Politically charged avatars have proven to be disruptive in our forums (not to mention eating up mod time dealing with disputes). It is not uncommon for us to receive complaints because of the hostile political messages that certain avatars were clearly created to send. Since we want to maintain an environment that makes room for a variety of people, we decided it would probably be best if we placed avatars under the “no politics” rule and disallowed them.
We also think it is important that the community be allowed to express itself. Therefore, we polled the community to see how you all felt about political avatars before taking such a leap. To our surprise, the majority of members who voted wanted them to stay.
We have come to a decision that we believe honors the desire of the community for political self-expression, while at the same time reduces the politically-hostile environment.
We will allow political avatars that send a positive message. So, if you are a fan of [insert politician here] and you support him, then you can have an avatar of that person. The avatar reflects that for which you stand, which makes it a positive message.
Meanwhile, we will disallow political avatars that send a negative message. So, if you can’t stand [insert politician here], you cannot have an avatar mocking that person(Bush monkey face, or joker face, or Obama with a communism sign, etc). The avatar reflects that against which you stand, which makes it a negative message.
Approval or removal of avatars for politics will be generally left up to mod discretion. Whenever we come across difficult calls, we will have internal conversations to make the best decisions.
(NB: Since we are generally aware of the political affiliations of those who participate in political discussions, we will probably notice if you inject sarcasm into your imagery. Hence, we do not recommend such attempts. )
Please ban MVP9596's avatar. I find it offensive. It violates the official Fatwallet Avatar Policy (FAP). It shows Pee-Wee Herman (Paul Reuben) in a negative way and sends a negative message about Pee-Wee Herman, specifically as a sissy and feminate.
Please ban MVP9596's avatar. I find it offensive. It violates the official Fatwallet Avatar Policy (FAP). It shows Pee-Wee Herman (Paul Reuben) in a negative way and sends a negative message about Pee-Wee Herman, specifically as a sissy and feminate.
Thanks,
Tazzy531I love that this message about avatars is delivered by a FW staff member who uses an avatar that depicts a former kids tv show star who was arrested in Sarasota, Florida for masturbating publicly in an adult theater (link).
Please ban MVP9596's avatar. I find it offensive. It violates the official Fatwallet Avatar Policy (FAP). It shows Pee-Wee Herman (Paul Reuben) in a negative way and sends a negative message about Pee-Wee Herman, specifically as a sissy and feminate.
Thanks,
Tazzy531I love that this message about avatars is delivered by a FW staff member who uses an avatar that depicts a former kids tv show star who was arrested in Sarasota, Florida for masturbating publicly in an adult theater (link). ...before he got arrested for possession of child pornography.
Please ban MVP9596's avatar. I find it offensive. It violates the official Fatwallet Avatar Policy (FAP). It shows Pee-Wee Herman (Paul Reuben) in a negative way and sends a negative message about Pee-Wee Herman, specifically as a sissy and feminate.
Thanks,
Tazzy531I love that this message about avatars is delivered by a FW staff member who uses an avatar that depicts a former kids tv show star who was arrested in Sarasota, Florida for masturbating publicly in an adult theater (link).
Dear Mods, WTF was the point of voting http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/957646/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, its nice to know that FW caves to the people that cannot stand a small sqaure image. Once again the whiny complainy side wins.
and katx who thinks 'rules are rules' and anything outside of that little world is threatened.
-------
Finally, if you are going anal on this topic, than go all the way.
Pictures of the savoir offend and distrube me and create a hositle enviorment. I cannot stand that kind of harshment. In fact I might just mod alert every single on just because i'm so 'open minded'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, its nice to know that FW caves to the people that cannot stand a small sqaure image. Once again the whiny complainy side wins.
and katx who thinks 'rules are rules' and anything outside of that little world is threatened.
-------
Finally, if you are going anal on this topic, than go all the way.
Pictures of the savoir offend and distrube me and create a hositle enviorment. I cannot stand that kind of harshment. In fact I might just mod alert every single on just because i'm so 'open minded'.I find your method of argument and tone ironic. And douchebaggy.
HolyBanana
Mr. Ed
posted: Nov. 17, 2009 @ 5:11p
I cracked up and almost choked on the 8ush Monkey avatar comment... LOL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, its nice to know that FW caves to the people that cannot stand a small sqaure image. Once again the whiny complainy side wins.
and katx who thinks 'rules are rules' and anything outside of that little world is threatened.
-------
Finally, if you are going anal on this topic, than go all the way.
Pictures of the savoir offend and distrube me and create a hositle enviorment. I cannot stand that kind of harshment. In fact I might just mod alert every single on just because i'm so 'open minded'.I find your method of argument and tone ironic. And douchebaggy.
because theres no point is using logic and reason with FW mods.
They had their phoney vote. Polictal mods won. because some d-bags, who can't wrap their heads about having gray areas in rules; Or d-bags that get their undies all stained because someone has an avator they dont agree with use's mod alerts. Everyone has their politcal avators taken away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, its nice to know that FW caves to the people that cannot stand a small sqaure image. Once again the whiny complainy side wins.
and katx who thinks 'rules are rules' and anything outside of that little world is threatened.
-------
Finally, if you are going anal on this topic, than go all the way.
Pictures of the savoir offend and distrube me and create a hositle enviorment. I cannot stand that kind of harshment. In fact I might just mod alert every single on just because i'm so 'open minded'.
Dear michal1980, TF point of voting was to ask if people wanted to keep political avatars. They are still keeping political avatars.
FW is caving to the desire of the community that is tired of the hostile tone of the forums. The mentioned avatars are antagonistic and don't serve a purpose that is anything but negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, its nice to know that FW caves to the people that cannot stand a small sqaure image. Once again the whiny complainy side wins.
and katx who thinks 'rules are rules' and anything outside of that little world is threatened.
-------
Finally, if you are going anal on this topic, than go all the way.
Pictures of the savoir offend and distrube me and create a hositle enviorment. I cannot stand that kind of harshment. In fact I might just mod alert every single on just because i'm so 'open minded'.
Dear michal1980, TF point of voting was to ask if people wanted to keep political avatars. They are still keeping political avatars.
FW is caving to the desire of the community that is tired of the hostile tone of the forums. The mentioned avatars are antagonistic and don't serve a purpose that is anything but negative.
I disagree, if the community had a problem then would have voted down polictal avators. And would have particpated in greater OPEN discussion of their problems. IMHO people who find a avator hostile, need to get over themselves. You caving to, pardon my lanague, losers, or mamma's boys.
In respect of your new policy, I have replaced my avator with a polictal leader who's philosphy you would agree with.
MVP9596 said: michal1980 said: Dear Mods, WTF was the point of voting http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/957646/ Dear michal1980, TF point of voting was to ask if people wanted to keep political avatars. They are still keeping political avatars.
FW is caving to the desire of the community that is tired of the hostile tone of the forums. The mentioned avatars are antagonistic and don't serve a purpose that is anything but negative. Not that I care too deeply about this, but it is true that you had a vote, and "Keep the political avatars" won. There was not an option for "Keep only the positive political avatars".
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem to me that the previous vote showed support for keeping the avatars.
PMonkeyDishwasher said: MVP9596 said: michal1980 said: Dear Mods, WTF was the point of voting http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/957646/ Dear michal1980, TF point of voting was to ask if people wanted to keep political avatars. They are still keeping political avatars.
FW is caving to the desire of the community that is tired of the hostile tone of the forums. The mentioned avatars are antagonistic and don't serve a purpose that is anything but negative. Not that I care too deeply about this, but it is true that you had a vote, and "Keep the political avatars" won. There was not an option for "Keep only the positive political avatars".
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem to me that the previous vote showed support for keeping the avatars.
I understand your point, and agree to an extent. The issue is the negativity being promoted by avatars that are in essence saying "I hate {insert name here}". Nothing positive can come of it, and only helps throw coal on an already hot fire. We aren't removing political avatars, but we are removing some of the negativity by not allowing negative images.
MVP9596 said: PMonkeyDishwasher said: MVP9596 said: michal1980 said: Dear Mods, WTF was the point of voting http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/957646/ Dear michal1980, TF point of voting was to ask if people wanted to keep political avatars. They are still keeping political avatars.
FW is caving to the desire of the community that is tired of the hostile tone of the forums. The mentioned avatars are antagonistic and don't serve a purpose that is anything but negative. Not that I care too deeply about this, but it is true that you had a vote, and "Keep the political avatars" won. There was not an option for "Keep only the positive political avatars".
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem to me that the previous vote showed support for keeping the avatars.
I understand your point, and agree to an extent. The issue is the negativity being promoted by avatars that are in essence saying "I hate {insert name here}". Nothing positive can come of it, and only helps throw coal on an already hot fire. We aren't removing political avatars, but we are removing some of the negativity by not allowing negative images.
I guess this makes greling's homosexual sex avatar a positive message even though I abhor the behaviors displayed and implied. Search it out and report it if you agree with me.
MVP9596 said: PMonkeyDishwasher said: MVP9596 said: michal1980 said: Dear Mods, WTF was the point of voting http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/957646/ Dear michal1980, TF point of voting was to ask if people wanted to keep political avatars. They are still keeping political avatars.
FW is caving to the desire of the community that is tired of the hostile tone of the forums. The mentioned avatars are antagonistic and don't serve a purpose that is anything but negative. Not that I care too deeply about this, but it is true that you had a vote, and "Keep the political avatars" won. There was not an option for "Keep only the positive political avatars".
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem to me that the previous vote showed support for keeping the avatars.
I understand your point, and agree to an extent. The issue is the negativity being promoted by avatars that are in essence saying "I hate {insert name here}". Nothing positive can come of it, and only helps throw coal on an already hot fire. We aren't removing political avatars, but we are removing some of the negativity by not allowing negative images.
I have to disagree. This is still America, and people have the right to be offensive. They have a right to make a political statement, be it positive or negative. If someone saying "I hate X' bothers someone so much that they can't function, they have a mental disorder. I'm not joking one bit when I say that Pee Wee Herman offends me deeply. I think he's a scumbag kiddie toucher who should be shunned from society at the very least. However, I would fight to the death to defend your right to display him as you choose. If I moved to ban everything in this world that was offensive, negative, or somehow bothered me, I certainly wouldn't have any time left over for Fatwallet. People need to grow up and realize there is no right in this world to not be offended. If they can't somehow handle that incredible burden, then turn off the avitars. If that still doesn't work, let them turn off their computer or spend their time at rainbowsandunicorns.com.
DirtyBird
Charter Member
posted: Nov. 17, 2009 @ 11:04p
Hoo-Hoo!
I got the best avatar tar.
All Right!
tazzy531
Senior Member - 4K
posted: Nov. 18, 2009 @ 12:19a
MVP9596 said: Nah, most aren't annoying, one good example is this.
You do realize that avatar is derogatory. The dog in bellhop uniform was a symbol used by the Military junta in Myanmar during the ethnic cleansing campaign. It represents the minority group kowtowing to the foreigners like dogs.
I think this will get more people upset than it will make happy. It is a worthless rule, that will only make a small percentage of losers happy.
It is also very subjective. Is putting a picture of the president in front of a communist flag offensive? Ironically, the people who get upset would likely have strong communist ideals... What is so negative about communism? Stating that referring to something communist is offensive, may be offensive to communists.
Removing flame-bait avatars must be a good thing -- except for those who engaged in flame-baiting all the time. The fact is that political avatars are still allowed, much to my disappointment.
michal1980 said: MVP9596 said: PMonkeyDishwasher said: MVP9596 said: michal1980 said: Dear Mods, WTF was the point of voting http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/957646/ Dear michal1980, TF point of voting was to ask if people wanted to keep political avatars. They are still keeping political avatars.
FW is caving to the desire of the community that is tired of the hostile tone of the forums. The mentioned avatars are antagonistic and don't serve a purpose that is anything but negative. Not that I care too deeply about this, but it is true that you had a vote, and "Keep the political avatars" won. There was not an option for "Keep only the positive political avatars".
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem to me that the previous vote showed support for keeping the avatars.
I understand your point, and agree to an extent. The issue is the negativity being promoted by avatars that are in essence saying "I hate {insert name here}". Nothing positive can come of it, and only helps throw coal on an already hot fire. We aren't removing political avatars, but we are removing some of the negativity by not allowing negative images.
and who determines what is negative!?...
excatly.I could swear earlier in this thread you made fun of people who cannot tolerate a little vagueness in rules, referring to those wo are against flame-bait avatars. But of course you edited yourself out of that remark.
Most rules are vague in certain circumstances and require moderation/interpretation. So what is new?
You mentioned people who were whining about the rule that allowed flame-bait avatars. Do you not see the irony in this thread?
You mentioned people should grow a pair. Do you not see this apply to those who wants to make political statements in a venue that does not allow debate of and challenge to those statements?
riznick said: katx said: The fact is that political avatars are still allowed, much to my disappointment. Any rational reason why it is disappointing?Same way as spam is annoying, I guess.
The best way to deal with idiot is always to let them speak freely. I can often look at someone's avitar and/or screen name and see how much credence I should give to the post. People with extreme agendas only show their true colors. Let them speak.
riznick said: katx said: The fact is that political avatars are still allowed, much to my disappointment. Any rational reason why it is disappointing?Yes. I like meaningful, logical, rational, and easily enforceable rules.
Personally, I think politics should be allowed. What can be done by FW is to have the strict policy (of zero tolerance) against personal and ad-hominem comments. (Yes, without ad-hominem comments discussion will be dull and perhaps even academic but I think such is a reasonable price to pay in order to have politics here. BTW the "strict" part would make enforcement easy and and manageable.) With the adoption of zero tolerances, I say the modding of this will not that be onerous (after the initial period of adjustment). FW can also limit the political comments to OT only. THAT is my personal preference.
But now that FW has decided they will not allow any political comments, the reasonable/meaningful/logical/(and most importantly) consistent thing would be to not allow them in avatars either.
Another poster made a very astute observation: BECAUSE statements in avatars could not be debated or challenged, the few, very few, people who would use them, made them more and more flagrant (almost flame-baits) and changed them more and more frequently (sometimes many times a day).
And despite the (unproven/able) claim that I have complained to the modes, I have never done so wrt to individuals. And all my comments on this subject (except one) to the mods has been in open threads. The exception came when I was visiting the HD forum and saw a deal for say a drill. Then one of the posters had as an avatar a modified picture of Obama with white paint on his face and under it the term "fascism." So I asked the mod on duty how could such distasteful avatar be good for business? Imagine a user who never visits OT and only visits HD for......err.....deals and all of a sudden sees that picture. Really, how is that good for business? Why should that user come back and not just switch to a competitor's forum? (It is one thing to make a political statement in OT or in a forum where political comments are allowed/expected, but in a forum for Hot Deals???????)
katx said: michal1980 said: MVP9596 said: PMonkeyDishwasher said: MVP9596 said: michal1980 said: Dear Mods, WTF was the point of voting http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/957646/ Dear michal1980, TF point of voting was to ask if people wanted to keep political avatars. They are still keeping political avatars.
FW is caving to the desire of the community that is tired of the hostile tone of the forums. The mentioned avatars are antagonistic and don't serve a purpose that is anything but negative. Not that I care too deeply about this, but it is true that you had a vote, and "Keep the political avatars" won. There was not an option for "Keep only the positive political avatars".
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem to me that the previous vote showed support for keeping the avatars.
I understand your point, and agree to an extent. The issue is the negativity being promoted by avatars that are in essence saying "I hate {insert name here}". Nothing positive can come of it, and only helps throw coal on an already hot fire. We aren't removing political avatars, but we are removing some of the negativity by not allowing negative images.
and who determines what is negative!?...
excatly.I could swear earlier in this thread you made fun of people who cannot tolerate a little vagueness in rules, referring to those wo are against flame-bait avatars. But of course you edited yourself out of that remark. I think that remark is still there I belive
Most rules are vague in certain circumstances and require moderation/interpretation. So what is new? you had a huge problem with vagueness, because in your eyes 'no politics' meant no polictal avatars. Vagueness is vague to you
You mentioned people who were whining about the rule that allowed flame-bait avatars. Do you not see the irony in this thread? If thats the way to get change things, then heck, maybe I should fight that way. We know that voting here is useless. There next pole should include option 3: Whats the point, FW will do whatever
You mentioned people should grow a pair. Do you not see this apply to those who wants to make political statements in a venue that does not allow debate of and challenge to those statements? I'd perfer the allowance of polictal discussion.
But I hontestly do not see why/how people get so wound up about a picture, 4 words, or whatever else you can squeeze into that little box. If that little box really gets your blood boiling that much... I think I already said what I think about people like that, no need to repeat.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
