Avatar pushing the limits.... - Page 5

AngryCola · #41 12-10-2005, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Additionally I believe the T&C's note material that is obscene or pornagraphic - is this right?

[/ QUOTE ]

One can interpret the T&C in all sorts of different ways. They are always purposely written that way.

"While using 2+2 website, you may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind"

The part at the end could apply to pretty much anything.

jason_t · #42 12-11-2005, 12:19 AM

I can't believe we are still having this discussion.

AngryCola · #43 12-11-2005, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe we are still having this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it has morphed into a more general discussion about whether real swastikas should be allowed at all. The original issue about the avatar seems to be dead.

Greg J · #44 12-11-2005, 12:39 AM

1) I would be all for removing.. hell BANNING anyone with a swastika avatar. (I think the same about the confederate flag.)

2) That does not look like a swastika. Sorry. The arms and legs don't match. It's the cool little cactus dude from Final Fantasy 6 (released as FF3 in the U.S. -- damn I'm a dork). This is coming from a guy who recommended the permanent banning of one of his own higher quality strategy regulars for making racist comments in OOT. I have ZERO tolerance for racists -- nuke em on site. Sorry, but if you see a swastika there you are looking too hard.

Mike Haven · #45 12-11-2005, 11:37 AM

I was interested to read your "different" comments, and I passed a copy of them to a Jewish friend in London, UK, for his opinion. (He is not a poker-player, nor a member of this forum.) I set it out below, for your interest:

Let's make the hypothetical assumption that at some point the Christian Cross is adopted as a symbol and included on the regalia of a particularly unpleasant totalitarian party. Would that be grounds to ban the future display of the Cross? No. By the same token the swastika. This week I attended my daughter's end of year school play which featured scenes of indian life and dancing. The girls wore headresses decorated with the swastika. This, remember, in an area of London that is home to half of the UK's Jewish population.

Of course, none of this considers why on your forum that symbol has been selected as an avatar. Is the member merely being intentionally offensive to the point of sociopathy and is he claiming 'freedom of speech' as his defence. This doesn't necessarily wash.

There are of the order of 30 exceptions to the right of free speech, perhaps the most famous being the undesirability of someone maliciously shouting "Fire" in a crowded public place where people might be crushed to death as a consequence.

If it's plain that the member is indeed a sociopath there is no fundamental right to have his sociopathy catered for.

Similarly if his use of the symbol is a declaration that he is among you and believes that the philosophy of German National Socialism and its attendant horrors could profitably (in any sense) be revived, then, in a forum where people gather for relaxation, the moderators might decide that the guy's a wind-up merchant and boot him. On a forum where people meet for relaxation there is no obligation to be confronted by loathsome political philosophies. That can be done elsewhere.

Of course, the fact that some people find some particular philosophies loathsome doesn't disqualify those philosophies from the population at large, but in a forum where people gather for the exchange of anything but political discourse it's not unreasonable to decide that logging on and looking at a symbol which to most Europeans of middle age and above at least represents an horrific folk memory is not conducive to the "quiet enjoyment" of that facility.

If on the other hand he is, naively or otherwise, using the symbol to be representative of something other than the bestial horrors witnessed between 1933 and 1945 then it might be allowed to stand.

The most memorable ruling I have seen on this sort of case is that made in another forum a few years back in which was stated, vis a vis the idiocy of another member and the decision to ban him, "We all like cats, but we don't want cats to [censored] on our front room carpet."

GuyOnTilt · #46 12-12-2005, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

1) I would be all for removing.. hell BANNING anyone with a swastika avatar. (I think the same about the confederate flag.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, why exactly the Confederate flag?

GoT

astroglide · #47 12-12-2005, 08:12 PM

i can't speak for greg, but i suspect it has something to do with tom wopat never realizing his potential as a thespian

GuyOnTilt · #48 12-12-2005, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i can't speak for greg, but i suspect it has something to do with tom wopat never realizing his potential as a thespian

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no clue who Tom Wopat is, but I'm guessing it's unrelated and a jab at me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] While I personally kind of have an eye-rolling mentality toward people who sport the Confederate flag, considering it a justiable bannable offense seems absolutely absurd to me.

GoT

astroglide · #49 12-12-2005, 10:29 PM

you're not even curious who he is then? weird

Mat Sklansky · #50 12-13-2005, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be best it Mat just chimed in with his opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to think about this for some time before chiming in. I think it depends on the type of cactus. For instance, I believe that there is a cactus out there with a pretty bad attitude, some people call it the jumping cactus. And if someone had that cactus as as an avatar, and it went out jumping at people and blinding them and so forth, that would definitely not be acceptable.

In all seriousness, this site is the property of Two Plus Two (ie. the authors) They care about selling books. Avatars really don't matter THAT MUCH to anyone do they? A real swatiska isn't allowed if I get complaints, neither is a cross a cock a cucumber or a dildo. Someone just asked me to censor the word nigger. I'm about to do just that. Does anybody here really think that particular tidbit of censorship will hurt business? If a bunch of peoople pm me wanting the ability to call people niggers, I'd be afraid. But I would also have to consider their request. I'm just trying to make a point. I love the fact that we have you guys caring enough about moderation to delve into these philosophical issues in our "star chamber," but I think in cases like these, it's sort of a waste of time. Maybe. I've grown perfectly comfortable with being wrong.

Thank you, sincerely.

Mat