AO avatar usage

[Speelgoedmannetje]

mikeymike wrote:
A gun is an inanimate object that doesn't signify or advocate illegal activity.  I hoped my 'cross' example would get that across.

That cross example would have made sense if you compared it with the swastika. In that sense, you should be tolerant towards swastika's either.
But why do you think is the purpose (and the statement of the person who use it as his/her avatar) of a (hand)gun? Target practices? :roll:

[Karlos]

cecilia wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

I just had to think about the fate of those Buddha statues in Afghanistan

exactly! there are anti-art/religious nuts all over the world!
they disgust me!

and the piliging that still going on in Iraq with the artifacts in the desert!
sheesh!
priceless stuff being stolen and lost!
really makes me sick! :pissed:

Well, without religious nuts (of differing persuasions), half these artifacts, Buddha statues included wouldn't exist in the first place.

[T_Bone]

mikeymike wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Can I have a "Bob Marley smokin' a joint" avatar?

The posting guidelines contain this other semi-relevant point, once again caused by some idiot on AO whose contributions were very similar to Towelie out of South Park

:lol:

Now THAT would make a unique avatar!!

[mikeymike]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

mikeymike wrote:
A gun is an inanimate object that doesn't signify or advocate illegal activity.  I hoped my 'cross' example would get that across.

That cross example would have made sense if you compared it with the swastika. In that sense, you should be tolerant towards swastika's either.

I'd like to know how that makes any sense to you.

But why do you think is the purpose (and the statement of the person who use it as his/her avatar) of a (hand)gun? Target practices? :roll:

By the same rationale, someone could have a picture of a dog as their avatar, and someone else could be offended because they once got bit by a dog.

Speel, if this is just a windup, or you're suffering from the worst case of boredom ever, please find something better to do.  AO staff have to draw certain lines because this website's audience happens to include younger people.  It would be nice if certain AO users didn't just try to "push the boundaries" for the sake of it then cry censorship, but sadly we have people here that like to do that sort of thing.  We try to make sure our actions to counter the problem restrict as little as possible.

Is anything important or interesting lost as a result of the new addition to the posting guidelines?  I don't think so.

Guys?

I'm going to make this very, very simple for you.  Over the last several months, we've received several complaints regarding the use of sexually explicit avatars.  Then, over the last week, I've had one close friend tell me that Amiga.org was banned at his work specifically because of the avatars, and another who got in "serious trouble" because his boss walked in and saw the inappropriate avatars on the screen.

E-mail/PMail complaints aside, that's only two issues that we know of and I'm sure there are several dozen that we aren't aware of.  That ain't cool, it ain't funny, and it ain't about "censorship".  

Most people I know use this site at work, and if certain kids want to express the fact that they're sexually immature, that affects lots of people who haven't done anything wrong, but suddenly can't reach the site from their office.  The innocent users suffer, Amiga.org suffers.

It's situations like this and the reaction of certain users (blobrana for example with his new "censored" avatar) that make me seriously question the reasons for providing this site.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Then, over the last week, I've had one close friend tell me that Amiga.org was banned at his work specifically because of the avatars, and another who got in "serious trouble" because his boss walked in and saw the inappropriate avatars on the screen..

Look, THAT is a valid argument to me. (and what would your boss think of a site wich displays guns?)

[blobrana]

Hum,
Avatar Sensored...
(out of humble respect to Wayne)







--------------------------------------------------------
[Shouldn’t this thread be in the entertainment section?]

[mikeymike]

blobrana wrote:
Hum,
Avatar Sensored...
(out of humble respect to Wayne)

And changed to... an avatar that says exactly the same thing, just a little more subtle.

I don't care if someone expresses their opinion, but the fact of the matter is that it's NOT censorship.  

I am however getting really, really sick of the people here who maintain the attitude that they can do whatever they want regardless of the consequences, then they start crying and whining "censorship" when anyone tries to hold them to ANY degree of responsibility.  Whether or not you understand or accept it, it's a personal insult to me, since all I want to do is provide a useful service to everyone.

I'm not particularly talking about blobrana in this instance, but there are about 5 regular and heavy users here who're dead intent on ruining it for everyone.  

Like little children, those few spoiled brats get a real kick out of pushing and pushing the boundaries for what they can get away with, then kick and scream like babies when you point out that they've gone too far.  To those to which this applies (and you know who you are), grow up.  Behave like an adult, even though that might be a stretch for you.  I'm not your mama, and the more you push, the more likely I am to push back.

Look through the history of this site.  Every single little administrative change ever made draws nothing but whining and criticism from those who feel that they have no responsibilities.  Enough.  The {bleep} stops here.

Wayne

[blobrana]

Doh!

[Karlos]

Personally, I've never been offended by anybody's avatar here. That said, I can't believe that anybody here regards the removal of one or two images from the site, for the reasons stated as such a big deal.

If someone doesn't like people wearing shoes in their house (because they like to keep it nice for everybody else), any sensible person would take them off as they go in. It's simply good manners. You don't hear anybody shouting out about "footwear censorship", do you?

As I see it, the site is open to us all, but is the property of those who create and maintain it. If they ask you to observe a few basic manners, where's the harm?

[mikeymike]

If someone doesn't like people wearing shoes in their house (because they like to keep it nice for everybody else), any sensible person would take them off as they go in. It's simply good manners. You don't hear anybody shouting out about "footwear censorship", do you?

I imagine some people here would :lol:

[blobrana]

Hummm

Especially when we all start to upgrade to smelly vision monitors.

link

[Karlos]

mikeymike wrote:

I imagine some people here would :lol:

Then you'd tell them to go and visit someone who welcomes dirty shoes trampling all around their house rather than come and soil yours...

[Robert17]

Speaking of Avatars, here's my new one :-)

Robert

[blobrana]

Hum,
There’s a hint of [color=00CC33]green[/color] there...

Though it clearly falls into the blue-camp category...

Screen capture from a happage PCI tv card I presume?