find crackers actions to be absurd and totally unacceptable for a CFC mod (but again, only my personal opinion).

 

[Aphex_Twin]

AB assimilated ??? When did this happend?

This is tragic indeed. The spirit of CFC will never be the same...

 

[WillJ]

Arrrgh, just as soon as I get used to saying "Antonius Block," he switches back to Sultan Bhargash! YOU BETTER HAVE FINALLY MADE UP YOUR FREAKIN' MIND, SB, or, um... AB, no, wait... SB!!!

 

[anarres]

Please note that you have asked for feedback, so FWIW, here is what I think.

Originally posted by cracker
What is the acceptable limit on when avatrolls and leaderbashing would be allowed if there are rules in place that say "No avatrolls and no Leader bashing".

Limits by definition are subjective. What some people find offensive others don't. If I found Jesus offensive then having Jesus as an avatar would constitute an 'avatroll' to me. If I find scantily clad women offensive then AoA's avatar would be an 'avatroll' to me. Most people would find it hard to justify banning someone on this basis though. I think the decision you made was a tough one, and you obviously think you made the right choice. Asking us what is acceptable to us mere members is meaningless, unless you are going to listen and act on what we say, which you obviously can't, since we will all have a different opinion.

If someone breaks the rules is it acceptable for them to voluntarily give up their privileges to use these special privileges without being publicly ridiculed.

That is nice of you to offer this service.

The real question here is that should there be 'gagging orders', to silence those under punishment. I would say definitely not, mods that can punish people, with threats of further punishment if they tell anyone else they are being punished is a shocking and totally unacceptable style of modding to me. Try that on me and I'll walk today. If you are currently doing this to anyone else I would encourage them to PM everyone they know and let them know of their punishment. If you can't see the possible abuse of the system by mods here then I worry for you, since you are far too trusting of human nature.

Is it acceptable to use this method of emphasizing that certain behavior should not occur or should the individuals just be instantly banned or should the mods and admins just delete any unacceptable signatures and avatars that violate the rules.

I am sure everyone agrees that not banning a poster and warning them instead is preferable in most situations, it is ultimately up to the mods whether to ban or not. Mods already do remove sigs they don't like, and I guess they've done this for avatars too, although since these things aren't published I wouldn't know for sure. Personally, I think a PM would work wonders in 95% of cases, to allow the offender to remidy the situation themselves.

Should we just ignore all avatars, titles, and signatures and remove the restrictions to try and keep signatures under the limit of no more than 5 lines of standard or small sized text?

No-one said that cracker, people just think you've gone to far in your 'judgements'. Note that you have been the mod to jump in and ban people, even when several other mods have posted in the thread before you and ignored the borderline 'infraction'. Why do you think that you are the one dishing out the punishment here? A question I would very much like answered.

Do we need a special membership status for those individuals who want to use these features in ways that may be close to violating the rules even though they may be funny and entertaining to some people?

Please feel free to do this cracker, I hope you realise the atmosphere this would create, it would be very counter productive to CFC's image as a plesant place to be, and CFC will lose more of it's dedicated veterans.

Again, this is just my input to better help you understand some of the concerns us posters have about the recent clamp down in modding borderline infractions. I am interested to hear your input on the matter, and I hope you have the time to consider what I've said and reply.

Many thanks,

anarres

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I am not "assimilated" but practising what I like to call "Civilization." I can see maybe I opened a can of worms with this thread, and give whoever has the authority to deleat it permission to do so.
Honestly Cracker is a soldier in the war against entropy and ought to be treated with the respect that that entails -> you don't see him jumping all over everybody in OT. He is concerned with the overall character of the entire site, not just the goings on in the back alleys of OT. Stable identities for posters means one less concern for moderators that at some crucial time the poster isn't going to put up something beyond the pale in offensive. I like everyone's avatars just fine and am not interested in pursuing vengeance. I just wanted to open the discussion to be sure it was a minority we were talking about.

 

[anarres]

Sultan,

Your 'Civilisation' is a lovely thing for you, I wish you all the best.

However my concerns are valid and you shouldn't tell mods to delete either this thread or my post!!!!!!

Having said that, I very much doubt mods would close/delete this at your request, but rather because they think there is nothing productive being discussed.

P.S. CFC is not about OT, it is about all the fora. My comments are not about OT at all, they are about modding in general at CFC...

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Annares, the staff is MORE than able to determine what is acceptable and what isn't.

For example, Brooke is clothed, nothing shows that you would not see on any beach, so she stays.

HOWEVER, WE reserve the right to determine that.

For example, do you realize that Dave Sims HATES people who steal his images?

You did for your avatar, and believe me, he wouldn't like it, I met him once, he's EXTREMLY anal about his work.

But it's ok as far as I'm concerned, but what I use for an avatar is NONE of your buisness.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

My my... aliens have abducted Sultan and have replaced him with a submissive clone. The Thought Police finally got to you pal...

 

[Immortal]

annares: I guess by your logic my avatar is against the rules as well?

Not that Im particularily concerned by it.

 

[cracker]

Originally posted by Immortal
annares: I guess by your logic my avatar is against the rules as well?

The only thing that gave me some concern about your avatar is that it looks like a picture of my wife.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Immortal
annares: I guess by your logic my avatar is against the rules as well?

Not that Im particularily concerned by it.

(assuming you're talking about scantily clad women) Notice his using of the word "if." That is, unless he said somewhere else that such was his real view.

 

[Eklektikos]

Pretty sure anarres was just trying to demonstrate the subjective nature of the term "offensive", rather than accusing any of the avatars used as examples of being against the rules...