# Flags in signatures/avatars



## Dinkeldog

Hey all.  We've had a couple reported posts based on national flags in avatars and sigs.  The short discussion we've had so far leaves us tending to not bother with any simple flag that contains no further political content.  

To look at a couple concrete (and not criticizing anyone)examples, three flags with a victory "V" isn't so great, but just the US flag or just the Iraq flag is fine.  An artistic rendering of the US flag in the shape of a (non-gesturing) hand is also fine, but if it's excessively large in any case, you can expect to be asked to trim the size down.

Just make sure there's no further political content attached.  

Thanks.


----------



## Krizzel

I'm one of the people who complained about this.  

The coalition flags don't bother me too much, though they do make me a little uncomfortable at times (given the tensions between many nations of the world right now over the current situation).

The other flag, though, greatly angered me when I first saw it.  That was the first time I've ever used the 'report a post' button or even wanted to (and I've lurked here since nearly the beginning).  I find this extremely offensive and I feel it's disrespectful to any military personnel or their families who might be reading these boards.  I think just the flag alone is a huge political statement that begs for response - under current circumstances that temptation is difficult to resist.

I'd like to ask that the flags be removed.  Even if it means no coalition flags either, I think that's fair.  There are plenty of other options for everyone to air political views.


----------



## Dinkeldog

That was considered.  We're happiest censoring the least.


----------



## Piratecat

What Dinkeldog said. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but we're going to be consistent. 

If this is a real sticking point for anyone, they may find it easier to turn off sigs and avatars for a while; you can do this in your personal control panel. 

Thanks in advance, folks. Patience isn't always easy to come by when you're worried about other things, but we appreciate it.


----------



## KitanaVorr

I do agree that use of the flags is a political statement when they're put in the shape of something that could be construed as being offensive. Just the flags alone is not too bad, but when they're rendered into political artistic statements might be going to far for the boards non-political rule.

What if it was the US flag burning or with bloody bullet holes in it?  etc... (just picking on the US flag for this example, choose your own country's flag and insert)...the only problem is what not to allow?  What artistic flag design is more political than another?

I feel it might be safer to just stop the political flag statements (esp right now in this very tense time between countries) before it gets out of hand and a flag picture war starts to see who can get away with the most.

I'm all for freedom of expression, but the artistic flags are definitely a political statement.  If we allow them, we should allow other political art as well.


----------



## Krizzel

Could we have an explanation of why this is being allowed, when you get the time?  It's inconsistent with the general moratorium on political / religious content, and it's also a very sensitive time for this exception to be made.  It's also directly related to just about the most serious issue possible - one where people are being killed.

Turning off signatures is one option, and I might do that, but it's different from knowing that this stuff is gone.  Another thing I wonder about is will this be disallowed again after everything is over?


----------



## Piratecat

Kitana, we expect people to use common sense, and we don't expect to have to babysit; if someone posted an image and thought to themselves, "I wonder if this is appropriate?", then it probably isn't. 

So where is the line drawn? Anywhere a moderator feels it is. Mods are the sole judge as to whether something is too political or not. In your example, for instance, I'd say that a bullet-ridden flag would be yanked off pretty darn quickly.  Lord knows that our tolerance for people trying to be provocative and push the boundaries is wearing a little thin right about now.  

Krizzel, thanks for asking. We've never disallowed flags in sigs or avatars; they grew especially common after 9/11. We have no plans to change that now so long as they're not accompanied by additional political imagery or rhetoric. Just allowing American flags is not an option, because it's inherently political; so our choices are all flags or no flags. We've currently chosen the former. We're well aware that not everyone will agree with that decision, but we expect people to abide by it.  If you see what looks like someone pushing the boundaries, please report the post and we'll address it. 

I'm not sure I understand your last question; will what be disallowed again?


----------



## krunchyfrogg

I hope to God you don't ask people to stop putting flags in their signatures, as long as it isn't offensive, as noted above.

For instance, I think the flag in my sig is ok, but the one I post following this sentence is not, even if it's the way you feel:

_Image deleted by moderator - no examples needed, thanks._


----------



## Piratecat

Krunchyfrog, I removed the image. We _don't_ need examples.


----------



## Krizzel

I meant the flags - I hadn't seen any here before today.

Thanks for answering, too.  A big part of my problem with this is that it feels like someone is posting something offensive in a way I'm not allowed to respond to.  Having a place to address that helps alleviate it a little.

I wish there was a way to limit all the political stuff to a single thread or forum, though I'll admit I don't know any easy way to do that.  And yeah, I'll quickly point out anything that's 'out of bounds' if I come across it.  I still wish there wouldn't be anything, but in the mean time I might go looking for the flag that expresses my viewpoint, as odd as that might seem.


----------



## Piratecat

Krizzel said:
			
		

> *I meant the flags - I hadn't seen any here before today.
> *




Nah, there have been lots around. You just didn't notice them or run across them until today.


----------



## KitanaVorr

krunchyfrogg

I think the flag in your sig is fine.  I think its great when people put their flags in their posts...shows a fascinating cultural diversity.

I'm just worried about "artistic flags"...but as long as the moderators are pretty good about that, and we can report things that are offensive...That's fine with me.


----------



## Krizzel

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Nah, there have been lots around. You just didn't notice them or run across them until today.  *



Probably.  If they were US flags then admittedly they probably didn't create a lasting impression.  The other one though struck a huge chord and I'm sure I haven't seen it before today.  But yeah, I'm nitpicking here 

Just got an idea: does anyone know if the US Army (or other branches) have their own flags?  And would those be appropriate or not?


----------



## alsih2o

reasoned discussion over a hot topic!  man i love this place.


----------



## Dinkeldog

Yes, Krizzel, they do, and they would be fine as long as there's no other political commentary.


----------



## John Crichton

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *reasoned discussion over a hot topic!  man i love this place. *



Yeah, I expected to come in here seeing bans and flames.  Instead I see civil behavior.  Sweet.


----------



## Sixchan

Hmm...all of a sudden I want to put a flag in my signature. Might make it too big though...

*sig test so I can check size without changing everything*

__________________





Deity's Pet!  - Ashwyn





Stupid white border...


----------



## orbitalfreak

Krizzel said:
			
		

> *
> Just got an idea: does anyone know if the US Army (or other branches) have their own flags?  And would those be appropriate or not? *




They have them, and here's some images of what they look like:
United States Army




United States Navy




United States Air Force




United States Marine Corps





And you can always Google for images, too.


----------



## Dinkeldog

The Coast Guard has one of their own, as well.  I could hope though that anyone wanting to use one of those flags in their sig would shrink it down a lot.


----------



## Telgian

The EU flag *without* the cookie would be an improvement.


Telgian.


----------



## alsih2o

i have been having a preety tough workload this week, i wonder if a white surrender flag would be innapropriate?


----------



## Sixchan

Telgian said:
			
		

> *The EU flag *without* the cookie would be an improvement.
> 
> 
> Telgian. *




Well, I've tried about 10 of them.  So I'm liking direct to the sites, but I like that one...  If I attach it...


----------



## Telgian

...*poof* the cookie dissapears! 

Thanks,
Telgian.


----------



## diaglo

test


----------



## Dinkeldog

Uh, no, not so much.


----------



## diaglo

you talking to me?

edit: how's that?


----------



## Sixchan

What flag is that?  Diagonal Red cross on a white background...


----------



## Ravellion

I complained about one as well. Personally, I'd rather see _no_ flags, because you don't know whether there is a political messae or not. A UN flag right now could very well be construed, and mostl likely will be, as a political message. So is an Iraqi flag. A US flag... you see those everywhere, they lost most of their power. In four  months, perhaps a year from now, will the UN flag still be political? Who knows. However, flags, in their very nature, are attached to political entities.

I visit Nutkinland, the Church and State forum, on a daily basis. This however, is a gaming site. You know, it's like TV. Bloody violence on TV doesn't bother me, unless it is right before Sesame street .

Rav


----------



## Crothian

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.


----------



## orbitalfreak

diaglo said:
			
		

> *you talking to me?
> 
> edit: how's that? *




I think the picture needs to be a .jpg or .gif, while yours is a .bmp.


----------



## Dragongirl

Crothian said:
			
		

> *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

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *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

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *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

Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> *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

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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

Ravellion said:
			
		

> *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.


----------



## Psion

I wouldn't see the point of nixing a flag unless it was like a nazi flag or something. People's flags identify their homeland, which (as others have alluded to) cannot be boiled down to a single political argument or viewpoint in most cases. If that upsets you, I think you need to be a little more tolerant of others backgrounds.


----------



## Umbran

Olive said:
			
		

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




Odd, isn't it, when a picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words?

I'm not sure that what you say is really true, though.  As I mentioned before, flags aren't clear, unambiguous statements.  How can one really be sure they are getting across a specific, simple political idea when there are a number of them represented by the same flag?

In other words, allowing the flags allows people to speak.  But without an accompanying, clarifying text, it is unclear exactly what will get heard.


----------



## Crothian

Psion said:
			
		

> *I wouldn't see the point of nixing a flag unless it was like a nazi flag or something. People's flags identify their homeland,  *




Except that people are using flags that are not their homeland's flag.


----------



## Dinkeldog

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Except that people are using flags that are not their homeland's flag. *




You're not American, are you.


----------



## jdavis

non-political flag statement


----------



## jdavis

non-political flag (unless you are a pirate)


----------



## Henry

A simple recollection:

ENWorld has been no stranger to flags adorning .sigs and avatars. Not that long ago, the "US/Capitalism" and "USSR/Communism" signs created by members Vuron and Crypt King adorned dozens of signatures. (I had an "anarchy" one that I was dying to spread, but it never caught on. )

The reason I support them is because I don't see flags supporting current political stances so much as more permanent ideals. Politics are temporal, but the ideals behind a country or its national identity are a little more lasting, and usually less offensive. I can only think of one or two flags whose national ideals would be considered offensive; ideals are not practices.

I just can't wait to see the board member who rises to the occasion and starts flying the flag of Cormyr, or the Free City of Greyhawk, or the Kingdom of Iuz...


----------



## Olive

jdavis said:
			
		

> *non-political flag (unless you are a pirate) *




actually this flag has been used by a plethora of extremely political groups through history, includign various anarchist groups, as well as the left-wing German anti-Nazi youth group known as the Edelwiess Pirates.

Variations include the Combat 18 logo (UK neo-nazi group) and the SS deaths head.


----------



## Olive

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Odd, isn't it, when a picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words?
> 
> I'm not sure that what you say is really true, though.  As I mentioned before, flags aren't clear, unambiguous statements.  How can one really be sure they are getting across a specific, simple political idea when there are a number of them represented by the same flag?
> 
> In other words, allowing the flags allows people to speak.  But without an accompanying, clarifying text, it is unclear exactly what will get heard. *




good point, but i still can't think of a flag which will sum up my rather complex feelings and opinions... sigh.


----------



## arwink

Henry said:
			
		

> *A simple recollection:
> (I had an "anarchy" one that I was dying to spread, but it never caught on. )
> *




Still got it?  It could be time for a new lease on life


----------



## jdavis

Olive said:
			
		

> *
> 
> actually this flag has been used by a plethora of extremely political groups through history, includign various anarchist groups, as well as the left-wing German anti-Nazi youth group known as the Edelwiess Pirates.
> 
> Variations include the Combat 18 logo (UK neo-nazi group) and the SS deaths head. *




That is a stylized version of Richard Worley's flag which was later used on poison bottles. Being as there are hundreds of different pirate flags (this is just one of the more popular designs) I feel safe to say that you should not put any political merit into this stylized version of a famous pirate flag that is sold as a novelty gift. The fact that many groups might of made their own pirate like flags shouldn't be that big of a issue as there are hundreds of different pirate flags.

I think a serious point to this is that people will find something to be offended with if they are looking to be offended, if you are not looking to find something offensive then most of this stuff shouldn't bother you. If you find something offensive e-mail a moderator. Personally, there is enough stuff going on without me loosing any sleep over a flag in a sig. I'm not here to discuss politics thus I don't care about anybody here's political opinion, it's easy enough to ignore the flag and get back to why I am here, to discuss D&D related topics.


----------



## Buttercup

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Except that people are using flags that are not their homeland's flag. *




In which case, if one is offended, one always has recourse to the *Ignore* function.


----------



## Piratecat

And of course, it's possible to turn off all sigs and avatars for oneself.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Henry said:
			
		

> *I just can't wait to see the board member who rises to the occasion and starts flying the flag of Cormyr, or the Free City of Greyhawk, or the Kingdom of Iuz...  *




Well, I had a look, but I can't find one! Not sure I'd want to do that really, since the number of Pro/Against FR or Greyhawk people would probably get me flamed anyway...


----------



## diaglo

Buttercup said:
			
		

> *In which case, if one is offended, one always has recourse to the Ignore function. *




this is what i have done. my list is growing. 

serious question: what is the upper limit for the ignore list?


----------



## Piratecat

diaglo said:
			
		

> *
> serious question: what is the upper limit for the ignore list? *




I have no idea.  Currently, it's probably about 10495, since you can't ignore moderators.


----------



## DM_Matt

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> To look at a couple concrete (and not criticizing anyone)examples, three flags with a victory "V" isn't so great, but just the US flag or just the Iraq flag is fine.  An artistic rendering of the US flag in the shape of a (non-gesturing) hand is also fine, but if it's excessively large in any case, you can expect to be asked to trim the size down.*





Ah, I was the V guy.  Sorry about that.  Didn't realize that it crossed the line.  To explain what I actually meant by that flag composition, it was only tangentially related to Iraq.  After all, one of the three countries is not (officially, anyway) in the Gulf War II coalition.  The text, along with the three flags, actually read:

  V
-----
  T

meaning.....

"Victory over Terrorism"


I'll just go get myself a regular American flag I guess...


Krizzel: Someone put up an IRAQI flag?!?!?!??


----------



## DM_Matt

2x post


----------



## Buttercup

*Re: Re: Flags in signatures/avatars*



			
				DM_Matt said:
			
		

> *Krizzel: Someone put up an IRAQI flag?!?!?!?? *




Yes.  At least one person has.


----------



## Chacal

IMO, putting a flag on an avatar or sig IS a political statement.  While a flag might represent intemporal values (and I doubt any government represents them well everytime), those values are political, and their interpretation is temporal and thus they are very strong statements at some times. 
I think that in a place dedicated to RPG and not politics, this is unapropriate.
I understand the "least censorship" position of the moderators, but it still looks like opening a can of worms in this case. It's detracting from the boards primary purposes: How many of you would reply to a post with an Iraqi flag with the same exact feeling as if the flag hasn't been there ? I know it has some political impact on me, and I dare think that it has on many of us. Allowing political statements is  bringing bitterness, unfairness and pressure upon minorities, IMO.

I'm afraid that the motivations beside the "flags allowed" policy is based on the fact that many people in this board wouldn't understand why they can't show their flag everywhere and would be very pissed off. The freedom of speech has the respect of others for limitation. In these boards, I thought respect was expressed by "not offending Eric's GrandMa" and not stating political/religious/offending statements.
I wouldn't play Death Metal music in a church/classroom/bus (and say the people that they can just ignore me by covering their ears). 

The avatars and sigs can be seen in every thread, bringing politics everywhere on the board. It's not like there was an [OT] thread " I like my flag".
I find it sad that I have to "cover my ears" to go in this place.

Chacal


----------



## Piratecat

Chacal said:
			
		

> *The avatars and sigs can be seen in every thread, bringing politics everywhere on the board. It's not like there was an [OT] thread " I like my flag".
> I find it sad that I have to "cover my ears" to go in this place.
> *




Eloquently stated.

It doesn't actually solve your problem or answer your complaint, but I'll reiterate:

Click the *user cp* button --> *Edit Options* --> and turn off *Show user's signatures in their posts?* and *Show user's avatar in their posts?*.


----------



## Chacal

Thanks. I had read the above posts. (Edited for clarity : the "covering my ears" part was refering to those options)  
I was just sharing my point of view. 

Chacal
P.S: I still like the way things are handled in these boards, the flag issue being the exception. I really thank the moderators and most of the users for that.


----------



## Ravellion

*Re: Re: Flags in signatures/avatars*



			
				DM_Matt said:
			
		

> *Krizzel: Someone put up an IRAQI flag?!?!?!?? *



You see, flags mean something different to everyone 

It was probably someone who hoped the Iraqi people were mostly spared the horrors of war. But you never can tell now can you?

Rav


----------



## Tiefling

*Re: Re: Re: Flags in signatures/avatars*



			
				Ravellion said:
			
		

> *You see, flags mean something different to everyone
> 
> It was probably someone who hoped the Iraqi people were mostly spared the horrors of war. But you never can tell now can you?
> 
> Rav *




There is that, but it's mostly for the sake of being different  . I've seen so many American flags lately (well, less so now that the shock of the Late Unpleasantness doesn't weigh so heavily on peoples minds) that they start to lose meaning, and often it seems as if people are just jumping on the patriotism/nationalism/jingoism bandwagon.



			
				Krizzel said:
			
		

> *The other flag, though, greatly angered me when I first saw it. That was the first time I've ever used the 'report a post' button or even wanted to (and I've lurked here since nearly the beginning). I find this extremely offensive and I feel it's disrespectful to any military personnel or their families who might be reading these boards.*




Sure, in the same way that little American flags are disrespectful to Iraqi military personnel or their families. Swings both ways and all that. 

I have to agree, though, that the decision to allow flags seems inconsistent with the general policy here to err on the side of caution (said policy evidenced by the closing of the "World Leaders Play D20"  thread). Not that I'm complaining about either policy or didn't notice the flags before, it just seems kind of strange. 

But if this is the will of ENWorld, then Tiefling will see it done.


----------



## Umbran

Chacal said:
			
		

> * It's detracting from the boards primary purposes: How many of you would reply to a post with an Iraqi flag with the same exact feeling as if the flag hasn't been there ?*




Is it really enough of a detraction to be noticible?  Have you seen flamewars?  How many instances of clear detraction can we cite, outside of this thread?

If there is detraction, it is "below the radar".  Policing on the basis of trying to stop effects we cannot clearly see is perhaps a bad idea.  



> *Allowing political statements is  bringing bitterness, unfairness and pressure upon minorities, IMO.*




Matters of overall policy should perhaps be based more upon evidence than humble opinions.  We are a community of bascially mature people, who are generally quite capable of speaking for themselves.  If said minorities wish, they can tell the mods directly.  If/when such complaints show a significant effect, then I'd expect the mods to change the policy, and not before.



> *
> I'm afraid that the motivations beside the "flags allowed" policy is based on the fact that many people in this board wouldn't understand why they can't show their flag everywhere and would be very pissed off. *




Probably true, at least in part.  But, your argument against the flags is much the same - avoid offending minorities who might feel pressured or oppressed.  Either way, it's a matter of trying to satisfy people's sensibilities.  The rules have always been a balancing act - balancing the offense of some at being restricted against the offense others take at certain statements.  More a matter of practicality than idealism.

So, until it is shown that some pretty hefty offense is being caused by the flags, it does not behoove the mods to restrict them.  So far as we can see, they are likely to get more, and louder, and more disruptive offense from resticting them than their presence causes.  

Simply put - It may be nicely idealistic to restict the flags, but it will serve nobody if doing so starts flames.


----------



## jdavis

If you can't bring yourself to ignore them then you are letting them get the best of you. I post no differently because of a flag in the sig because quite frankly I don't care what your political views are, they mean nothing to me, and if I did care, well then I am in the wrong place. I came here to talk about D&D related subjects and I really don't care about your country of origin or your political views I care about your opinion on D&D related topics. Yes people get emotional about their politics, that's why it isn't allowed and when somebody does post something political you are supposed to ignore it. 

This is a international community you are going to run into people who have other ideologies, resist the urge to talk about non D&D or D20 topics and there will be no problems. If KIM Chong-il wants to post his favorite humorous D20 module titles or discuss why the Harm spell needs to be nerfed then why should anybody worry about his political ideaology?


----------



## gamecat

[extreme gamecat right wing rhetoric]
If your location indicates you are anywhere from the US, and you have a flag in your sig, then that flag should have exactly 50 stars and 13 stripes, or there should be no flag.
[/extreme gamecat right wing rhetoric]


----------



## HellHound

Uhmm...

why is a flag NECESSARILY a political statement, as many here claim?

Many people I know wear flags as a visible marker of where they are from, not as a statement that they necessarily support said nation's politics.

I even met an exiled criminal in another country who still has his national flag on his bag, to indicate where he is from. Some of us just want to tell people where we ARE, not always what we believe.

--Hound
(who is considering flying a swastika for a while, just to get the chance to teach people about the origins of said emblem)


----------



## Clay_More

Well, as I myself know the sad history of an otherwise well-respected symbol that got tainted by a madman, I would say the Swastika is a good representation of the core issue. Even though it in itself doesn't represent anything evil, it has had an unfortunate history which has made it tainted. Would a Jew appreciate the fact that the Swastika has always been a symbol for good things?

Another example. If someone posts a message, bearing the american flag in his sig, is replied to by someone bearing the Iraqi flag, would that not offend the one bearing the american flag in some way? If I had a sig that showed the Iraqi flag in a stylized version, like that of the american flag and the Eagle, would that offend (since there is a certain feel of victory over the Eagle)? 

Heck, some people around here feel insulted by the American Flag by itself (not me though, but some other Danish people get pretty upset). I know from some of the Arab immigrants, that they have some aversion against the American Flag. 

What about someone who is Palestinian (dont even know if there are any here)?. If you say that you are only allowed to show National, unstylized flags, then that would prohibit them from bearing the Palestinian flag. Yet, the general feeling amongst Palestinians is that their nation is as legitimite as the Israelian one, so if someone was allowed to show an Israelian flag, it would offend the Palestinian who was not allowed to show his flag. The same can be said for a number of minorities who are fighting a struggle for independence. 

I myself care not the slightest bit about Flags, I will never personally press the "report" button, I have more useful ways of spending my time (like writing long, ranting posts like this ). 

Anyways, my two cents


----------



## Piratecat

It's pretty simple. If a moderator thinks you're being a jerk about something, you'll get called on it. Deliberately trying to be provocative (and yes, posting a swastika counts!) is probably not the best way to go.


----------



## Clay_More

I am allergic to cat-hairs. I believe your nick is making fun of my life-long struggle against a terrible curse.... 

(Can you even report a moderator?)


----------



## krunchyfrogg

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *It's pretty simple. If a moderator thinks you're being a jerk about something, you'll get called on it. Deliberately trying to be provocative (and yes, posting a swastika counts!) is probably not the best way to go. *




But posting an Iraqi flag when you're from North Carolina doesn't?


----------



## Piratecat

Krunchyfrogg, let me quote from the first post of this thread:

"any simple flag that contains no further political content. "

Your sig violates this. Please change it or remove it.


----------



## Chacal

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Policing on the basis of trying to stop effects we cannot clearly see is perhaps a bad idea.
> *



Are you sure that every word that Eric GrandMa wouldn't aprove would degenerate in flame wars ? That doesn't mean we shouldn't police a priori.



> Probably true, at least in part.  But, your argument against the flags is much the same - avoid offending minorities who might feel pressured or oppressed.



I agree that my opinions about oppressed minorities were quite out of place here and didn't serve well my position. 



> Either way, it's a matter of trying to satisfy people's sensibilities.  The rules have always been a balancing act - balancing the offense of some at being restricted against the offense others take at certain statements.  More a matter of practicality than idealism.




People's sensibility shouldn't override boards primary objectives (rpg, not politics). Of course it's the moderators' choice to define these objectives and the way they want to enforce them. I'm just respectfully disagreeing with them on this subject.



> Simply put - It may be nicely idealistic to restict the flags, but it will serve nobody if doing so starts flames.



There was some heat about the no curse words policy in the past. I still think this was a good policy.

Chacal


----------



## Chacal

jdavis said:
			
		

> * Yes people get emotional about their politics, that's why it isn't allowed and when somebody does post something political you are supposed to ignore it.
> *



I agree with the "isn't allowed part" and I'm trying to ignoring, except in this thread which is dedicated to the topic.
My point is that "politic isn't allowed" is not enforced concerning the flags.



			
				Hellhound said:
			
		

> Many people I know wear flags as a visible marker of where they are from, not as a statement that they necessarily support said nation's politics. Many people I know wear flags as a visible marker of where they are from, not as a statement that they necessarily support said nation's politics.




There is a nice little field labelled location for stating were you are from.Thus,  I suppose that putting a flag in a post does not serve this purpose.




> If KIM Chong-il wants to post his favorite humorous D20 module titles or discuss why the Harm spell needs to be nerfed then why should anybody worry about his political ideaology?



I wouldn't worry about his political ideaology if he weren't stating it in his posts.

I all boilds down to wether you think that a flag is political content or not. I believe so, and the mods don't. Last time I checked, I wasn't a mod. So I'll just shut up now  and change my settings, hoping that this all issue will not last too long.

Chacal


----------



## HellHound

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *It's pretty simple. If a moderator thinks you're being a jerk about something, you'll get called on it. Deliberately trying to be provocative (and yes, posting a swastika counts!) is probably not the best way to go. *




Sorry, My bad.


----------



## diaglo

gamecat said:
			
		

> *[extreme gamecat right wing rhetoric]
> If your location indicates you are anywhere from the US, and you have a flag in your sig, then that flag should have exactly 50 stars and 13 stripes, or there should be no flag.
> [/extreme gamecat right wing rhetoric] *





Living in a state where the last election cost the incumbent Governor his job b/c of his stance over a flag, i think you better think again.

the South is still the South in more ways than one. 

flags are political. why else rally round them?


----------



## Umbran

Chacal said:
			
		

> *
> Are you sure that every word that Eric GrandMa wouldn't aprove would degenerate in flame wars ? *




Of course not.  However, a look at other, similar forums shows a pretty direct correlation between use of Grandma-offending language and the heat of discussion.  Not every conversation that includes them blows up, but there does seem to be some linkage.  

The simple flags do not seem to have such a demonstrable effect.  

On top of that, avoiding flames is not the only reason for restricting language use.  Keeping us to clean language tends to heighten the average intellectual quality of discussion, for one thing.  For another, our hobby already has image problems.  And, there are minors present.



> *People's sensibility shouldn't override boards primary objectives (rpg, not politics). Of course it's the moderators' choice to define these objectives and the way they want to enforce them. I'm just respectfully disagreeing with them on this subject.*




And the respectfulness of your disagreement is noted, and appreciated by this reader.  It is good to have civil conversation on such topics.

I agree that sensibilities should not generally override the board's primary purpose.  But that works both ways. The sensibilities of folks who don't like the flags shouldn't be allowed to override the primary goals either.

Getting rid of simple flags will almost certainly cause much hooha and furor and acrimony.  That will override the primary purpose of the boards.  So, until it can be shown that the flags are doing notable damage, how are we served by getting rid of them?


----------



## krunchyfrogg

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Krunchyfrogg, let me quote from the first post of this thread:
> 
> "any simple flag that contains no further political content. "
> 
> Your sig violates this. Please change it or remove it. *





That doesn't make much sense, IMO, considering the flag and the eagle both represent the United States of America.  But, rules are rules, and if I'm in your playground, I'll play by yours.

I just hope the Great Seal of the United States is ok with you.


----------



## SylverFlame

I checked this thread out because I was interested in the topic (freedom of speech is my thing). As such, this thread definitely falls into this category.

There has been much talk about the nature of flags in this thread. I agree, a flag is a statement. I am canadian, and I feel strongly whenever I see my flag. I expect americans feel the same, as do all other people in the world. However, something I have noticed about this thread is somewhat disturbing (I should note here that the mod's and some others have not ignored this). There are a number of people who are saying how the Iraqi flag is a bad thing due to its implied statement. Well, on the same token, so is the American flag and the Skull and Cross Bones and everyother flag here. I find it a little troubling that nothing has been said about the nature of the American flag but plenty has been said about the other flags. This creates an issue.

If a person is going to drop flags (political tag ons aside), then all flags should be dropped. I like the sigs here. I have more than one good laugh over someones sig and (shameless plug) have started a poll in this forum as to whether or not people like mine. So, since a sig is a personal thing, then all things in it are personal. The nature of the flag then becomes redundent.

I feel no more issue rise in me when I see an Iraqi flag than I do when I see an American flag, a Canadian flag (except the pride mentioned above), the Union Jack, or even the ol' Hammer and Sickle of the USSR. These things are okay because a person flies what speaks to them.

I would fly an Irish flag even though I do not live there. I have Irish blood in me and so is that flag not a part of me? Issue has been raised over the nature of "special" flags (ie. the bullet-riddled one described by someone earlier). Well, these are equally interesting to me. It shows an opinion. If someone were to post a Canadian flag with a big red line and circle over it, I would be insulted (deeply). However, I also realize it is that persons right to show this image. It's freedom of speech. They aren't forcing it on me and aren't actively hurting me (aside from the insult). Also, it is my right to reply to it. Freedom of speech again.

So, this is the nature of the beast. As has been said before: All or none. I vote all. This forum proves that the great, tolerant, posters who frequent this site can have a calm and informed discussion. Just as they can do it over this then they can do it between themselves should issue rise with a sig (no matter the nature). I myself have gotten comments on the Care Bear in my sig. All of these have been calm (with the exception of one, which was not nasty actually). I responded with the above mentioned poll. If this phenonemon can occur twice, it can occur again.

Thanks to everyone who has made this post, and ENWorld in general, accessible to those who wish to speak. To draw on the eighties: May your future be so bright, you gotta wear shades.


----------



## DM_Matt

Clay_More said:
			
		

> *
> What about someone who is Palestinian (dont even know if there are any here)?. If you say that you are only allowed to show National, unstylized flags, then that would prohibit them from bearing the Palestinian flag. Yet, the general feeling amongst Palestinians is that their nation is as legitimite as the Israelian one, so if someone was allowed to show an Israelian flag, it would offend the Palestinian who was not allowed to show his flag. The same can be said for a number of minorities who are fighting a struggle for independence.
> *




 Yes, people really are going to pick nits about someone posting the flag of a non-state administrative area  

Methinks that the Palestinian flag, the Kurdish flag, the UN flag, US States' flags, etc are assumed to count....

Oh, and they are called Israelis, not Israelians.  I suggest that you actually have some idea about what that conflict is about (the names of the sides is a good start) before glorifying the Palestinians' as "minorities who are fighting a struggle for independance."


----------



## Dinkeldog

No other warning:  do not continue the political discussion here.  Take it elsewhere--Nutkinland is one option.

As another quick note, I'd distinguish between Nation and Country, so long as there's no additional editorial content.


----------

