Die Humanity Die's avatar

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:03 pm

That's fair, if this is ever going to change there needs to be open discussion to get a feel for how the majority of the community perceives the action, and more people come here then abuse.

Thanks for letting me know. I'm going to stick with the suggestion topic I made now though, if I can.

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:41 pm

wicked wrote:hecter you're comparing apples to oranges here.... pornagraphy isn't allowed by the forum guidelines, which covers avatars. nowhere in the guidelines that I recall, does it prevent images such as brains, or eating babies or whatever.

Hey, I'm all for banning pornography. It's just that my avatar was NOT pornography, though it was nudity. I've already told you what pornography was, and you gave me a very unsatisfactory answer here. So what if a few teenage boys find that avatar erotic? There's people out there that find animals erotic (and they're sure as hell out there on the internet), so does that mean that we're going to ban all pictures of animals now? What about kids? Pedophiles certainly are on the internet. Hell, there's probably somebody out there that finds this guys avatar to be erotic!

Here's how dictionary.com defines pornography:
"obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography

My avatar was not pornographic! It was art.

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:58 pm

I thought this story was fitting...
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/prom ... 66636.html

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:21 pm

i think its sick, if some 12 year old one looks at that avatar then i think he/she can't sleep good that night, also if he wants that picture then let him draw one and not a real picture wich seems offensive to me for some persons

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:27 pm

I'd like to retract my earlier rude statement towards Wicked about her not doing a good job with this case. She's just following the rules of the site to the letter, which is what she should be doing.

I'm just annoyed at the site's policy now. And perhaps lack of foresight?

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:34 pm

Coleman wrote:I'd like to retract my earlier rude statement towards Wicked about her not doing a good job with this case. She's just following the rules of the site to the letter, which is what she should be doing.

I'm just annoyed at the site's policy now. And perhaps lack of foresight?

yup wicked let him change his avatar, woudn't it be offensive if you had family that died that way or something like that

insomniacdude · Post by **insomniacdude** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:43 pm

hecter wrote:About this whole argument about the children and Flame Wars, it's up to the parents to monitor their child's internet and TV usage. If a parent were to just click on the link that opens that forum, they would see whether or not that is a place that they want their children to be. They could then, say, block that page or just keep an eye to make sure that the child isn't visiting that forum, or the forums in general. And adult can determine for his/her self whether or not they want to hang around there. Hey, some of the words may offend them, but offensive words really are part of being an adult, and they can just choose to never go back there.

This persons avatar, on the other hand, could be offensive to all. Whether or not their in Flame Wars. A picture like that should have a warning on it before you can see it, just like a lot of porn sites do. If people want to see pictures or videos like that, they can go look for it themselves. But it should not be thrown into our faces like that. As Kwanton said, he can post anywhere, and pictures like that (showing gore and violence) should not be allowed, at all. A parent can go and see that Flame Wars in inappropriate, but she can't go looking though everyones profile and all the posts everyday (as people frequently change their profiles and make new posts) to make sure it's appropriate. So she leaves things like that to the moderators, who in turn need our help to bring such things to their attention. The fact that we have brought up a violent and grotesque picture to their attention, and have done nothing about it yet is disgusting.

One last comment: You don't fight fire with fire. If you think Flame Wars is bad, then say so, don't try to solve the problem by creating MORE gruesome things for us to see and read. If anything, you should be trying to cut back on the amount of stuff like that!

Personally, I don't have a problem with the avatar in question, and while, generally, I think that people should have as much freedom as possible, there is a distinct line that should be drawn in terms of showing things to the public, and I think this crosses it. I mean, if I had a problem with Wicked's avatar, but I know that's just my own personal problem and there's nothing more than that. But this image raises more issues than just one's personal problems.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:23 pm

can't see how this has got to page 9 already. I have seen the avatar and am disgusted by it. But its either allowed or its not. Wicked on behalf of the powers that be on here says it's allowed so until there are no rules about avatars it will remain allowed.

As for the side debate regarding porn, i am a fan of the female body and this should be looked at again maybe but the ban on cocks should be here to stay.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:32 pm

rebelman wrote:Wicked on behalf of the powers that be on here says it's allowed so until there are no rules about avatars it will remain allowed.

umm, already did that. good advice though.

RiskTycoon · Post by **RiskTycoon** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:46 pm

well, the fact is, we are debating as to whether it should or shouldn't be allowed.... not if it is allowed......it's obvious it's allowed, at the moment anyway lol no need to debate that

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:05 pm

I for one dont mind if its allowed, but wouldnt care if it wasnt allowed either.

It would be pefect if policy didnt change, but, if lack took a look at it and unilaterally just decided it was too much.

His site, his choice, and poor wicked wouldnt be the bad guy.........again

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:04 pm

So... because there's no clear policy and no such thing as common sense we should pm lack whenever we see something we think is offensive and let him decide if it is or isn't?

I don't think that's perfect at all.

We might as well create a poll every time someone thinks something is offensive and see what the majority of the voters say. If they say it's offensive it goes, otherwise it stays.

So a painting of Aphrodite counts as pornography and has to be changed, but a picture of surgery on an open brain is fine, nevermind that surgery might not even be what most people will think of when they see that picture. My first though was also that someones head had been half shot off. After knowing that it was taken during a life-saving surgery that took place because of... a malformation, I think, it's not quite as offensive, still, I'm not going to look at it again if I have a choice.
Which brings us to a recurring topic: choice
If DHD starts posting more frequently in the forums noone will have a choice any more, he'll be showing off a picture that some people might even find nauseating. Whatever the response though, I highly doubt it will be positive or even disinterested.
And so, apparently, the response of an interested glance at a pair of breasts painted on a canvas several hundred years ago and brought down to a size of 100*100 pixels is worse than having to look at a picture of a brain that's being operated on.

Well, maybe it IS worse, who am I to judge? But there's one thing I would really like to know, WHY is pornography not allowed and what exactly counts as pornography? Is it just a case of "let's cover all our bases so we don't get any legal trouble". Or is it because pornography often makes one or more of the participants no more than a means to an end, effectively reduces a person to little more than an object to be looked at for personal pleasure and this might have influence people to adopt the same view. Or is it just a general feeling of "we must protect the children" and then somehow muddle through it?

If it's the second I really don't see how a painting of Aphrodite can count as pornography.

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:08 pm

I think I'd just like to remind everyone about:

Don't you forget that.

I for one respect DHD's right to freedom of movement and right to a fair trial, as proscribed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Viva la Brain Surgerycion