Political Avatar

Strum

I run a community Forum/Board and recently a member posted his stance for the forthcoming Election by replacing their usual Avatar with a Shin Feiner one.
Is this acceptable?
I personally don't like it but I also respect people's opinions.
We have a Political Forum to discuss well...Polithicks..
but would I be out of order asking the member to change the Avatar?

This is it.






Maybe I'm being a bit of a prude or whatever but if I was a member of the Nazi Party would it be acceptable to post a Swastika as an Avatar?

DeVore

Wow, Godwins Law in one post... thats a first.

Personally, I wouldnt stop someone from displaying their (reasonable) affiliations in their avatar but we are stopping people from putting campaign slogans or images in their sigs.

Basically I would say that so long as you treat all legal political parties equally you are ok. For example, I truely dislike SF but I will treat them the same as FF or FG or anyone else.... To do otherwise lessens you rather than them...

DeV.

sligopark

You are supposed to be impartial. Remain so. Comparing SF rightly or wrongly to Nazis demonstrates a lack of impartiality. Asking them to remove their avatar is crossing the line.

When they change their avatar to this then they have crossed the line and you may be entitled to ask them remove it.

Wolfe Tone

Well I had political sigs, albeit not about one particular party. I had Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers for a while, only one person complained.

If he wants to nail his colors to the mast let him, what harm does it do?

Strum

Point taken folks and thanks for your feedback, much appreciated.

I only used the Nazi symbolism as an example, maybe that was over the top.

Thanks again. :cool:

Strum

sligopark wrote: »

Comparing SF rightly or wrongly to Nazis demonstrates a lack of impartiality.

Sorry Sligo, as I said, a comparison to the Nazis was not intentional. Just an example.

DeVore

Actually there is a legitimate use of the "Nazi" here in fact.... If the Irish Nazi Party were to come on to Boards (and yes, we used to have one and they have sent me threats before but are now defunct afaik)... I would and have banned them.

So why them and not a party slightly less offensive to your viewpoint? And if them, why not a party slightly less offensive again... Where and why do you draw a line?

Its a tough question but one I have had to face repeatedly here... I dont have a generic answer but I operate two levels, in or out. Either the topic, party, user, whatever is acceptible and its "in" or its unacceptible and its "out".

Once something is "in" it should be afforded the same access as anything else "in". That doesnt mean I can't chide, criticise, argue with, wag fingers etc... I certainly do but as a mental discipline I try to separate my personal dislikes from whats "in or out".

Dont get distracted by "shades of grey" because while they certainly exist... there is also Black and White.

DeV.

Wolfe Tone

What would be your stance on groups like the 32CSM who may advocate armed campaign in the north?

Strum

Interesting points there Dev. Yes where do you draw the line?
Like I said we have a forum on politics already and is the change of Avatar pushing their personal affiliations on the rest of us even further?
I'm just a little bit fkd off about this to be honest.
If it was a Fail-er or Gael-er or a Green-er or whatever-er I'd feel the same.
I'm talkng about an Admin on the site who I have the greatest respect for, so I'm finding it difficult to approach them about this?

DeVore

Armed anything isnt getting on here, not on any side. If you need a gun to make your point then you might as well point it at me because I'm going to be standing in opposition to you.

DeV.

DeVore

Strum wrote: »

Interesting points there Dev. Yes where do you draw the line?
Like I said we have a forum on politics already and is the change of Avatar pushing their personal affiliations on the rest of us even further?
I'm just a little bit fkd off about this to be honest.
If it was a Fail-er or Gael-er or a Green-er or whatever-er I'd feel the same.
I'm talkng about an Admin on the site who I have the greatest respect for, so I'm finding it difficult to approach them about this?

You wouldnt believe the number of times I have to choke and gag to swallow something I feel personally offended or opposed to but accept because I value my impartiallity.

DeV.

Wolfe Tone

DeVore wrote: »

Armed anything isnt getting on here, not on any side. If you need a gun to make your point then you might as well point it at me because I'm going to be standing in opposition to you.

DeV.

Fair enough Dev, but where does the line get drawn? What about arguing for armed intervention in say Somalia, Ivory Coast... you get my drift. Support for a party which supports violence?

Zillah

I'd look at it this way: Would allowing people to put partisan avatars on their accounts be significantly disruptive or injurious to the discussion and other forum members? Probably not.

The real question is this: Why would you forbid political avatars? If you can't come up with an answer beyond vague notions of it being wrong some how then I think you have your answer.

There's nothing more irritating (or damaging to fun forums) that unnecessary moderatorship. Mods should be as invisible as possible.

Strum

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What would be your stance on groups like the who may advocate armed campaign in the north?

Never heard of them. Why, are you one?
Why don't you have a 32CSM Avatar then to raise people's awareness to your "CAUSE"?

Strum

DeVore wrote: »

Armed anything isnt getting on here, not on any side. If you need a gun to make your point then you might as well point it at me because I'm going to be standing in opposition to you.

DeV.

Who me?


EDIT: Please delete. I read the post wrong.

Wolfe Tone

Strum wrote: »

Never heard of them. Why, are you one?
Why don't you have a 32CSM Avatar then to raise people's awareness to your "CAUSE"?

Surprised you never heard of them, would be the politic wing of the RIRA I think.


No I am not. I am just curious is all. Would you let a poster have


as an avatar?

gandalf

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Would you let a poster have [snipped] as an avatar?

No I wouldn't, would you find it acceptable to have someone use it given what they and those they represent have carried out.

Wolfe Tone

gandalf wrote: »

No I wouldn't, would you find it acceptable to have someone use it given what they and those they represent have carried out.

Thats what I am getting at, could be viewed as hypocritical for me to say no, yet have PIRA and INLA volunteers in my sig. And you could say the same for having a SF one, or a RSF one, or a British flag, etc etc

gandalf

Yes but we are talking about political organisations and not specific terrorists/volunteers.

If you had a Sinn Fein logo while I do not like what they represent or some of their policies I realise that they have matured beyond their history and you would have every right to promote your support of them.

Wolfe Tone

gandalf wrote: »

Yes but we are talking about political organisations and not specific terrorists/volunteers.

If you had a Sinn Fein logo while I do not like what they represent or some of their policies I realise that they have matured beyond their history and you would have every right to promote your support of them.

So essentially you wouldn't let someone have the logo of that political party because you disagree with what they stand for?


Where is the line drawn?

gandalf

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So essentially you wouldn't let someone have the logo of that political party because you disagree with what they stand for?


Where is the line drawn?

No because they are the mouthpiece of terrorists who are currently involved in murdering and plotting to murder Irish men and women and in destabilising the peace process that was democratically voted for by the majority on this island.

Wolfe Tone

gandalf wrote: »

No because they are the mouthpiece of terrorists who are currently involved in murdering and plotting to murder Irish men and women and in destabilising the peace process that was democratically voted for by the majority on this island.

Personally I think you either allow all political party avatars/logos/whatever or none.

You could make an argument like that against SF too could you not? Terrorist apologists, hiding bodies etc, bankrobbers


What about eirigi? That acceptable in your book?

Strum

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What would be your stance on groups like the 32CSM who may advocate armed campaign in the north?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

...arguing for armed intervention in say Somalia etc...

Wherever.

Are yiz for fkn real or what?

RE:


"The restoration of Irish national sovereignty"


Ok I'll totally go along with that especially since the Lisbon Treaty...



"To seek to achieve unity among the Irish people on the issue of restoring national sovereignty and to promote the revolutionary ideals of republicanism and to this end involve itself in resisting all forms of colonialism and imperialism."

"To seek the immediate and unconditional release of all Irish republican prisoners throughout the world."



Now THAT sounds like ye're all watching too many Action Movies. There's no "colonialism" going on that I'm aware of and the Imperialists are our OWN fkn Government. They the Thieves Brother!


BUT.

Please tell me now here Mousse, have you no other options but to scare and terrorise people into your way of thinking?
And if they don't comply they're fkd? Shot?
Arms to combat War? Hilarious man.

Have you any other solutions?


And this all started with a "simple" question about an Avatar. :rolleyes::cool:


What age are you Mousse? Mid 20's - 30's?


EDIT: Sorry just realised you said above you were just looking at these groups. Apologies I thought you were one.

Wolfe Tone

Strum wrote: »

Wherever.

Are yiz for fkn real or what?

RE:


"The restoration of Irish national sovereignty"


Ok I'll totally go along with that especially since the Lisbon Treaty...



"To seek to achieve unity among the Irish people on the issue of restoring national sovereignty and to promote the revolutionary ideals of republicanism and to this end involve itself in resisting all forms of colonialism and imperialism."

"To seek the immediate and unconditional release of all Irish republican prisoners throughout the world."



Now THAT sounds like ye're all watching too many Action Movies. There's no "colonialism" going on that I'm aware of and the Imperialists are our OWN fkn Government. They the Thieves Brother!


BUT.

Please tell me now here Mousse, have you no other options but to scare and terrorise people into your way of thinking? And if they don't comply they're fkd? Shot?
Arms to combat War? Hilarious man.

Have you any other solutions?


And this all started with a "simple" question about an Avatar. :rolleyes::cool:


What age are you Mousse? Mid 20's - 30's?

Eh, what are you on about? I don't support that political party at all. I suggest you actually read my posts before making wild accusations and put words in my mouth.

Also, no need to get personal, I fail to see how my age is at all relevant.

Yeah, let's keep this on topic please.

gandalf

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You could make an argument like that against SF too could you not? Terrorist apologists, hiding bodies etc, bankrobbers

Did you not see in my previous post where I said "they have matured beyond their history".

What about eirigi? That acceptable in your book?

If they are not directly connected to terrorists while I find them distasteful I wouldn't have an issue with someone using their avatar.

Wolfe Tone

Well thats in your opinion, in many peoples minds SF are as bad as ever, masquerading as peacemakers etc....


I think it should be all, or none.


The SF logo may be just as repugnant to someone as the 32CSM one.



So is the line drawn at parties advocating violence?

gandalf

The distinction is quite clear from my perspective. Sinn Fein and the now disbanded PIRA have renounced violence the 32CSM and RIRA have not.

I can't understand why you cannot grasp this?

Wolfe Tone

gandalf wrote: »

The distinction is quite clear from my perspective. Sinn Fein and the now disbanded PIRA have renounced violence the 32CSM and RIRA have not.

I can't understand why you cannot grasp this?

So is the line drawn at parties advocating violence?


Thats what I am asking.

gandalf

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So is the line drawn at parties advocating violence?


Thats what I am asking.

I would say parties that are advocating illegal activities would be more accurate. I am sure you would agree with that position wouldn't you?

Wolfe Tone

gandalf wrote: »

I would say parties that are advocating illegal activities would be more accurate. I am sure you would agree with that position wouldn't you?

Tbh that would entirely depend on what that illegal activity was. And as I said it should be either all or none imo.