I dont deem the confederate Flag to be offensive I mean yes its been hammered by the US legal system but I see it as a flag of rebellion....
I want to view this as objectively as possible, so without imparting any judgement on either side, i'd like to point out two things: this will inevitably evolve (devolve?) into a political discussion political discussions suck ass keep this in mind please
... what on earth is wrong with boobs? they're the most inoffensive thing on the planet. If they upset you, you have to re-evaluate your life. Holy hell.
Why is the world did you remove 6677's avatar!? That avatar is obviously a transgender, transblack, transabled, lesbian feminist. Stop oppressing her and being transphobic. [Satire, but I do think that it shouldn't have been removed]
This is a thing? Why? If one person disagrees with an avatar, that's no reason to have it removed without warning.
alright, time to throw impartiality out the window... although 6677's avatar could be considered "raunchy," it was by no means offensive insofar as to say it could: cause emotional distress on one specific person or group of people (past cartoon women?) impact or damage the reputation of the game, this forum, or its members/players in any significant sense (from my perspective) that said, two relevant clauses in the terms of service should be noted: "You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws." "We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation." so, despite it not fitting within your denotation of what constitutes offensive or adult content, it is most definitely objectionable: a person could view that picture and make a moral assumption about the game, especially if you consider 6677's rather illustrious status around here... regardless of whether you're a frequent visitor or a newcomer, chances are you'll see a post by him within the first .3 nanoseconds of browsing (at the absolute most). consider that before you dispute the moderators decision to change his avatar. also, keep in mind that they are under absolutely no obligation to comment on or account for their decision (as stated in their tos). in summary: yeah, it's a little bit weird they'd remove something so innocuous/benign (especially after how long they let it remain), but they are perfectly justified in doing so and they probably won't say/do anything anyway. no use crying over spilled milk. however, that doesn’t mean their decision isn’t totally indisputable... consider the fact that "objectionable" (as it stands contextually in their tos) means that anyone, at any time, could make a legitimate claim as to why something is offensive, and have it either removed or reviewed for removal. also consider the fact that the avatar of the person who initiated this whole situation is a confederate flag. finally, observe the people of this thread who have addressed this and have identified it as as (if not more) offensive/"objectionable" as the "adult" content in 6677's avatar. so think about this: in spite of whatever your political position regarding the confederate flag is, its history makes it a topic ripe for argument. it has the same (extremely insignificant) potential to impact the reputation of the forums to the same extent as 6677’s avatar. i’m not saying a confederate flag is offensive (per se). i’m simply saying that if the devs are going to exercise their right as moderators to remove content they deem offensive based on the input/complaints of their userbase, i think it’s reasonable to call for the removal of shotgun chuck’s avatar- under the same pretenses. tl;dr: sure, 6677’s avatar is (was) a bit questionable, and thus grounds its removal… but if this is what the devs are going to view as “objectionable” then I would think it isn’t nearly as objectionable (at the very least "likely to offend") as a confederate flag.
it looks like he might be referring to a similar, second avatar. i'm relatively unclear on the details, but that seems irrelevant to the extent that my point still stands:
The thing that gets me is that no staff member had an issue with the avatars until somebody decided to make a thread and bitch about it. 6677 had that avatar for months until now. :|
yeah, but like i said, the forum's tos dictates that anything that qualifies as "objectionable" (a bit of a vague term) can be removed at the moderators discretion. therefore, if someone posts a complaint about an avatar, it is thus considered "objectionable" and can be removed.
Hopeless Pleb: "Drifting mini vans are offensive because my trans-gender long-lost sister was hit by one, and they didn't respect his rights" Same concept?
to a degree, although a moderator would (obviously) be required to use some amount of critical thinking to determine if the complaint is reasonable or not. all i'm saying is that if the forum's level of what qualifies as "objectionable" is a moderately suggestive animated gif of a fully clothed woman in a cartoon, a confederate flag is at or beyond that level if not simply due to it's controversial nature.
True, but it is all relative. I think all avatars should be restored, and if people have a problem with avatars, then they can ad-block them or migrate to a forum where everyone PMs everybody else before they post anything to be sure not to offend them.
It's all in the context. I could get away with setting Bill Cosby as my avatar here, but that shit wouldn't fly in a battered women's support forum. I don't believe in designing for the 1%. Same principle applies to moderation here. Instead of Chuck being one of few disgruntled users, now there's a whole discussion on netiquette regarding avatars, what's considered lewd, and all sorts of other bullshit that, as Wheelie eloquently put, "sucks ass". All sparked by the deletion of two little avatars. Come to think of it, this whole debacle could have been avoided if Chuck sent a polite PM instead of whining in public.
that's essentially the point i'm trying to communicate, albeit through a (retrospectively) diluted, overly long ramble: although their move is technically 100% justified, an act of moderation such as this can only lead to a vicious cycle where a majority is unhappy- so perhaps the best course of action is no action at all.
