Rules About Avatars

[jbrettlip]

I am just wondering, are there any rules on obscene avatars? I had a very clever avatar that Twill and other mods did not approve of. It was clearly within the rules that are written, but they thought "it was in bad taste". Even when I changed my avatar to my current one, and explained that I had been suffering from scurvy and that was the cause of my erratic behavior, but I was cured from limes (vitamin C) I was told it may not be allowed. (Hell it sounds like ChaosFactor wrote that sentence. My apologies if you can't follow it).

So now one of my best friends is flying a PISS CHRIST avatar. He claims it is art, and the mods are fine with it. I personally photoshopped a tick into my picture for "I heart Lymes" and that isn't art???? But Pissing on a religious symbol is? If I take a picture of me taking a dump on a pile of twill (it is a material, you know) , would that be allowed? What about Hentai anime framegrabs?? They are art.

Cmon, you mods. If you are going to harrass me over unwritten rules, police the avatars!!!

PS And yes, Owen and I talked about it at length the last few nights. I saw him in Austin and threatened to perform the "Piss Owen Jr" with his little kid.

[jbrettlip]

PS I am changing my avatar now. To actual art. It was a cartoon drawing in several international newspapers.

[jiminski]

PS I am changing my avatar now. To actual art. It was a cartoon drawing in several international newspapers.

ahh is that supposed to Mo?

[wcaclimbing]

I think you just "crossed the line".
that image was probably a bad idea...

[jbrettlip]

Yep, it is. And it is ART. So nothing can be done about it. Too bad if people's religious beliefs are pissed on.

[jiminski]

Yep, it is. And it is ART. So nothing can be done about it. Too bad if people's religious beliefs are pissed on.

hmmm i haven't seen any of those Mo' Cartoons before... fairly 'remarkable' that they (was it the Danes?) published them at all.

[owenshooter]

I think you just "crossed the line".
that image was probably a bad idea...

no he didn't, it is art. a member is currently displaying an image of black face
as their avatar and i asked about it, and it was deemed art, and thus non-offensive
by the mods. go through the plethora of naked anime women and tell me how they
are not offensive to some... my image was deemed NON-OFFENSIVE by the supreme
court of america, so i feel as if i'm on pretty stable ground within my protest of the
odd avatar rules that the admins/mods seem to enforce. anyway... some artwork
is ok, but other artwork is not ok. case in point. i was warned that any mapplethorpe
image depicting male anatomy would be deemed offensive and taken down... but naked
anime chicks are ok? hmmmmm... the guidelines do not exist to police offensive avatars.
who deems an avatar offensive or "over the line"? if black face is deemed non-offensive,
and a pic of brett with a tick is offensive, how does that make any sense?-0

p.s.-brett, it is a crucifix submerged in the artists urine.

[Night Strike]

p.s.-brett, it is a crucifix submerged in the artists urine.

Which is quite offensive to Christians just like brett's is to Muslims, no matter what the Supreme Court says. Personally, I feel that it is religion-bashing, which is against the forum rules. I won't tell you that you need to remove it because I'm partially biased being a Christian, but I would respectfully ask both of you to remove them.

Why does everyone think they have to push the lines of decency and respect??

[wcaclimbing]

my image was deemed NON-OFFENSIVE by the supreme
court of america, so i feel as if i'm on pretty stable ground within my protest of the
odd avatar rules that the admins/mods seem to enforce.

if anything, you'd want to be calling on the supreme court of Canada, cause CC is based in Canada.

Or the Supreme Court of Lackattack, cause this is his website, and it comes with the rules he wrote for it. As Night Strike said, those avatars could be interpreted as religion-bashing, and if the people in charge of CC (Admins) decide that it is religion-bashing, then they can ask you to remove it. Its that simple.

[jbrettlip]

I am just asking for consistency. I received PM's from mods, for a PICTURE OF ME WITH A TICK!! And yet some of these other ones are fine. I would be happy to change mine, if there is a rule against it. I am not bashing a religion, I am simply portraying art, the same as Owen. His is allowed, so mine is allowed. Now if I hate scrawled "I hate ________" or anything else, then I would have been changing the art, and it would not be as artistic.

[wcaclimbing]

I am just asking for consistency. I received PM's from mods, for a PICTURE OF ME WITH A TICK!! And yet some of these other ones are fine. I would be happy to change mine, if there is a rule against it. I am not bashing a religion, I am simply portraying art, the same as Owen. His is allowed, so mine is allowed. Now if I hate scrawled "I hate ________" or anything else, then I would have been changing the art, and it would not be as artistic.

Judging by the amount of death threats the artist of that comic recieved, I'm just guessing that there is a rather large population of people that don't think of your avatar as "art".

[Incandenza]

I am SO going to find a thumbnail of that "Virgin Mary with elephant dung" thing that caused such a stir in Brooklyn some years ago.

Certainly, there is a line beyond which you get into legitimately offensive territory, but these would seem to be well on the near side of the line.

And for what it's worth, if a religious person finds him/herself unduly offended by a cartoon editorial and a work of art used as avatars on a freakin' website, well, then, I'd say that said religious person needs to take a good long hard look in the mirror.

[owenshooter]

p.s.-brett, it is a crucifix submerged in the artists urine.

Which is quite offensive to Christians just like brett's is to Muslims, no matter what the Supreme Court says. Personally, I feel that it is religion-bashing, which is against the forum rules. I won't tell you that you need to remove it because I'm partially biased being a Christian, but I would respectfully ask both of you to remove them.

Why does everyone think they have to push the lines of decency and respect??

i contacted the mods about an avatar depicting black face. i am black. it is offensive to me. i was told it is art work. Piss Christ is also art, deemed non-offensive by the supreme court. funny, i have had it up for over 2 weeks, and now you are offended by it, since you know what it is? funny... i am catholic, and i am not offended by it. i have actually seen the actual print of piss christ on exhibit, and it was far from remarkable, but it was still art. so, now, you as a a mod, are telling us to remove avatars that YOU find personally offensive. but when i, a user, contacted mods about an avatar i found offensive. i was told it was art work, and thus, could not be found offensive. which is it?-0

[owenshooter]

Judging by the amount of death threats the artist of that comic recieved, I'm just guessing that there is a rather large population of people that don't think of your avatar as "art".

judging by the large amount of black people in the country that find black face offensive and inherently racist, i doubt that "black face" can be deemed art. but guess what. i was told it was art work and non-offensive and the user continues to fly the avatar. just looking for some consistency or some sort of guidelines or rules.-0

[Night Strike]

Actually, I hadn't paid attention to your avatar. Besides, I don't pay attention to what most call "modern art" because much of it just seems crude to me. But that conversation belongs in Chatter Box.

And you didn't read my post correctly. I specifically said that I wouldn't tell you to take it down (that would be a mod action). Instead I respectfully asked you to remove it (which is a member's request).

[owenshooter]

Actually, I hadn't paid attention to your avatar. Besides, I don't pay attention to what most call "modern art" because much of it just seems crude to me. But that conversation belongs in Chatter Box.

And you didn't read my post correctly. I specifically said that I wouldn't tell you to take it down (that would be a mod action). Instead I respectfully asked you to remove it (which is a member's request).

*edited after Night Strike explained his comments should be moved to chatter box, and not this thread. thanks for the clarification Mr. Strike*

[whitestazn88]

dude... a crucifix dipped in piss? thats somehow funny to me, as is the muslim dude with the bomb in his hat... lol

now i gotta go find a picture of something scandalous to put up... maybe a picture of a dead baby?

[Night Strike]

Correction: My sidebar about my views on modern art should be taken to Chatter Box. What should or should not be allowed in an avatar or signature SHOULD be debated here, which is the purpose of this thread.

[owenshooter]

those avatars could be interpreted as religion-bashing, and if the people in charge of CC (Admins) decide that it is religion-bashing, then they can ask you to remove it. Its that simple.

i'm not religious bashing. it is artwork. i'm a catholic, raised catholic, attended private catholic schools and have a degree from a catholic university. i am not offended by the image. and neither were you, until you found out what it was. i have flown this avatar in the GD for over 2 weeks without a peep from anyone, because nobody knew what it was. now, you have been told, and suddenly, you are offended. guess what, it is ART WORK. and i was told by mods that art work is not offensive. i mean, surely you can see how a black person could find an avatar of BLACK FACE offensive, can't you? i asked about it, nothing was done, it was deemed non-offensive on the grounds of being art work. fine. for me, it ended there. now i'm just looking for guidelines. i'm happy that the member that flies black face for his avatar can do so under the guise or rule of art work. i too am flying a legitimate, award winning, government funded piece of art work for my avatar. it is a simple image, that you had no idea what it was, until told. and then, once told, you decided you were offended. ridiculous.-0

[whitestazn88]

well owen, when i post, and someone has posted something new as i posted, it shows me, so that i can edit my posts... maybe you should get that setting too

[wcaclimbing]

those avatars could be interpreted as religion-bashing, and if the people in charge of CC (Admins) decide that it is religion-bashing, then they can ask you to remove it. Its that simple.

i'm not religious bashing. it is artwork. i'm a catholic, raised catholic, attended private catholic schools and have a degree from a catholic university. i am not offended by the image. and neither were you, until you found out what it was. i have flown this avatar in the GD for over 2 weeks without a peep from anyone, because nobody knew what it was. now, you have been told, and suddenly, you are offended. guess what, it is ART WORK. and i was told by mods that art work is not offensive. i mean, surely you can see how a black person could find an avatar of BLACK FACE offensive, can't you? i asked about it, nothing was done, it was deemed non-offensive on the grounds of being art work. fine. for me, it ended there. now i'm just looking for guidelines. i'm happy that the member that flies black face for his avatar can do so under the guise or rule of art work. i too am flying a legitimate, award winning, government funded piece of art work for my avatar. it is a simple image, that you had no idea what it was, until told. and then, once told, you decided you were offended. ridiculous.-0

I never said your avatar was offensive. I never said anything about it, other than pointing out that some people might find "those avatars" offensive and they might want you to remove them.
I had assumed your avatar was just a gold cross. Sure, the truth is a bit strange, but I have not once said that I was offended by it.
I am a bit lost in the "black face" comments, because I did not see the image in question, but I can't see how a black face could be deemed offensive. Or at least, I've never seen an example where a black face was offensive.
Go re-read the part you quoted. I never said anything about my own views. I only said what others might feel.

[lancehoch]

I guess this is directed at owen: I have seen the picture of "piss christ" before, but I did not recognize that as your avatar. (Actually I thought it was a burning cross, but that is a different story.) As I am not Christian, I am not offended by that image, but I am not usually offended. The "black-face" avatar was mentioned to me, but again since I am not easily offended I did not take a stance. I wanted to see what the site said as a whole.
To jpbrettlip: I believe no one would have had a problem with you avatar had you posted it a week prior to when you did. Not knowing everything that went on in PMs, I would think the biggest reason to ask you to remove that avatar (the one with the tick) and also the following avatar with the limes, was the use of personal information. You could say whatever you wanted about wicked the character, but once you were seen to be mocking the person on the far side of the computer screen you crossed the proverbial line.

[whitestazn88]

dude... she told everyone she got bit by a tick... if its on the internet, two things are said to be true, the first is rule 34, which states that if it exists, there is porn of it, the second is that people can use whatever information you put on the internet to your disadvantage....

brett wasn't in the wrong on that.

[owenshooter]

I guess this is directed at owen: I have seen the picture of "piss christ" before, but I did not recognize that as your avatar. (Actually I thought it was a burning cross, but that is a different story.) As I am not Christian, I am not offended by that image, but I am not usually offended. The "black-face" avatar was mentioned to me, but again since I am not easily offended I did not take a stance. I wanted to see what the site said as a whole.

lancehoch, thank you for the very lucid and calm and succinct response. i appreciate that you are actually putting forth some ideas/comments into this thread. now, to a point. i am intelligent enough to not let a simple racist icon like Black Face, upset me to the core. it is more about the loosey goosey guidelines for avatars that seem to be at the discretion of whomever happens to see said avatar, and their position of power within CC... to deem brett's tick avatar, which was a real pic of him with a real tick, offensive. and to allow wicked, and multiple other people on the site, to fly suggestive, nude anime women in all sorts of repose and come hither stances or laying on beds face down, with their rumps presenting to the viewer, is ridiculous. brett's avatar was offensive, but somehow wicked's avatar was not? how is that? so, cartoon nudity is ok, but not a picture of an actual member and an actual tick? ok... so, again, if i put up a nude mapplethorpe art photograph of male genitalia, it would be offensive... what about a cartoon image of male genitalia? is that non-offensive? see where the lines are blurred and unclear. what is offensive enough to ask a user to remove it? if a racist image can be deemed art work and non offensive, surely my image of a real piece of artwork will be judged the same... as will brett's new avatar. just looking for some guidelines, not a fight. you are more than civil lancehoch, and i appreciate it.. i truly do.-0

[Neoteny]

This thread is epic. Should we expect anything to come of it?