04 Jun 09
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYes, she dealt with it.
She did deal with it....that's why #1 is cribbing.
She did the only thing she could think of in the situation. It was FAIL, because she was ignorant of the image symbolism, which she already admitted.
The Site Admins tried to act quickly, but without the correct context. I think they should have spoken to Sushill, as they usually do in these situations. They veered off their normal procedural path and it led to a big argument which left egg on the admin's faces, Red Night and his cronies and even you, to a degree.
04 Jun 09
Originally posted by CrowleyThat's your opinion, and it sucks IMHO.
Yes, she dealt with it.
She did the only thing she could think of in the situation. It was FAIL, because she was ignorant of the image symbolism, which she already admitted.
The Site Admins tried to act quickly, but without the correct context. I think they should have spoken to Sushill, as they usually do in these situations. They veered off their n ...[text shortened]... ument which left egg on the admin's faces, Red Night and his cronies and even you, to a degree.
04 Jun 09
Originally posted by CrowleyBecause I didn't know who or what the image was, it makes me ignorant does it? That would be yours and certain others opinion. NOT MINE.
Yes, she dealt with it.
She did the only thing she could think of in the situation. It was FAIL, because she was ignorant of the image symbolism, which she already admitted.
The Site Admins tried to act quickly, but without the correct context. I think they should have spoken to Sushill, as they usually do in these situations. They veered off their n ...[text shortened]... ument which left egg on the admin's faces, Red Night and his cronies and even you, to a degree.
You and your cronies, have certainly taken out of context of what I said.
04 Jun 09
Originally posted by CrowleyYou can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Yes, she dealt with it.
She did the only thing she could think of in the situation. It was FAIL, because she was ignorant of the image symbolism, which she already admitted.
The Site Admins tried to act quickly, but without the correct context. I think they should have spoken to Sushill, as they usually do in these situations. They veered off their n ...[text shortened]... ument which left egg on the admin's faces, Red Night and his cronies and even you, to a degree.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sorry that you feel this way. It is to your own discredit if you believe that we take decisions based on the requests of "tiny, irrational and shrieking" minorities - indeed it does appear to me that these words currently apply to your own position.
This is the same logic used for Robomod's rule that a small number of alerts gets a post removed. It is very disappointing that this site continues to let a very few hypersensitive people dictate what is suitable on the Forum. The fact that you don't even find the avatar "racist" yet still removed it just to mollify a tiny, irrational, shrieking minority is to your discredit.
I'm sure there are many sites where the decisions of the administrators align perfectly with own opinions.
It was perfectly reasonable to request that this avatar be removed. It is very difficult to debate when people find it difficult to step back and consider very much at all outside of their own immovable opinions but if ever you do want to have a sensible discussion without shrieking, let me know and I'll happily explain our position.
04 Jun 09
Originally posted by Elamef37Ignorance can be proven or disproven thus it is not something that is based on opinions.
Because I didn't know who or what the image was, it makes me ignorant does it? That would be yours and certain others opinion. NOT MINE.
You and your cronies, have certainly taken out of context of what I said.
I have also stated many times that being ignorant isn't necessarily a bad thing. Everybody is ignorant since we all lack knowledge about something. But when we act in ignorance (without the facts) that is, in most cases, to be frowned upon.
In this case your ignorance caused you emotional pain that is very hard not to act upon. You were well within your rights to alert the avatar but this doesn't change the fact that you acted in ignorance and it doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, the avatar shouldn't have been removed without further inquiry.
04 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232This avatar was removed because of the image itself - no further enquiry was necessary. If there had to be an enquiry about whether or not it was inappropriate, this in itself is enough to remove the avatar - not every user of this site has time to look at an avatar and then go and do some research to decide if they are disturbed by it or not, and this is exactly why we removed it.
In this case your ignorance caused you emotional pain that is very hard not to act upon. You were well within your rights to alert the avatar but this doesn't change the fact that you acted in ignorance and it doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, the avatar shouldn't have been removed without further inquiry.
04 Jun 09
Originally posted by tomtom232Yes, I have stated that to Sushill, in a Thread I posted. I understand what you are saying. I have publicly and privately stated this fact.
Ignorance can be proven or disproven thus it is not something that is based on opinions.
I have also stated many times that being ignorant isn't necessarily a bad thing. Everybody is ignorant since we all lack knowledge about something. But when we act in ignorance (without the facts) that is, in most cases, to be frowned upon.
In this case your ign ...[text shortened]... he fact that, in my opinion, the avatar shouldn't have been removed without further inquiry.