Open Discussion The Political Nature of Avatars

Winding Vines

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 10, 2002
Messages
4,091
If it is an issue with "gray areas", why not outline Political Avatars unacceptable?

Ergo:
Politicians
Party Affiliation
Anti-anythings
and so on.

It's a thought.
 
I don't think we need any set policy on avatars myself. If an avatars is disruptive, demeaning or the like Sr staff may contact them about its being a problem and ask them to change it. I think saying no politics at all would ultimately lead to no content of any sort and be a waste of staff time and a lot of member frustration. Eventually someone could argue that otters constitute some sort of political message which I swear they are not ;)

Thanks for your suggestion though. I'll also be interested to hear if others think we ought have some sort of avatar policy.
 
Of course I feel that no avatar should be censored, even those I might find reprehensible. I am not sure what would constitute a "disruptive" avatar. Subjective reasoning being what it is impossible to quantify "disruptive."

To outline a current issue, I changed avatars 4 days ago. My newest avatar was a cartoon taken from 2 Lebanese magazines. It had a camel with a small rocket in its mouth and its testicles sitting on a tree stump. In back of the stump was an Arab in traditional attire with a sledgehammer raised high, about to comedown on the stump. An English caption said, "Hezbollah Rocket Launcher."

The premise, re the article that accompanied the cartoon, was that Hezbollah had been foolish in 2006 to initiate a war with Israel because the Hezbollah arsenal is antiquated, and that Hezbollah (which just gained control of Lebanon) should keep that in mind.

A Mod, without talking/communicating with me issued me a Warning, telling me more or less that the avatar is disruptive.

To offer a richer context, I am well known on BL as someone who vehemently opposes Islam (do not confuse that with "Muslims," they are people, Islam os an ideology). Apparently the Mod felt it was a dig at Muslims, etc. Of course it was produced by Muslims themselves (the periodicals were from the AMAL political party).

Above all the preceding I do think that it would be prudent for the avatar policy to better defined.
 
What you describe as your avatar rachamim certainly seems to me like it could be a BLUA issue. Ordinarily I suggest that any specific grievances with a moderator action be addressed by PM rather than a Support thread but I can see you are trying to illustrate a point.

BLUA prohibited use:

#4 post or upload any content that victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason;
 
Enki, Pragmatism is the only way to clarify or further evolve BL policy. And as a note I started this thread on my own accord, out of curiosity.

I am trying to better understand this as well, because there are several avatars I have noted within the political arena that I would find offensive but not someone else. Now what it sounded like in your previous post, that this is to only be decided by a Sr. Moderator. So I am conflicted by personal perceptions and the idea of "infractions" perse.
 
It illustrates the problem perfectly. As I noted above, it came out of Arab media and was drawn to illustrate the futility of Hezbollah attacking Israel (military superiority). The point as I see it? Had the Mod communicated their concern the entire issue would have promptly deflated.

As for "PM," of course I did so. In response the Mod publicly commented on the issue so once they out themselves it no longer is an issue though I still am not mentioning them by name.

My opinion? If there is to be a policy it should involve communication as the first step. Let the Mod inquire as to why the poster is utilising a possibly offencive avatar. Crossed wires as in this case negate the imagined concern.

(Edited for spelling)
 
I mentioned the grievances by PM not so much at you rachamim but more because new BL member's conceptions of using Support comes mostly from reading threads.

Forming new BL policy, especially site wide policies is a glacially slow process except when a big pressing need comes up by my observation. I'm glad to host the discussion here. I'm seriously interested in your ideas about this, however I don't think an issue that comes up a few times a year at most is likely to generate the sort of impetus it takes to get Bluelight into policy making mode. A no politics policy would actually become a prison yard lawyer type of members dream come true. No matter how clear the policy it would end up being retested and re-argued so I personally don't see the benefit of setting up a policy. At least not for staff or most members.
 
Well Enki, lucky for you I have the time to discuss such matters.

I think having open dialogue, discussion and minds is important. I understand what you are saying, and I think you misunderstand my intentions. Without discussion, there lacks misunderstanding. Times change, events change things, irregardless of how well something was written. Retesting and displaying varying points of view is just a fact of progress, as nothing is set in stone.
 
Let's look at how BL discussion (particularly the according discussion in CEP) is a context highly distinct from a Lebanese magazine. Let's look how posting history indicates how context influences meaning. Let's look at rule 4. Let's look at how some posters are unresponsive to multiple, gentle PMs.

The issue is not political speech.

I find the pertinent status-quo framework highly acceptable.

ebola
 
I see it as a double standard. People are free to have avatars that would get many of us in trouble at work if the boss saw them, e.g. avatars depicting violence, nudity, and sexual acts. Have a look in the Lounge to see what I'm talking about. But a political avatar gets singled out and censored because, and I'm taking a guess on the word they used to describe it based on one of the labels people like to throw around, that somebody decided it was "Islamophobic."

Anyway, who hasn't had some kind of disagreement in CEP? It's a quasi-anonymous forum for people to discuss, rant, and vent. That's a good thing. If somebody doesn't like a particular political system (or a religio-political system in this case), fine. Don't use the Warning system as a weapon to vent frustrations left over from CEP threads.
 
Last edited:
Insofar as people won't believe my explanation of my rationale, I guess there'll be no reason for me to discuss them. :/

ebola
 
I believe that you believe it. No offense intended. I just think the issue is very subtle.
 
Ebola articulates my sentiments perfectly. This is not a question of heterodox points of view, this is a question of defamatory, derogatory speech. A warning that doesn't count toward further disciplinary measures is a perfectly acceptable corrective measure in this case.

As for "judgement calls" and "shades of gray"-- I think making those judgment calls is within the purview of the mods and senior staff who are best acquainted with the poster.
 
socko said:
Don't use the Warning system as a weapon to vent frustrations left over from CEP threads.
that's a pretty serious allegation. i invite you to escalate it through the appropriate formal channel, with examples, or else withdraw it.

alasdair
 
re: The Lounge & offensive avatars:

we adhere to the BLUA as well, and if anyone's avatar seemed to violate any of that, we would deal with it accordingly -- is an avatar of someone wearing an S&M mask offensive? maybe to some, but it doesn't violate the quoted part of BLUA, and there for can stay. Bouncing tits? sure, maybe offensive, but doesn't violate the BLUA. i personally don't think Bluelight is something you should be cruising at work, especially The Lounge, but even The Lounge has lines drawn in the sand about things like this. If there is a particular avatar you find offensive that violates the BLUA, pm TL staff or smods about it and we'll deal with it.
 
Avatars are already covered quite well in the BLUA.

If an offensive avatar has been missed then feel free to pm one of the senior staff to have a look at it.
 
Avatars are already covered quite well in the BLUA.

If an offensive avatar has been missed then feel free to pm one of the senior staff to have a look at it.
 
double posters, however, continue to thrive in a permissive culture of neglect. ;)
 
I am trying to better understand this as well, because there are several avatars I have noted within the political arena that I would find offensive but not someone else.

You were offended, but were you victimized, harassed, degraded, or intimidated? I think you'd agree that there is a substantial (albeit fuzzy) difference. This rule isn't about having a completely sanitized online experience, its about creating a modicum of decency by curtailing what could generally be describes as "hate speech". If any "political" avatar, or post, for that matter, met that standard, you would certainly be correct in asking that it be removed.
 
I'm all for disagreement, even strong disagreement on Bluelight. If we all thought the same, this forum would be the equivalent of patting each other on the back and saying how awesome we are.

But we can have different viewpoints and still remain civilised. We can disagree, and yet not turn threads into flamewars. We need to respect other people, even if we don't see eye-to-eye.

Part of respecting other people is understanding that stereotypes exist, and not engaging in behavior that reinforces those stereotypes.

It's being polite.

Try it.
 
Top