# Offensive Avatars



## Nine (Sep 7, 2008)

What can be done to remove these?

When I visit the site, I do not plan on being offended. However, some people have avatars with extremely offensive and disgusting content in them. An example includes realistic death and cruelty.

So how do I set it so I do not have to look at these? It is not like the gallery images where they are clearly labeled adult, avatars are forced upon users.

And what is the official stance on avatar content? Front page posts and the site's policies differ. I have seen statements on the front page about keeping avatars clean/PG-13, but the staff on the forum assure me that it is not so and that people may freely upload glorifications of murder/torture.

Edit:

I was told by a staff member that: "The rules require avatars to be PG-13"

I checked the site that created the 'PG-13' rating and it states this: "There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13... , but generally not both realistic and extreme... violence."


----------



## Hanazawa (Sep 7, 2008)

The image you are talking about is a painting, and not a photograph, of an animal that appears to be deceased. A photograph would be against the rules.

The image you are talking about is not violent. It is an animal, in one piece, with all parts in place, with no visible blood or injuries. I understand that the image in question is not depicting a sleeping animal, but it has roughly the same level of violence as a dog sleeping with a leash on.

That being said, depending on your web browser, you may be able to install an adblocker or similar add-on such as RemoveItPermanently that will allow you to hide such an avatar from your view while using your home browser.


----------



## dave hyena (Sep 7, 2008)

Nine said:


> So how do I set it so I do not have to look at these?



If you go here:

http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/site-settings/

you can turn off avatars. Then you will just see the default paintpot one for everyone.


----------



## Nine (Sep 7, 2008)

> The image you are talking about is a painting, and not a photograph, of an animal that appears to be deceased.


 
Point being? It is done realisticly, as if done by a real model. It is still offensive.



> The image you are talking about is not violent. It is an animal, in one piece, with all parts in place, with no visible blood or injuries.


 
The image does show violence and clearly shows injuries. The animal is dead, the corpse is tied to a wall, it is in a state that presents it as being killed, its legs are malformed, and its bones appear broken.



> I understand that the image in question is not depicting a sleeping animal, but it has roughly the same level of violence as a dog sleeping with a leash on.


 
A hung animal shows the same amount of violence I would see from an image of an innocent person being lynced.



> That being said, depending on your web browser, you may be able to install an adblocker or similar add-on such as RemoveItPermanently that will allow you to hide such an avatar from your view while using your home browser.


 
I am asking that the site does not force me to stare at animal cruelty, I am not complaining about all avatars. This is clearly offensive and it is just put there to cause issues. This is not suitable for a public avatar.

The rules should tend to both the uploaders and the viewers.

Edit: I want to view all the normal avatars. I just do not want to view this specific one or others like it that are as offensive.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 7, 2008)

Nine said:


> ...This is clearly offensive and it is just put there to cause issues. This is not suitable for a public avatar.


It is already stated that avatars must be acceptable for all visitors, e.g. not exceeding PG-13 level content.  If you consider a user avatar in violation of that limit them you may report it as a violation.


----------



## Hanazawa (Sep 7, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> It is already stated that avatars must be acceptable for all visitors, e.g. not exceeding PG-13 level content.  If you consider a user avatar in violation of that limit them you may report it as a violation.



Nine did, and we found the avatar to be non-offensive and said if they wanted general discussion of the topic to bring it up here. However, they have yet to present any evidence that we're not enforcing the rule about PG-13 avatars _except_ in the case of this one we've already deemed "OK".


----------



## Surgat (Sep 7, 2008)

Nine said:


> What can be done to remove these?
> 
> When I visit the site, I do not plan on being offended. However, some people have avatars with extremely offensive and disgusting content in them. An example includes realistic death and cruelty.
> 
> So how do I set it so I do not have to look at these? It is not like the gallery images where they are clearly labeled adult, avatars are forced upon users.



http://adblockplus.org/en/


----------



## wheeliemachine (Sep 7, 2008)

Here's a suggestion for you: GROW A PAIR.

Seriously.  Animals die all the time.  If you drove down a major highway in a rural area, you'd probably have a fit if you saw all the roadkill.  I don't pull over next to a dead raccoon, jump out of the car, and run around in circles shouting OH THE HUMANITY SOMEONE TAKE IT AWAY POOR DEATH-STRICKEN CREATURE.  I don't think about what method of torture I'd use on the sick, cruel bastard who accidentally hit the raccoon with his car. I just look at it for half a second, say, "hmmmm", and get my mind back on driving. 

Like I said, animals die.  It's a part of life, if you could call it that.  Unless you're planning on hopping into an isolation chamber for the remainder of your life, you should probably get used to that fact, lest you set yourself up to be offended way more than is necessary.


----------



## Makyui (Sep 8, 2008)

Just one (honest) question...

Do you get this worked up over public displays of ground beef in the grocery store aisles, too?

'Cause that's a great deal more bloody and gory than the stuff you're complaining about.

EDIT: Just a note, the fox is indeed intact in the picture. The legs aren't "malformed" and nothing appears broken. Perhaps we're not looking at the same image, but I find that doubtful.


----------



## starlightcorvina (Sep 8, 2008)

Nine said:


> Edit: I want to view all the normal avatars. I just do not want to view this specific one or others like it that are as offensive.



Adblock them.


----------



## Magica (Sep 8, 2008)

You can disable avatars in your control panel: http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/site-settings/

Or as everyone else said: Adblock them.


----------



## Nine (Sep 8, 2008)

Okay, here is a comparison.

Pornography is banned, as is nudity, in avatars. Both of these are "natural", just as death is, correct? All of these can be presented in a non-vulgar way, too. However, why are the first two banned and not the third? To my knowlodge, nudity and pornography are banned in avatars because it is gross to some people, offends some people, and it should not be shown to children. What I am complaining about fits this exactly.

As I have already said, I do not want to download third party programmes. I also do not want to disable all the avatars.

Wheeliemachine: no more joke posts. I will not reply to any of them.

Makyui: what does packaged, processed beef have to do with offensive avatars on FurAffinity? My post is not debating such a thing, it is about avatar content on a specific webpage.


----------



## Makyui (Sep 8, 2008)

Nine said:


> Makyui: what does packaged, processed beef have to do with offensive avatars on FurAffinity? My post is not debating such a thing, it is about avatar content on a specific webpage.



Your beef (if you'll pardon the pun) seems to be about dead animals in public view being damaging to children and offensive [to you], so I was curious.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure "tasteful" nudity doesn't necessarily exceed the PG-13 rating (there are plenty of tail-swinging butt-shot avatars around, anyway)*. Nor do dead foxes.

It says "gore" in the AUP. Not "death".

*But I could easily be wrong, so don't take my word as law, obviously.


----------



## Nine (Sep 8, 2008)

Butt cheeks are not nudity. Showing the anus would be. Go to any beach and you will likely see women's butt cheeks.

It also says "adult content", along side gore and nudity.


----------



## 2ndVenus (Sep 8, 2008)

I too have been in very close trouble for some avatars, some users challenge the limits over and over having just had thier previous one removed.
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/shuu has always challenged the avatar rules.

The reason i keep getting in trouble is because of these kind of avatars with semen over the faces or worse, no people my teachers arent going to think thats milk or otherwise, we know what it is.


----------



## Makyui (Sep 8, 2008)

Nine said:


> It also says "adult content", along side gore and nudity.



And, obviously, a painting of a dead critter isn't considered adult content.

Mufasa's death was not only blatantly obvious, but _on-screen_. Is _The Lion King_ an R-rated movie? Nope. It's G-rated in the US -- the lowest MPAA rating. That avatar is no more violent, gory, or "adult" than Mufasa's on-screen death.

_The Land Before Time_, another G-rated movie, has not only the on-screen death of Littlefoot's mother, but the battle with the T-Rex that led to her death, including brief incidents of blood. Arguably, her death was_ more_ violent (slightly) than that avatar.

Another Bluth film, _The Secret of Nimh_, has multiple deaths, including two (three, if you count Nicodemus) that occur onscreen. A rat is stabbed in the back AND the stomach, another is crushed to death, and blood is shown briefly multiple times. And yet it still only got a G rating. The avatar is nowhere near as violent or gory.

Death isn't automatically adult content.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 8, 2008)

Makyui said:


> (there are plenty of tail-swinging butt-shot avatars around, anyway)*.


I remember complaining about that in the past myself... not the tail-swinging avatar meme but the butt-shot one (butt-meme?).  FA policy may state that the site is intended for 13-year-olds and up, but ultimately this is not mentioned (much less given even a token of enforcement) for the viewer end.  FA is not an age-restricted site, potentially any age could be viewing; that is why there is the rating system and not-to-exceed-PG13 rule on avatars.


----------



## Kyra (Sep 8, 2008)

> And, obviously, a painting of a dead critter isn't considered adult content.


still aint great to see it every time you browse a thread though


----------



## Nine (Sep 8, 2008)

Makyui said:


> And, obviously, a painting of a dead critter isn't considered adult content.
> 
> Mufasa's death was not only blatantly obvious, but _on-screen_. Is _The Lion King_ an R-rated movie? Nope. It's G-rated in the US -- the lowest MPAA rating. That avatar is no more violent, gory, or "adult" than Mufasa's on-screen death.
> 
> ...


 
I am not talking about Disney movies for kids. Remember my thread is not some sort of debate. This is not 'clean' content in the avatar, nor is the semen covered little boy someone else posted either. There is clearly a problem here with avatars.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Sep 8, 2008)

Why are you so bent on getting that one avatar removed?
My guess is that you hate the person.
ADBLOCK


----------



## Nine (Sep 8, 2008)

It was the only avatar I saw like it. The only other comparable one is the other one posted here by 2ndVenus.

The vast majority of the users on FurAffinity have good or acceptable avatars.


----------



## wheeliemachine (Sep 8, 2008)

Nine said:


> Okay, here is a comparison.
> 
> Pornography is banned, as is nudity, in avatars. Both of these are "natural", just as death is, correct? All of these can be presented in a non-vulgar way, too. However, why are the first two banned and not the third? To my knowlodge, nudity and pornography are banned in avatars because it is gross to some people, offends some people, and it should not be shown to children. What I am complaining about fits this exactly.
> 
> ...


 
Joke posts?  I was dead (oops, shouldn't use that word) serious.

Nude and pornographic avatars are banned mainly because it is illegal for minors to see them, and secondarily because there's a fairly wide group of people who are offended by pornography, or at least don't want to see it.  It's certainly not illegal for minors to see dead animals for obvious reasons, and there are far fewer people offended by seeing dead animals, because it's a part of life and people can't help but see dead animals all the time.  Why people like photographing them I don't know, but I'm certainly not offended because someone thought a fox corpse would make a good avatar, and the vast majority of other people aren't offended either.  

The rules of this site were made with the majority of its users in mind, and the FA staff has no obligation to change them to suit any minority of people who don't like something.  You're either going to have to buck up and stop allowing yourself to be so easily offended by something that you have no control over, or you're just going to have to pack your bags and take a permanent vacation from FA.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 8, 2008)

Nine said:


> As I have already said, I do not want to download third party programmes.


then that's your problem; you have a solution readily available to you and are choosing not to use it

clearly nobody else has an issue with this avatar, so I'm not sure why you're dragging this on when you could have ensured you never see it again in about thirty seconds


----------



## Nine (Sep 8, 2008)

I am not sure what is so hard to understand, Eevee.

I do not like looking at dead corpses tied to walls. The picture is not cartoony at all, it is a realistic picture. I do not want to see it for the same reason others do not want to see graphic pornography in avatars; it is gross and misplaced. How far do you think I would get if I google image searched "lyncing", sketched whatever appeared, then used it as an avatar?

People would complain because it either offended them and/or was just unsightly to have thrown in your face. Most people are disgusted by snuff.

So my request is still there for staff members. Why is snuff related things allowed in avatars, but not sexual acts?

wheeliemachine: What is your point, exactly? It offends me, so there is an issue. Personally I am not offended by porn, so does that mean we should suddenly allow porn in avatars? I say no because I have the ability to respect others. Posting graphic pictures of corpses is not considered 'normal' by any means in a public area. Please do not reply to me any further, you are not helping at all. I will report you the next time you make unconstructive, negative comments.


----------



## Kimmerset (Sep 8, 2008)

Do you see Bambi having sex in the forest? No. 

Do you see his mother die? Yes. 

As Eevee said, you have a perfectly acceptable solution that you refuse to use.  Deal with it.


----------



## Nine (Sep 8, 2008)

Do you see a troll in the topic? Yes.

Are Disney movies realistic at all? No.

If you do not care to make a post worth reading, do not reply to my thread.


----------



## Kimmerset (Sep 8, 2008)

My point is that you're talking about FA allowing death in icons and not sex.  

My point is that Disney movies are rarely ever above a PG rating, yet you will still see death in their movies.  

Just because I'm blunt doesn't mean I'm a troll.  Suck it up.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 8, 2008)

Nine, it is deemed ok, it doesn't exceed the PG 13 rating. Arguing with you is not going to change this decision, please if you have Firefox, just add in Addblock and block the avatar that offends you. Discussion over.


----------

