On Avatars, Political and Otherwise
by Ziller on Sep 28, 2009 4:42 AM PDT
in Meta
75 comments
There was a bit of an annoying argument in a FanPost over the weekend. The writer of said FanPost has a politically charged avatar, and though the writer did not mention his politics in the FanPost, someone noted that the avatar was in bad taste, and things devolved from there. Once we reached the 90-10 noise-to-signal ratio, section214 kindly closed the thread to new comments.
This is annoying. I'm not going to police your avatars. No one here should be policing avatars. It's irrelevant. I honestly wish I could ban all avatars, so we could be judged solely on the content of our content. But alas, I cannot, so I will instead use my powers as a regional tastemaker to convince those with potentially offensive avatars (on both sides of the aisle) to change to something ... fluffier.
I hope this works, because Plan B is the complete destruction of life on Planet Earth by microwave rays, and I really don't feel up to that today.
0 recs |
75 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Has it really come to this?
We’re here to talk basketball people! What a waste of TZ’s time to have to break up a schoolyard kind of scrap.
by Rickyflip on Sep 28, 2009 5:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I noticed, yet declined comment
Is it maturity, or laziness?
Rocks are free, and slingshots easily stolen.
by andy sims on Sep 28, 2009 6:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Discretion?
Which is the better part of valor, so … it’s valor. All hail Sims!
by Ziller on Sep 28, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Plan B
but the politics need to stay off: we don’t care whether you are part of the left or right. This is a blog about the Kings and the NBA in general.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
by tomkanti on Sep 28, 2009 6:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Take away Joe?
Nooooooooooooo!!!
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 28, 2009 7:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Joe is fluffy
Are you implying that he is not?
by Ziller on Sep 28, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if you go back and reference Joe's "game,"
he constantly went to the right.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 28, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I missed the battle
i hope my avatar hasn’t been offending anyone……?
put me in, Coach
by LaBradford on Sep 28, 2009 8:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Me too
Glad I did. Somebody tried to drag me into it.
I try to only argue politics with Otis…but I haven’t let him bait me in a while ;-)
And in keeping with the spirit of Ziller’s post, I’m officially changing my avatar.
So, with that said, I’m getting excited about watching this young Kings team. I have a good feeling about this group and really believe Tyrkeke is going to be a difference maker very early on.
by Kusian on Sep 28, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
TY Kusian.
As a longtime poster, for setting an example.
While I don’t even think that getting into a political argument with someone sporting an avatar that depicts socialism as armed robbery, or current CAPITALIST presidents being flagged with the specter of cold war fears that the majority of our nation has long moved past, would really be fruitful in any fashion it’s important to note that these things do actually effect the way that people view your comments. I’ve long thought of mentioning this publicly anonymously (we are all avatars after all) but assumed that it was not worth the trouble or the time.
In reality I assume that both of these avatars, and others similar to them, are more for shock value than an actual critical investigation towards any of the issues they denote. Regardless they are statements, and while I disagree with eliminating them in this forum personally*, the web has long been the gathering place of trolls and we seem to have come to a communal—or social—conclusion that we hate trolls in this particular KINGS space.
*This perspective is based on the fact that all of our major league sports franchises and their relationships to their respective cities are deeply tied to and within politics. Else we forget the money that cities have presented to fund arenas via taxes, that Cal Expo is still state property, that Keven Johnson played ball, or that tax breaks have historically been provided to the same class of multimillionaires who have the ability to own these franchises. Sports is inherently political in our current age. Non-politics is a passive politics in alignment with the current political structure.
If yr not happy with the results, lower yr expectations.
by tokyo on Sep 28, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I appreciate that, Kusian...
… you know, I got slapped on the wrist by Ziller a long time ago over some remarks I made here about the previous President and the war in Iraq in relation to some stuff Jim Kozimor had said on the radio the previous night.
Ziller was right to reel me in on that, and ever since I’ve tried to keep my politics away from my Sactown comments. (I save that for political blogs). This is a basketball site, but more importantly I want to get along with everybody here and keep the arguments friendly. No sense in starting a fight over something totally irrelevant to the reason we hang out here.
You and I probably don’t agree on a whole lot in the political realm, Kusian, but I always like to see your comments around here, and I really appreciate that you switched out the old avatar (which frankly felt like a punch in the nose to me) in a totally classy and understanding way.
The new avatar is awesome, BTW!
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 28, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been cutting back on the fishing
But damn, you Kusians were always easy to catch!
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Sep 29, 2009 5:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guilty
I’ve scolded others for bringing politics here and swore I wouldn’t do it but . . . .
(weak defense)
Its been a long offseason
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Sep 28, 2009 9:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
actually, I wish I'd seen the fallout
I never did check back – it was a busy weekend.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Sep 28, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its still there actually
yeah, I wasn’t all that guilty.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Sep 28, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is my banana fluffy enough?
Does my banana offend anyone?
Is my banana too big?
Is my banana intimidating?
I could do this for days….
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Sep 28, 2009 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think
your banana is calling me fat. But that’s OK.
Sugar ... water .... and, of course, purple.
by what_the_crap on Sep 28, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ex G
I FIND YOUR BANANA OFFENSIVE1
But seriously though.
This argument should have never happened, I believe we are entitled to our opinions no matter if they are the right or the left or the centre (kudos if you get that movie reference).
Personally, I find myself aligned with Ziller, it is a shame that we allow something so small to be so divisive.
Smills wrote a solid piece, and the conversation denegrated into name calling and finger pointing. It’s a shame. We should have these discussions we should talk through our differences but not here.
This Blog represents so much more than some political statement.
It represents fans from across the world who follow a basketball team. This is a place we should come to to put aside our differences and any percieved slights to cheer for the Kings.
That being said… GO KINGS!
Blessings.Love.Peace
by lifestyleforthesellout on Sep 28, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would like him more
If he would look me in the eyes…
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Sep 29, 2009 5:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Is my banana fluffy enough'
Easily my favorite quote of the summer. It may have to be my signature for a while…
Wait....Why is everybody clapping? Everyone around me is clapping.... I guess I should be clapping too... GO LAKERS!!! I hate living in So Cal
by 27freethrows on Oct 1, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If there's
really a huge problem, we should all just change our avatars to a picture of Peaches … see how everyone likes it then.
Sugar ... water .... and, of course, purple.
by what_the_crap on Sep 28, 2009 11:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Does my avatar advocate Squirrilla Warfare?
Father of the "Natt this!" movement and Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order.
by Aykis16 on Sep 28, 2009 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think we should have whatever avatars we please
We live in America, where there’s freedom of speech. And yes, freedom of speech does, in fact, include the right to have a political avatar on an internet blog for the worst team in the NBA. Its stupid that this is even an issue. SMills can have whatever avatar he likes and if he chooses one comparing the Obama Administration to Communism, that’s fine. And guess what, I disagree with his political ideas. However, and let me stress this a little more, we live in AMERICA!!! It is his right to do so. Unless his avatar is something completely offensive and infringes on someone else’s rights, or supports doing so (oh sweet irony) then no one has the right to be offended.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Sep 28, 2009 12:09 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
buh.
this drives me mad. STR is not a government entity. If Ziller is stringently anti-banana, and wants to ban everyone with a banana avatar, he’s within his rights to do so. (Well, maybe not since this is an SBNation site, and they might have rules against that, but if it were a private blog he could)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
by Viliphied on Sep 28, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Understandable
But how popular are blogs/forums where moderators censor its users? I can think of another Kings site that does this. They no longer have my participation. Ziller lets us pretty much have free speech, but will ban trolls and people who say anything hateful. He only asks that we keep the comments fairly appropriate. The fact is, the avatar in question showed nothing that infringes upon anyone’s rights or was even remotely hateful. Yet someone had to take offense and make dumbass remarks that had nothing to do with the topic. It was childish
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Sep 28, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Im with V
As much as I disagree with Smills avatar, he didn’t make one comment (not one) about his politcal affiliation until others started harassing him for the avatar. I didn’t even realize what the picture was until others brought it up.
I’m not saying he (or she) is getting all the blame, but I thought it was unfair for a lot of people to jump on Smills when all he (or she) did was make a fanpost about the thing we are actually suppose to be arguing about: the Kings.
The future begins now...
by eduardo_m7 on Sep 28, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm about 95% in agreement
I just think that if Ziller wanted a blanket “no political avatars will be allowed on this site” policy, that’s within his rights. I think blogs and forums get in trouble when they start banning/deleting opinions that are A) relevant to the site (ex. if Ziller banned everyone who thinks the Kings are dumb for not drafting Rubio) or B) only on one side of the aisle (ex. anyone with a liberal avatar is banned).
I don’t see anything wrong with a blanket “no political discussion (including avatars)” policy, even though I might not personally favor it. (not that that’s what Ziller’s proposing anyways)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
by Viliphied on Sep 28, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd vfettke's comment
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
by tomkanti on Sep 28, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Avatar's
are statements, per se. It’s your little introductory symbol that says “this is me.. this is what I think”.
It’s naive to think that you can hold up a sign like that avatar, which associates the President of the United States with Communism and then assume everyone will just ignore it and not associate it with the written portion of a post or comment.
In fact, Smills clearly was looking to get attention by making a political statement via the avatar he chose. He got that attention.
What’s childish is not changing the avatar even though you’ve been warned by the moderator.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 29, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SB Nation
has a Terms of Use policy that restricts against the transmission of: “… any material that is abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable.”
FWIW…
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 29, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His avatar is none of those things
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Sep 29, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it certainly is.
The definition of defamation: “… tending to disgrace or lower public opinion of a person or to harm a person’s reputation.”
impugning that the President of the United States is a Communist is defamation, and that’s certainly how Smills intended it.
“Otherwise objectionable” is also applicable is this case because this is a basketball blog, not a political rally. Plenty of Smills fellow Sactown residents objected, as did the moderator. He ignored them, and was suspended.
If his avatar wasn’t widely viewed as objectionable we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 29, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No right to be offended?
Freedom of expression is based on people being offended. To some that avatar may meet your qualification as completely offensive. What then?
by MustangMBS on Sep 28, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The right to disagree and the right to be offended are two different things
Disagreeing is pretty self explanatory, but being offended makes it personal. I may disagree with Smills political views but I’ll never take it as a sleight against myself
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Sep 28, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
The above comment referenced no right to be offended. Splitting hairs here
by MustangMBS on Sep 28, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
And I stand by what I said. No one has the right to be offended. That’s not a right protected by the first amendment. Expressing a difference in opinion, however, is.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Sep 28, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I disagree
We all have the right to be offended. We all have the right to think and feel any way we want. We don’t have the right to act on that if it harms others, but we have the right to be offended. That is completely different in statement, but underlying and implicit, within the right to freedom of expression. The reason we have the right to freedom of expression is because we have a right to express just how offended we are by something. It is basically the same thing as far as I am concerned.
If you don’t have the right to be offended then somebody can take it away from you. Nobody can take away your right to think and feel however you so please.
by MustangMBS on Sep 28, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is
its not a right protected by the U.S. Constitution
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Sep 29, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is this all about "rights".
… what about just having a blog that’s fun to hang out at and where everybody can b.s. about the Kings? Isn’t THAT what we’re here for?
I mean, suppose I go around here with an avatar that’s designed to be really in-your-face and denigrates a race or a religion. On one hand, hey, I’m just exercising my 1st Amendment “rights”, but it’s definitely gonna cause other people to get up in my grill and reduce the comments to a series of non-basketball related insults and basically spread ugly vibes. Who the hell wants that?
Sure we all have rights, but there are some responsibilities that go along with that, if we want to function as a community.
We all tone it down at least a little bit and play nice in order to be a citizens of Sactown, and if somebody doesn’t want to do that, they definitely have the Right to start their own blog.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 28, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that would be a real bad idea.
and I rec your comment because it’s worth talking about.
Actually, vfettke, Sactown Royalty is an online community, one in which we’ve all agreed to abide by certain standards. Nobody can say or do whatever the hell they want to, (not even pookey!) and you’re aware of that, I’m sure.
You can’t go around dropping f-bombs, for example; and you can’t have an obscene avatar. Well, waving a defamatory political flag on a hoops site is in the same category, it’s a bit like shouting “fire” in a crowded blog.
And that’s the main point. This is Ziller’s blog, and he’s responsible for the content, as well as for making sure it runs smoothly and that we all get along. If somebody gets up on a soapbox with every post, wearing a big, bold sign that basically says “Hey, check out what MY political beliefs are!” then others will quite naturally take up the challenge and this blog will quickly devolve into factions and infighting.
Sure, this is America, and what’s great about that is that if you don’t want to abide by the very few and simple rules at this blog you’re perfectly free to go out and start your own.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 28, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's an avatar?
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Sep 28, 2009 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
the pictures some people have on the right of what they post. Mine is a frame from the comic I have linked in my sig.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
by Viliphied on Sep 28, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You fell into the "sarchasm".
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Sep 28, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
meh
I thought I might have, but then again, I’ve heard stupider questions asked.
And I think you were looking for this:
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
by Viliphied on Sep 28, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BAH! self-owned.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
by Viliphied on Sep 28, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As usual I am oblivious
and in this case, proud of it. Don’t know what the fuss is about but with all that goes in Daily Life, I come to this site to escape into a world of transparent reailty where I can comment and actually know ahead of time my words don’t mean anything. I like it that way and don’t want see this site degrade into just another blog site full of bluster and cause. How boring that would be.
The fact is – this is Ziller’s house and we are all guests – and his initials, TZ, can stand for The Zeus. When Zeus sees someone messing with Mt. Olympus, it is well within his discretion to hurl lightning bolts as he sees fit.
by betweentheeyes on Sep 28, 2009 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Not exactly
Fluffier… but a felt a change was in order.
Blessings.Love.Peace
by lifestyleforthesellout on Sep 28, 2009 2:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Double edged sword
If somebody can have a politically explosive avatar then other people can also call them out on it. It is freedom of expression and if you allow one then you have to allow both. Avatars and discussion of them.
I can see how some people would feel like that avatar is somebody having the ability to stick a thumb in your eye and you have to sit there and take it.
There are two things that you don’t discuss or mention to others you don’t know. It is politics and religion.
I would support a ban on both avatars and any posts related to those two topics, but you have to ban both. Otherwise, by allowing just avatars you are unfairly subjecting people to something they could find offensive without giving them a recourse.
by MustangMBS on Sep 28, 2009 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Just don't mention other people's avatar if your comment is hateful or if you are looking to start an argument.
If you won’t say it in their face, don’t post it on the Kings blog.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
by tomkanti on Sep 28, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't have to be hateful to call somebody on their avatar.
The point is that if they can put up a politically explosive avatar shouldn’t people have the right to speak out against it?
by MustangMBS on Sep 28, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why speak about politics on a Kings blog?
You are now starting the argument, which leads to hateful comments. Describe politically explosive too, but it doesn’t matter: this is a free country, where any view is aloowed, and should not be questined in a non political zone.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
by tomkanti on Sep 28, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting perspective
But isn’t a politically charged avatar in and of itself an effort by a poster to start an argument? And if they won’t say it to my face, don’t post it on the Kings blog right?
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Sep 29, 2009 5:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, because they could have the pic for any reason, not just political.
And yeah, i already said, if you won’t say it to someone’s face, don’t post it.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
by tomkanti on Sep 29, 2009 6:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you seen the avatar in question?
If you think that’s non-political, you’re nuts.
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Sep 29, 2009 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Otis is right. An avatar is the first way by which a poster represents himself on this blog. And in the case of Smills is waving a flashing pink and red sign that says: “Here’s my political opinion”.
That is by definition an argument-starter, and if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
You know an avatar is offensive when it offends people. He got the attention he wanted, he just didn’t think it would have any consequences.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 29, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
im not refering to Smills pic, im just saying a pic in general
if a pic obviosly points to a political act, then somethings wrong. but don’t bring up things that otherwise may affect how this blog is runned.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
by tomkanti on Sep 29, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, tom.
I mean, there are in theory other images that somebody could use as an avatar that would also be out of bounds, and I’m pretty sure the same thing would happen as in this case. A few people would see it and say “hey, man, that burning cross avatar is not cool. Dump it!”
But yeah, we should try to leave things as open and free wheeling as possible.
The fact that this is the first time that I can remember this kind of thing happening means that in general the site is working well.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Sep 29, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I turn off avatars.
by chri5 on Sep 28, 2009 6:48 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
As I told Smills
I’m searching for the NAMBLA logo to use as my Avatar.
free country, I have a right to be just as freakin’ sick insane as anyone.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Sep 28, 2009 7:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point
There are things that are beyond bad taste. Some are even borderline criminal. Smills is just really bad taste.
by MustangMBS on Sep 28, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ATTN: MustangMBS & Smills91
Time’s almost up, chuckleheads. Lose the avatars or lose your StR priveliges.
I’m not kidding about this. I’m checking the website tomorrow morning before I go to work. If the political avatars are not gone, you are.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 28, 2009 10:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"Chuckleheads"
Man, I love that word. “Sparky” is another one I use from time to time, but that’s really a singular term, so it wouldn’t apply here.
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Sep 29, 2009 5:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suddenly feel endeared to the term "Sparkies"
and chuckleheads for that matter
by BrooklynFan on Sep 29, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha!
I’m not going to police your avatars. No one here should be policing avatars.
by DustyG on Sep 29, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suggest that you go back an re-read the entire paragraph
Something about convincing those with potentially offensive avatars to choose something “fluffier.”
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 29, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So there’s no ‘policing’ going on, but there is ‘convincing’ with the threat of banishment?
I’m checking the website tomorrow morning before I go to work. If the political avatars are not gone, you are.
That sounds a lot like policing to me.
Now if you guys reserve to right to selectively enforce this stuff, that’s your perogative; just don’t claim to be acting consistently.
by DustyG on Sep 29, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd get into this with you,
but I don’t want to take you away from your job of picking the fly sh*t out of the pepper.
Have a nice day.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Sep 29, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right...
I’m being trivial about the totally legitimate Half-assed Crusade Against Avatars.
by DustyG on Sep 30, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, the poor oppressed Smills of the world
Good thing you’re around to right these terrible wrongs!
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Sep 30, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And good thing you are here
to stick up for section.
Beat it.
by DustyG on Sep 30, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good one
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Sep 30, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I brought up a valid point about the editors saying one thing and doing another about a pretty big issue around here. And for pointing that out I get told I’m trivial and dismissed rudely, by section and then you. From an editor and a regular contributor, I’d expect a little more civility.
I know the avatar issue is not fun to deal with…but don’t take it out on me when I’m arguing for a fair resolution.
by DustyG on Sep 30, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I guess I should have taken you seriously
When all you said initially to address the subject was “Ha!”
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Oct 2, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I missed all the fun
Personally, I don’t have a problem with any avatar, as long as it’s not considered offensive to children that might be reading the blog (nudity, etc.) But I understand the problems that come along with it – my guess is just about any discussion here is going to digress into political bickering. As always, we are lucky to have wise site owners and moderators to flesh out the policy here.
By the way, in the locked thread I noticed some comments on my old so-called “Obama” avatar. I will say this – that avatar was basketball related (the “Kings” logo photoshopped in front of Obama’s famous campaign symbol). It represented the hope that this abysmal Kings team would someday put on their big boy pants and become a force again in the Western Conference. Cheesy, I know, but hardly political.
So I got that going for me, which is nice.
What the hell is Brett Favre doing here?
by otis29 on Sep 29, 2009 5:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
