Flags in signatures/avatars

[Dragongirl]

If I had a vote, which I don't, I'd go with no flags. I'd perfer keeping the situation black and white instead of grey by only allowing certain pictures of flags.

I would have to agree with Crothian. Flags by their very nature represent a political entity. When you display one, you are saying you support what that flag represents, therefore it should not be allowed on a non-political site such as ENWorld. IMO

 

[Sixchan]

I would have to agree with Crothian. Flags by their very nature represent a political entity. When you display one, you are saying you support what that flag represents, therefore it should not be allowed on a non-political site such as ENWorld. IMO

Ah, well...umm...my flag is purely economic.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I don't have a problem with flags. What I do hate are these huge sigs that are popping up everywhere. I know I can turn them off but for the most part I like sigs - there are some that have given me good links to other sites - but sticking 20 lines of text 2 pictures into your sig is a little excessive. I think kingPaul had the single largest sig I have ever seen it took up about 1/3 of my 17" monitor screen.

 

[Umbran]

When you display one, you are saying you support what that flag represents, therefore it should not be allowed on a non-political site such as ENWorld. IMO

It is not as if "what the flag represents" is a simple, single, easily elucidatable list of things. The flag is a fairly vague symbol, and people will fly it for different reasons.

One of the reasons to allow flags is just that - it may make a statement, but that statement is rather ambiguous. It's pretty hard to give or take offense with something so general as the flag by itself.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

I don't have a problem with flags. What I do hate are these huge sigs that are popping up everywhere. I know I can turn them off but for the most part I like sigs - there are some that have given me good links to other sites - but sticking 20 lines of text 2 pictures into your sig is a little excessive. I think kingPaul had the single largest sig I have ever seen it took up about 1/3 of my 17" monitor screen.

Damn skippy. There should be a limit on sig sizes.

 

[Ravellion]

It is not as if "what the flag represents" is a simple, single, easily elucidatable list of things. The flag is a fairly vague symbol, and people will fly it for different reasons.

One of the reasons to allow flags is just that - it may make a statement, but that statement is rather ambiguous. It's pretty hard to give or take offense with something so general as the flag by itself.

Isn't the ambiguity the problem though? If I say "I support Chirac", that is a political message right? No, because I meant that I felt really sorry for the loss of his sons so many years ago, and which he still deals with on a daily basis (because of reasons not really worth discussing).

In this time however, saying "I support Chirac" would get pulled off the boards mighty fast now wouldn't it? So even though my meanings might be completely not political, the perception of the statements or the flags would generally be political.

Ah, it doesn't really matter. I'd rather see them go, but we live under a benevolent dictatorship here, not a democracy by referendum .

Rav

 

[Dragongirl]

I am sure I could have flags of defunct nations that would get the mods to ban them. Flags do represent a political idea, if not, then any national flag should be fair game.

 

[Psionicist]

I see no reasons to not allow flags in signatures. You cannot start a flame war over a signature. You can in a thread about religion and politics though, that's why those two subjects aren't allowed here.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't the ambiguity the problem though?

*shrug* In most cases, I don't believe so. The problem isn't the ambiguity, but instead about how strongly some folks feel about one of those ambiguous choices.

One can start a flame war with a sig. All it requires is that the sig be inflamatory enough to cause someone to reply about it, rather than the content of the post.

In the end, I think it's pretty simple - the board policies do not seem to me to really be designed to make the boards completely apolitical. They are designed to keep the peace. Most basic flag images are not enough to break the peace, so they are allowable.

Given that, Dragongirl's assertion that all possible flags should be allowed doesn't hold up, I'm sorry to say. Around here, not all words are created equal - you know very well that if you say some of them, you'll get censored. So there is no double-standard or hypocricy in saying that there are some flags that also will get censored as well.

What Psionicist says is not wholly true. You can start a flamewar with a sig. All it requires is that sig be inflammatory enough to make people angrily comment about it, rather than the content of your post. Most basic flags won't do that, even in these times. Some, however, manage it no matter the state of current events.

Anyhow, that's how it seems to me.

 

[Olive]

personally, i'm not to worried about the flags, but i do think that there is a slight unfairness in the way it's being implememnted.

for example, one can show an american flag, showing support for what america's doing etc. one can't, for good reasons, show a burning american flag.

one can show an iraqi flag. the problem is that showing an iraqi flag doesn't really sum up the beliefs opf those who would like to ssow a falg different from the american one. i can't think of a flag that does demonstrate those beliefs.

what this does, effectively, is allow simple political ideas to be demonstrated, while silincing more complex and neuanced ones.

while i wouldn't be putting a flag on my sig anyway, i just thought i'd point out the reason that this isn't a particularly fair and equal compromise.