How considerate should we be when we choose a screen name... and in general?

[Illiniguy]

I don't know? I have read all 38 pages with great interest......but I still love cheese......of all kinds but I am sure that offends someone

 

[thebiggerthebetter]

I feel like you miss the point I made and what I believe others are trying to point out. So I'll try approaching it from another way.

You point out how your name is a reflection on your taste in fish and fish tanks. And use the fact that we are on a aquarist forum seemingly implying as though it should be a logical conclusion yet you won't give MFK and it's logo the same kind of leeway.

There's no need for a poll on how your name might be construed because there is testimony here that it could be seen in multiple ways. Sumo interpreted it one way and even you knew it maybe interpreted another way as is stated in your response to Sumo. One I can attest to, regrettably which also testifies to my immaturity at times; initially interpreting as it being a phallic reference. Which I believe is the very interpretation you thought it maybe taken that you where referencing in your response as dirty/ silly.

You say MFK's logo is a company statement and is why you view it differently then your username. But isn't a username a statement? A person chooses it, and there are definite reasons for their choice. Such as how they want to be perceived. Isn't that the same kind of statement you're saying MFK's Logo is?

You also seem to believe CheeseZ username is a statement. So why does he bear the same responsibility you feel MFK does? But you seem to feel that you don't? At very least to the same degree as MFK which is the same level you're trying to apply to CheeseZ. While you feel your username is trivial. At least it's origin. This is despite the fact that you have become a well known member and may be seen as a role model. At least that's what one may construe from what you've posted thus far.

Who decides when and where such a responsibility begins and ends? When are people responsible for themselves and their own interpretations despite the intention of the poster or site?

While I see your thoughts and agree with most of them, I'd like to simplify and focus the debate as it's getting too complex and diffuse IMHO.

All I am saying is that MFK logo and personal avatars and personal screen names are public statements (just like the words we type up). There are rules for behavior in public, accepted in the society at large. The statements made in public should not contain derogatory remarks or insinuations, not to mention open and earnest insults, based on other people's faith, race, skin color, gender, age, etc., you know, the standard list.

If it is deemed that they do contain an offense or a veiled offense or a possible offense, the staff can act or the members can petition the staff to act.

[1] No one is bothered by the MFK logo but me out of this crowd so far. I am nobody and, moreover, I reckon this is Neo's almost personal site and project that we all, myself included, should feel privileged and lucky to have and to hold and be thankful for what we have and not hung up on what we don't have. So I choose to ignore the logo and that's that. Even though Neo is not following his own TOS (in my humble and worthless opinion), this is Neo's call, not mine.

[2] The screen name of the member in the OP question does not bother anyone but me plus perhaps one more member. I hold an opinion that if an avatar or a screen name CAN be more or less readily interpreted as being against the aforementioned societal rules, TOS, and T&C, the member should be asked to change it / edit it. You all convinced me this screen name is far from being readily interpreted as breaking the rule. Fine. Thank you.

[3] If my screen name CAN be more or less readily interpreted as being against the aforementioned societal rules, TOS, and T&C, I will be more than happy to change it. I don't consider myself exempt from this rule.

*************************************************************

In sum, when people break these rules with their words, their posts and threads get deleted. A similar approach should be applied to logos, avatars, and screen names.

 

[koltsixx]

*************************************************************
In sum, when people break these rules with their words, their posts and threads get deleted. A similar approach should be applied to logos, avatars, and screen names.

As I stated before it is against the TOS to have an avatar, logo or screen name that is offensive. The same as it is with posts. However just as with posts everything is subject to those interpreting it.

Now you have created a public thread where you polled the membership. And despite seeing that both religious and non religious members don't necessarily interpret the name in question or Logo the same as you. You still view the Logo and username as violating TOS and that MFK is hypocritical. So your stand is that if one person interprets anything posted as offensive and MFK doesn't delete and punish the poster then MFK is not following it's own rules.

I'm sorry but I don't find that fair. Not just because to expect a whole community to be subject to the whims of any one person at anytime is incongruous but also because it's fallacious to think that any rule is without exception or subject to interpretation.

 

[Grinch]

All I am saying is that MFK logo and personal avatars and personal screen names are public statements (just like the words we type up). There are rules for behavior in public, accepted in the society at large. The statements made in public should not contain derogatory remarks or insinuations, not to mention open and earnest insults, based on other people's faith, race, skin color, gender, age, etc., you know, the standard list.

The problem here is that words strung together in a statement show intent; the statement we make with our avatar and handle are much more vague and open to interpretation. So policing vague and possibly offensive images/names becomes an impossible task and a judgment call that goes both ways. What if I used the image below as my avatar... who is to be the judge of what I'm trying to communicate?

Is this the astrological symbol for Pisces? Or a deconstructed jesus-fish (Ichthyes)? It's both. Or maybe it's neither.

What is my meaning? Is it social commentary on how astrology is the one true science, a critique of organized religion, or proof I like fish?

And who is to decide? And how many more question marks can I use before J jaws7777 head explodes?

 

[jaws7777]

The problem here is that words strung together in a statement show intent; the statement we make with our avatar and handle are much more vague and open to interpretation. So policing vague and possibly offensive images/names becomes an impossible task and a judgment call that goes both ways. What if I used the image below as my avatar... who is to be the judge of what I'm trying to communicate?

Is this the astrological symbol for Pisces? Or a deconstructed jesus-fish (Ichthyes)? It's both. Or maybe it's neither.

What is my meaning? Is it social commentary on how astrology is the one true science, a critique of organized religion, or proof I like fish?

And who is to decide? And how many more question marks can I use before J jaws7777 head explodes?

Im not sure where i exploded but would definitely appreciate you pointing out exctly what posts your referencing. Could be that im usually in a rush to complete any given post inbetween breaks oooooor that me being a simple minded person coupled with your high intelligence and superior world view is creating some communication issues.

Your obsession with me is interesting. I see that blue line is really getting under your skin...must say i do enjoy that though

 

[Hendre]

I have a snake for my profile? am I an evil worshiper now?

 

[xraycer]

I have a snake for my profile? am I an evil worshiper now?

That's voodoo.......you're banished....be gone with you pagan!

 

[Grinch]

Aaahh when we have nothing we reach haha its ok you tried ur best

Grinch my turn to ask some questions.... why would a guy who talks about his bichirs being in gangs and committing crimes find a fractured skull as a violent threat ?
Why post a pic of the rainbow fish and equate that to Christianity while not attributing a similar symbol inregards to other religions that are actually extremely harsh on gsy/lesbians ? Mhhh would that not be politically correct to do so ?

You post the rainbow pic...not me that wanted the debate

Smh i see i see. Easier to ask than to answer.

Im not sure where i exploded but would definitely appreciate you pointing out exctly what posts your referencing. Could be that im usually in a rush to complete any given post inbetween breaks oooooor that me being a simple minded person coupled with your high intelligence and superior world view is creating some communication issues.

Your obsession with me is interesting. I see that blue line is really getting under your skin...must say i do enjoy that though

I'm engaging in the debate that is the subject of this thread by posting material that is thought provoking... images that are for one person inoffensive but may be offensive to others... intentionally blurring the lines in an attempt to provoke thought.

You have an avatar that is easily interpreted as offensive and most certainly blurs the lines. Your avatar is offensive to some people, whether you want to admit it is offensive to some or care whether it's offensive to some doesn't really matter to me, but I do think that your disregard and attempts to move the discussion toward a battle of one-upsmanship is distracting. In that vein, you, as an example (and the thin blue line issue), are merely a means to an end in this case, but since it's obviously making you uncomfortable, I will stop drawing attention to your use of this symbol as an example.

I really only meant my last comment as a playful jab at our little discussion ten pages ago, excerpts of which are above, but you're clearly not in the mood for playful jabbing on such as raw subject as the choice of your avatar and our previous interactions regarding such.

 

[jaws7777]

You consider thst exploding ? Um ok. I dont knlw you well but i get the fealing your pretty thin skinned and take any rebutle to your comments as "exploding"

You seem to be only one that finds my avatar offensive. Not that it matters if their are others, and ypur certainly entitled to your opinion wether i disagree or not.

As for me trying to distract the convo...didnt you tag me ?

 

[jaws7777]

And Grinch i have no issues with your opinion but have an issue with hypocrites. thebiggerthebetter is absolutely entitled to his opinion and from what i can tell practices what he preaches.

You on the other hand took notice of a cracked skull and equated it to a violent threat which to me seems like a reach at best. Im thinking its the support for law enforcement thats getting to you. Needless to say your bothered by such things while routinely updating a thread where you depict your bichirs as a gang and though meant to be commical reference them as mobsters while performing immaginary violent acts.

So why is that not offensive but my avatar is ? Hypocrisy maybe