Moderators about a member's avatar,

[shoehorn]

Recently I attempted to contact the moderators about a member's avatar, asking for clarification on whether it was acceptable to have a picture of Erwin Rommel for it. I've not heard anything in response, so I'll ask the question here.

Is it acceptable to have such an image as an avatar here? Would it be similarly acceptable if I decided I want to have Ratko Mladić or Radovan Karadžić as avatar? Hitler? A swastika? A totenkopf?

The PF guidelines appear unclear about whether such images are acceptable. I think it would be a good idea to discuss whether a change to them is necessary.

 

[Danger]

I think that if it is something contentious, you should PM it to one of the Moderators for approval. (The user, I mean, not an observer. That is an after-the-fact thing, but I think that it is within your rights to inquire about it. Just don't be pushy.)
I must say that I wouldn't recognize Rommel if he jumped up and bit me on the ***. I've never even heard of any of the others, aside from Hitler and the swastika.
Be sure to know that I am expressing only my opinions here, not those of PF or any of its administration. This is fully susceptible to editing or deletion on their behalf, as I agreed to upon joining the site. The cool thing about that is that if they do edit it, they will make note thereof for all to see.
Anyhow... my personal approach would be that using an avatar of Hitler could be considered extremely offensive to many groups, and most particularly to those of Jewish heritage. I would feel equally offended if the avatar was of Tricky Dick Nixon, Idi Amin, or either of the Bush bastards who once occupied the White House. (I'm not Jewish, by the way, but I have friends who are and 11 of my uncles spent a lot of time crawling through mud to knock Hitler down.) That bastard also forever tarnished the swastika. It was originally a North American Native good-luck symbol, but with the arms angled the opposite way. No one, including my Native relatives, would even consider displaying the original version now, because anyone who saw it would immediately think "Nazi".

 

[waht]

from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#cite_note-1

Rommel is regarded as a chivalrous and humane officer because his Afrikakorps was never accused of any war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely; furthermore, he ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command.[2]

Late in the war, Rommel was convicted of joining the conspiracy against Adolf Hitler. Because of his great prestige, Hitler allowed him to commit suicide rather than be tried and executed. He was buried with full military honors; the reason for Rommel's death only emerged at the Nuremberg Trials.

 

[Danger]

I never know quite how far to trust Wiki, Waht, but if that is true then I feel somewhat vindicated. I've always felt guilty about admiring his effectiveness at desert warfare. Every time that I started to ponder what a brilliant tactician he was, my conscious would yell out the he was a f***ing Nazi and I'd stop thinking about it.
I have a feeling that this might turn into a political or racist debate, so I'm going to bail out right now.

 

[waht]

I'm not a history buff let alone a major, but other sites also report him as being an anti-nazi. He sure was a good tactician. So in contrast, one can approximately put him in the same category as the US general McChrystal. He sure worked for the boss, but didn't necessarily agreed with him.

Needless to say, Hitler, Stalin, or Ratko Mladić are well known mass murderers. Any sort of their advertisement is inconsiderate, immature, offensive, and looked down upon in professional real and virtual world.

 

[shoehorn]

from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#cite_note-1

Regardless of his stance towards National Socialism, Rommel commanded German troops in battle. This makes him guilty of participation in a war of aggression, which is a war crime under the Nuremburg principles; it was also a crime because it breached then-extant international norms and treaties. If being guilty of war crimes isn't sufficient reason for a person's image being deemed unacceptable as an avatar here, what's to stop somebody else using an image of, say, Ratko Mladic? And while we're at it, given the lack of guidance as to acceptable avatars, would http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Totenkopf.jpeg pass without comment as an avatar?

I have no problem with somebody's views diverging with mine on historical matters. But I would like to see the moderators give some guidance as to precisely what constitutes an acceptable avatar. As it stands, the use of Rommel - or indeed any other symbol associated with National Socialism or German militarism - as an avatar would be viewed as offensive by many. It would also contribute to otherwise avoidable strife on here.

 

[Danger]

would http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Totenkopf.jpeg pass without comment as an avatar?

Again, I can speak only for myself, but I think that it's a pretty damned cool graphic. I'd be willing to have it as a tattoo, so I sure wouldn't think twice about someone using it as an avatar.

 

[shoehorn]

Again, I can speak only for myself, but I think that it's a pretty damned cool graphic. I'd be willing to have it as a tattoo, so I sure wouldn't think twice about someone using it as an avatar.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. The only thing I will say is that openly displaying that as a tattoo would be likely to get you killed in many places in Europe.

 

[lisab]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. The only thing I will say is that openly displaying that as a tattoo would be likely to get you killed in many places in Europe.

And that's why universal rules are difficult...the Totenkopf carries meaning to you, but is just a "cool graphic" to someone from a different culture.

If anyone is offended by forest nymphs, please know it's not my intention to offend. But I'm not changing it .

 

[Evo]

Shoehorn, it is being addressed.

I believe that avatars should be held to our rules about making every member feel welcome.

 

[DaveC426913]

I dunno. Is the image in-and-of-itself offensive? I can see if the avatar were sending a message, and the message could be offensive. But really? Is just the mugshot offensive? Just my 2c.

 

[shoehorn]

Shoehorn, it is being addressed.

I believe that avatars should be held to our rules about making every member feel welcome.

That's good to know, thanks.

 

[KalamMekhar]

Rommel was one of the most respectable Generals in any modern war. He was once asked by Hitler himself to exterminate the Jews of the Bir Hacheim box, in which Rommel promptly refused. (Life of the Afrika Corps, page 100 or so). But is the 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, more suitable to the likes of non-historically oriented people?

 

[shoehorn]

I dunno. Is the image in-and-of-itself offensive? I can see if the avatar were sending a message, and the message could be offensive. But really? Is just the mugshot offensive? Just my 2c.

I don't find anything offensive about the image itself; it is after all simply a reproduction of a photograph and is meaningless without context. The main point is that some people, given the context of their own feelings about Nazi Germany, undoubtedly would find it offensive. It's not unreasonable to suspect that since avatars like that are used as a representation of a user, some might conclude there's a certain admiration on the part of the user for a figure they detest. Unpleasantness follows.

The broader point is that I wasn't able to find any explicit guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable avatar; I'm simply interested in whether the mods think it's a loophole that deserves closing.

As an aside, it's worth pointing out that I have no difficulty with the user him/herself. After all, given that he's now changed his avatar to a picture of Monty he's clearly got a sense of humour about it.

 

[KalamMekhar]

Just to be fair, with the proper supplies and support from the home front (damn you OP: Barbarossa) Rommel would have whooped arse at the Second battle of El Alamein.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't find anything offensive about the image itself; it is after all simply a reproduction of a photograph and is meaningless without context. The main point is that some people, given the context of their own feelings about Nazi Germany, undoubtedly would find it offensive. It's not unreasonable to suspect that since avatars like that are used as a representation of a user, some might conclude there's a certain admiration on the part of the user for a figure they detest. Unpleasantness follows.

Hm. So you don't find it offensive? You're objecting on principle?

That could be construed as borrowing trouble. It could also be construed as over-politicizing.

Perhaps it might be better to wait until there is someone who objects before we start instigating rules.

 

[Danger]

Lisab, thanks for putting a name to that picture so I could look it up. I thought that it was just a stylized Jolly Roger; there is no overt indication of Nazi association to it. Apparently, the following agree (from Wikipedia):
The British Army's Queen's Royal Lancers continue to use the skull and crossbones in their emblem, inherited from its use by the 17th Lancers - a unit raised in 1759 following General Wolfe's death in Quebec, with an emblem of a death's head and the words 'Or Glory' chosen in commemoration of him.[5]
In 1792, a regiment of Hussards de la mort (Death Hussars) was raised to defend the young French Republic from the Austrian attempt to invade France[6].
South Korea's 3rd Infantry Division (백골부대) also uses the skull and crossbones in their emblem.
The primarily Prussian 41st Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, Mustered in: June 6, 1861-Mustered out: December 9, 1865 wore a death's head insignia.New York Military State Military Museum
The Portuguese Military Police, the lancers, of the Regimento de Lanceiros 2 use the totenkopf in their emblem, similar to the one used by the Queen's Royal Lancers.
The Kingdom of Sweden's Hussar Regiments wore it in the Prussian Style on the front of the Mirleton.
The White Russian Kornilov regiment adopted it in 1917.
The Estonian Kuperjanov's Partisan Battalion used the skull and crossbones as their insignia; the Kuperjanov Infantry Battalion continues to use the skull and crossbones as their insignia today.
During 1943-1945 the Italian Black Brigades and numerous other forces fighting for the Italian Social Republic, wore various versions of skulls on their uniforms, berets and caps.
Although not exactly a Totenkopf per se, the Chilean guerrilla leader Manuel Rodriguez used the symbol on his elite forces called "Husares de la muerte" ("Hussars of death").
United States Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions use the skull and crossbones symbol in their emblem.
DFSW PL (Direct Fire Support Weapons Platoon) of the 3rd Battalion RAR (Royal Australian Regiment) use the same designed Totenkopf of the 3rd SS
No. 100 Squadron RAF (Royal Air Force) continue to use a flag depicting a skull and crossbones supposedly in reference to a flag stolen from a French brothel in 1918.
My apologies to anyone who was offended by my lack of sensitivity in the area, though. This really is the first time that I've known of the skull-and-crossbones being linked to Nazis. I've always thought that it was sort of a mythical pirate thing.

 

[shoehorn]

Hm. So you don't find it offensive? You're objecting on principle?

That doesn't hold. For instance, I'm not personally offended if someone chooses to have a picture of Hitler as their avatar. However, the fact that I wouldn't take offense at it doesn't change the following:

• Some people undoubtedly will find it offensive.
• There's an expectation that we take what people post in good faith and react accordingly. Regardless of the strength of the arguments that a Hitler-toting user makes, people who are offended by the avatar are, I would guess, much less likely to assume good faith. This leads to trouble especially in cases where the discussion revolves around something contentious, as is often the case in the politics forum.
• There's a clear lack of guidance as to what should be done in cases where an avatar is liable to cause offence.

That could be construed as borrowing trouble. It could also be construed as over-politicizing.

Well, I'm not attempting to stir up trouble. I can't of course prove that, but it seems reasonable to assume that I'm not until shown otherwise.

Moreover, it's difficult to see how I'm over-politicising the particular example in question (a symbol of the German reich) is now essentially a political one.

Perhaps it might be better to wait until there is someone who objects before we start instigating rules.

Perhaps, and if the mods believe that's the best course of action to take then I'll accept that without further question. But waiting until someone takes offence doesn't mean that there isn't offence to be taken.

 

[Danger]

Acceptance can be somewhat fickle. I, for instance, am somewhat offended that Evo's avatar is not a nekkid photo of her lovely self. I'm pretty sure that a vote among male PF members would turn up at least one or two supporters of that opinion. I would not, however, expect her to change it in order to mollify us.

 

[shoehorn]

Lisab, thanks for putting a name to that picture so I could look it up. I thought that it was just a stylized Jolly Roger; there is no overt indication of Nazi association to it.

There's certainly no indisputable association between a "skull and crossbones" and Nazi Germany. However, the specific image I linked to is a symbol of Nazi Germany; it's the particular totenkopf that was used by the Waffen SS.

As a comparison, this is technically the same thing as this, although I suspect everyone can tell which of them is the more "acceptable" version.

It's probably also worth pointing out that displaying such symbols is actually a criminal offence in much of Europe.

 

[KalamMekhar]

I think its gone on long enough. Someone doesn't like Rommel, so I changed to Monty. No one needs to cry over it.

God only knows what the outrage will be when someone finds out what my signature means.

 

[waht]

I should add that in order to obtain an avatar one must earn it, or pay for it. I find it unlikely that someone who through hard work earns to have an avatar would go out of his/her way to display an offending picture close to a user name. Same goes for those that pay for it.

Also if an avatar was really that offensive, many members would report it. But if only one member gets offended of something trivial, he/she should live with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Some of this has already been said, but for emphasis:

Recently I attempted to contact the moderators about a member's avatar, asking for clarification on whether it was acceptable to have a picture of Erwin Rommel for it. I've not heard anything in response, so I'll ask the question here.

There is a story I heard about a Gulf War tank commander who had a picture of Rommel in/on a tank, which was noticed - in surprise - by an Iraqi POW. How could you carry a picture of one of your worst enemies with you, he asked? Simple: he was the best desert tank commander there ever was, the American soldier replied.

Is it acceptable to have such an image as an avatar here? Would it be similarly acceptable if I decided I want to have Ratko Mladić or Radovan Karadžić as avatar? Hitler? A swastika? A totenkopf?

It would depend a little on the intent of the picture. That said, a picture of Rommel isn't in the same class as a picture of Hitler or a Swastika. Rommel wasn't a Nazi or ideologically motivated: he was a professional soldier who conducted himself with honor during the war (no war crimes by his troops) and even joined a conspiracy against Hitler.

So I really don't see what could be offensive about him except on a very superficial level. And as others have said - it is just a picture and I'm not sure it conveys any obvious message.

I don't find anything offensive about the image itself; it is after all simply a reproduction of a photograph and is meaningless without context. The main point is that some people, given the context of their own feelings about Nazi Germany, undoubtedly would find it offensive.

So you're not offended but you see this as a serious enough issue to make three complaints about in the span of a few hours? Really? That's tough to swallow.

This is a real head-scratcher to me. Being hypersensitive is bad enough, but being hypersensitivesensitive is bizarre.

•Some people undoubtedly will find it offensive.

So you're not offended by it but you're certain that some people will be? I'm not sure that's true but in any case, if anyone is, they should speak for themselves.

•There's a clear lack of guidance as to what should be done in cases where an avatar is liable to cause offence.

Agreed. But part of the problem is that except in some clear cases, what may cause offense is not always easy to define. Avatars are pictures and so follow the same guidelines as other pictures, which mostly cover vulgarity. It is impossible to predict a hypothetical 3rd party philosophical objection prediction.

 

[russ_watters]

My apologies to anyone who was offended by my lack of sensitivity in the area, though. This really is the first time that I've known of the skull-and-crossbones being linked to Nazis. I've always thought that it was sort of a mythical pirate thing.

Ditto, danger. If this exact Jolly Roger was used by the Nazis, I didn't know, but the modern day usage of a Jolly Roger is pretty generic and meaningless.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I hope nobody that is afraid of Pokemon will complain about my avatar

 

[Borg]

I think its gone on long enough. Someone doesn't like Rommel, so I changed to Monty. No one needs to cry over it.

God only knows what the outrage will be when someone finds out what my signature means.

I was going to ask yesterday if the OP would be offended by a picture of Patton. Monty makes the point as well.

On a similar topic:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712102808.htm"
A new article in the journal Psychology & Marketing investigates the role avatars play in the virtual and consumer environment, how well avatars reflect the personality of their creators, the psychology behind self-representation, and how these virtually made identities are perceived by other members of the virtual community. According to the study, avatars can portray a very lifelike and accurate depiction of a person's true personality, within the virtual world.

I hope nobody that is afraid of Pokemon will complain about my avatar

I'm sure that Pokemon's version of physics exists in a different universe so he probably won't come here anyway.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's a clear lack of guidance as to what should be done in cases where an avatar is liable to cause offence.

There's also a clear lack of guidance telling you how to brush your teeth. (i.e. does PF need to provide guidance on issues that have heretofore been handled perfectly fine by each individual?)

How about we default to 'rules are made when rules are needed' rather than 'let's make a rule about everything'?

Some people undoubtedly will find it offensive.

How do you know? Who are you speaking for?

You asked the Moderators in the proper channels. Apparently, you feel strongly enough that you've chosen to throw it open to the whole board. Still claim you're not offended?

• 
  Well, I'm not attempting to stir up trouble. I can't of course prove that, but it seems reasonable to assume that I'm not until shown otherwise.

• 
  Your complaint was not a general 'do we have rules about avatars'; it was 'is this member's avatar an example of an unacceptable image?'
  
  Before you spoke up, there was no (known) injury to any member. Now a member has been targeted and accused (by you).
  
  So there is now trouble where there was no (known) trouble before you spoke up. Yeah, that's kind of stirring up trouble.
  
  
  I see your point, but I wonder if PF is a better place for it having been made before its time.

 

[shoehorn]

Your complaint was not a general 'do we have rules about avatars'; it was 'is this member's avatar an example of an unacceptable image?'

That's clearly not true. If you go back and read the very first post in this thread, I give the image in question as an example of the broader point of whether there are rules governing avatars:

Is it acceptable to have such an image as an avatar here? Would it be similarly acceptable if I decided I want to have Ratko Mladić or Radovan Karadžić as avatar? Hitler? A swastika? A totenkopf?

The PF guidelines appear unclear about whether such images are acceptable. I think it would be a good idea to discuss whether a change to them is necessary.

I've said repeatedly in this thread that I'm not limiting this discussion to any particular image; rather it's a question about whether there are any general rules governing images used as avatars.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[DaveC426913]

That's clearly not true. If you go back and read the very first post in this thread, I give the image in question as an example of the broader point

No you didn't. You first made a specific accusation, then went on to ask if there were others like it that might fall under the same rules.

Recently I attempted to contact the moderators about a member's avatar, asking for clarification on whether it was acceptable to have a picture of Erwin Rommel for it. I've not heard anything in response, so I'll ask the question here.

Is it acceptable to have such an image as an avatar here?

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Because I read your opening post very carefully. Did you?

 

[shoehorn]

This has become ludicrous; I gave the image in question as an example and asked if there were rules in place that would (a) argue against it being used or (b) specify more generally as to what constitutes an acceptable avatar. How or why somebody would misinterpret these questions, or perhaps choose to misinterpret them, is beyond my ken.

Regardless, this has now veered wildly off the point. The original questions above stand; if a moderator or moderator could get around to answering them, or even telling me if PF has answers for them, I'd be grateful.

 

[Evo]

We do have guidelines on

Attachments & Links:
Images, material or links to images and or material whether real, satirical or implied depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic, violent, abusive, insulting, or threatening in nature are not permitted on this bulletin board. This includes Gifs or cartoons.

Also from the P&WA Guidelines,

Keep in mind we have an international membership at PF. ...remember that not all members are from the same country or even region of the world, thus tolerance of these external views is required.

The member was contaced and asked if they would replace their avatar and they kindly agreed with no hesitation or bad feelings.

Thread closed. Let's move along.

 

[George Jones]

This has become ludicrous; I gave the image in question as an example and asked if there were rules in place that would (a) argue against it being used or (b) specify more generally as to what constitutes an acceptable avatar. How or why somebody would misinterpret these questions, or perhaps choose to misinterpret them, is beyond my ken.

Regardless, this has now veered wildly off the point. The original questions above stand; if a moderator or moderator could get around to answering them, or even telling me if PF has answers for them, I'd be grateful.

My personal opinons:

Avatar images are covered by

Attachments & Links: Images, material or links to images and or material whether real, satirical or implied depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic, violent, abusive, insulting, or threatening in nature are not permitted on this bulletin board. This includes Gifs or cartoons.

Mentors have to make judgment calls on interpretation of this section of the rules, but Mentors also have to make judgment calls on stuff like acceptable language, non-mainstream theory, etc.

Member X reporting an avatar image as possibly offensive, even if X doesn't find the image offensive, is no different than X reporting possibly offensive language, even if X doesn't find the language offensive. Unless used recklessly, I see nothing wrong with this. It is then up to the Mentors to decide what action, if any, to take.

[edit]I see that Evo posted and locked the thread while I was thinking about what I wanted to say.[/edit]