Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Political avatars
- Thread starter Wando64
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've seen several political avatars on the forums for quite some time, so I'm pretty sure it's allowed. 
I've seen several political avatars on the forums for quite some time, so I'm pretty sure it's allowed.
Looking forward to a response from a mod, because they shouldn’t be allowed.
Where do you draw the line? Would a swastika cause a reaction?
I do find it interesting that political posts are not allowed PSRI, but overtly political avatars are Ok. Not sure what the distinction is there.
Yes we do in general allow political avatars and signatures. The relevant rule is quoted below.
If you see an avatar you think may violate this rule, you can report it for review by clicking the report button in the member's profile, or you can just report one of the member's posts and make the request.
Thanks for your reply.
Indeed some of these avatars are particularly annoying to me, but I guess it is all a matter of point of view as with all political statements.
As @QCassidy352 states above, it does seem strange that political party postings are not allowed in the general forums, yet clear and open political party statements/slogans are allowed via avatar images.
I find the same thing strange. I would assume that if avatars must "comply with all forum rules", then that would apply to political content not being appropriate outside PRSI, right?
Signatures might be a harder line to draw-- for example, is any given quotation philosophical or political? I'd have to dig through the settings to confirm, but I think we've got an option to turn off viewing of signatures broadly though if we'd like. Avatars, however, are a useful reminder of who you're talking to and turning them off can make following threads of conversation more challenging.
I am more concerned about party politics.
Almost everything is political to some degree, but I don’t think it is appropriate to directly reference parties and candidates, and/or refer to recognised slogans associated to any such party/candidate.
This is particularly questionable as we are approaching an election.
I find it useful as it allows me to expand my Ignore list.
Which, in a way, is kinda sad. There’s folk here who I know have a radically different political viewpoint than I do but yet we’ve had good conversations outside of PRSI despite knowing their political leaning.
Perhaps we need to start looking beyond politics and remember that behind the avatars are real people, politics be damned.
I do recall there used to be an option to turn off avatars in the previous software that was used by the forums. At times it kind of made reading posts a little less distracting.
I agree, in principle, which is why I’d kind of like to be able to discuss one topic with them without being battered by their opinion on another one.
Coming from a culture that reads left to right, the avatar is the first thing I see in every response. That means every response in every interaction essentially starts with either “remember I have built my entire public persona around voicing dangerous views on topics you consider important” or “remember I think you have dangerous views on topics I think are so important I formed my entire public persona around them.”
With the number of people presenting political avatars, scrolling through a thread becomes a crowd of people shouting out their political views over top of the topic at hand.
It’s different than having a conversation on one topic, and then having a different conversation on another topic, where it’s easier to set aside any animosity from the previous exchange.
IRL, if someone mentioned their political viewpoint multiple times in conversations that had nothing to do with politics, I’d generally avoid them as being too obsessed to discuss anything else of meaning. Although the effect here is largely the same, I don’t think the intent is— an avatar is created once and then forever repeated without the user necessarily intending to. It would be a shame to just start ignoring those people.
Last edited:
Do you have some examples? I haven't encountered any. PM me if you're not comfortable posting them here
My point is that there’s no bright line between party politics, political views, and philosophy. If we’re going to allow avatars and signatures that express a philosophy, how do you draw the line? Is this a “know it when they see it” call?
Yeah, but as I said, avatars are people’s faces in these discussions— it’s a lot easier to remember who you’re talking to than trying to remember usernames.
Please don't use this thread to call out members over their avatars. Just use the report feature. Thanks
It can be useful for something like that, but I guess ultimately comes down to preference. Having that option that used to be there was something useful for those who might not really care for avatars.
Users can choose whether or not to "Show people's signatures with their messages" in their settings. The availability of this option is one reason that we give users the freedom to express political opinions of this type in signatures.
Any idea if something similar exists and can be added for avatars? It used to be an option in the older forum software, but seems like it hasn't been available since the switch to the newer one.
Any political party out there that would like to buy my avatar real estate?
... I am joking of course, but then again, anyone advertising a political party has something to gain from doing so (or so they think)
... I am joking of course, but then again, anyone advertising a political party has something to gain from doing so (or so they think)
This post makes too much sense and has been reported. Please do better in the future, thank you.
This post makes too much sense and has been reported. Please do better in the future, thank you.
Ah, my bad. Would it help if I just flat out insulted you instead, BasicSoSoGuy?
