Political avatars

[G5isAlive]

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.

This. A political avatar IS a political message, albeit graphical versus written. MR does not allow political content outside of PSIR, why is it allowed in avatars? That's a rhetorical question, not meaning to be confrontational. In the absence of a rule it is not fair to ask moderators to decide (i.e. report it as has been suggested).

I realize this is not a democracy (that's not mean to be a political statement), but I would wager if membership was allowed to vote (maybe a poll?) they would vote no to political avatars. I know political avatars diminishes my MR experience. I come here to get away from the noise, not be confronted with it.

Don't forget, the Mac started out as the premier graphics computer for the masses. let's not eschew graphics as a message.

 

[maflynn]

why is it allowed in avatars?

Just as a clarification point, members can have avatars that are political and signatures as well.

 

[C DM]

Just as a clarification point, members can have avatars that are political and signatures as well.

It would definitely be great if similar to signatures there was a way to disable avatars from being displayed, if one chooses to do so.

 

[annk]

This. A political avatar IS a political message, albeit graphical versus written. MR does not allow political content outside of PSIR, why is it allowed in avatars? That's a rhetorical question, not meaning to be confrontational. In the absence of a rule it is not fair to ask moderators to decide (i.e. report it as has been suggested).

I realize this is not a democracy (that's not mean to be a political statement), but I would wager if membership was allowed to vote (maybe a poll?) they would vote no to political avatars. I know political avatars diminishes my MR experience. I come here to get away from the noise, not be confronted with it.

Don't forget, the Mac started out as the premier graphics computer for the masses. let's not eschew graphics as a message.

The reason for allowing political avatars is that avatars are one of the few ways a user can express who s/he is. We feel that this is a good balance between not allowing poltical content outside of PRSI and Political News and allowing personal expression.

If however a user brings attention to a political avatar outside of PRSI with post content, that wouldn't be allowed.

I agree that it's a trade off. It's one we've chosen to make.

 

[G5isAlive]

The reason for allowing political avatars is that avatars are one of the few ways a user can express who s/he is. We feel that this is a good balance between not allowing poltical content outside of PRSI and Political News and allowing personal expression.

If however a user brings attention to a political avatar outside of PRSI with post content, that wouldn't be allowed.

I agree that it's a trade off. It's one we've chosen to make.

It's a very arbitrary line to restrict one means of communication but not another on the exact. same. topic.

There are plenty of other aspects of one's personality that can be expressed by graphics.

 

[D.T.]

It would definitely be great if similar to signatures there was a way to disable avatars from being displayed, if one chooses to do so.

Your letter 'C' is definitely off putting, my faith only rekognizes 25 letters ...

 

[the8thark]

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.

That's some of the best advice I've seen in a long time. Well said Sir.
I've also had good Apple product discussions on MR with people who are on the polar opposite to me on the political spectrum. It's the main reason why I'm still a member of MR.

 

[annk]

It's a very arbitrary line to restrict one means of communication but not another on the exact. same. topic.

There are plenty of other aspects of one's personality that can be expressed by graphics.

Not so arbitrary if you consider the contexts. One is a matter of (often extensive) discussion, and in this case no one is being restricted - in fact we offer a forum section for exactly this type of discussion, just as we do for the various Apple products, special interests, etc. The other is a matter of creating an online identity via an avatar. We consider it a balance.

 

[jerwin]

Arbitrariness is the measure of power.

 

[sdsvtdriver]

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.

Thanks for pointing this out. I come here to read about Apple things, not engage in politics. I appreciate the ability hide signatures from those that feel their identity is tied to a political party so tightly that they must espouse it everywhere regardless of the appropriateness of doing so.

I also support any rule that disallows avatars along the same concept up to moderator's discretion. This isn't the place for that.

 

[Hirakata]

Just as a clarification point, members can have avatars that are political and signatures as well.

"Avatar and signature content. Avatars and signatures, as well as other profile fields, must comply with all forum rules, including those against profanity, explicit sexual content, insults against groups or individuals..."

So just to understand, are you saying insults against political figures are okay via avatars, and that the above rule is referring to MR members? Meaning you cannot have an avatar or signature that is a personal insult to a MR member?

I'm just trying to clarify.

 

[annk]

"Avatar and signature content. Avatars and signatures, as well as other profile fields, must comply with all forum rules, including those against profanity, explicit sexual content, insults against groups or individuals..."

So just to understand, are you saying insults against political figures are okay via avatars, and that the above rule is referring to MR members? Meaning you cannot have an avatar or signature that is a personal insult to a MR member?

I'm just trying to clarify.

The only insults that are not allowed are insults against other forum users. It's always been allowed to make negative comments about public figures, as long as they don't venture into hate speech, racism, misogyny, etc.

If we become aware of an avatar that is a clear personal insult directed at another forum user, it will be moderated.