5,988
pages
ALL POSTSBanning Hate Symbols and Imagery 
<p>Given how we've recently had numerous arguments and discussions on the subject of Nazi imagery in avatars and Nazi stuff on the Wiki in general, here's a vote to clear things up once and for all. In discussion with Rio, we've decided to extend this proposed ban on all hate symbols (which shouldn't need voting on, but hey, this Wiki...). This would also be extended to figures like Hitler, Göring, etc. Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. Honest, mature, serious discussion would still be allowed, provided it doesn't degenerate into a massive argument, and no-one is bothered by it.
</p><p>Should we ban all hate symbols and imagery on the Wiki, in image, video, and text form?
</p><p>A) Yes: 21 Votes
</p><p>B) No: 6 Votes
</p><p>C) Neutral: 2 Votes
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus">Consensus</span></h2>
<p>Yes, ban all hate symbols.
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
0
<div class="quote">Veralann wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>KnightoftheLight wrote: Meh, neutral. I'd rather the vote was a little more concrete. :P </p> </div>It doesn't get more concrete than this.
</div>It would be more concrete without the statement of "Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. " hanging over the vote
</div>Feels pretty concrete to me. What's more concrete than admins deciding on stuff? Don't you trust us anymore?
</div>It's not necessarily about trust, more certainity. When you say "tbd" that means we can't be certain about that category of things.
</div>But you can be certain once the decision is taken...?
<p>I don't see the problem here. 
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>The problem is that we won't be certain until a specific answer on what will and won't be allowed is given, and that wouldn't happen until after this vote passed, <i>if</i> it passes
</div>If the vote fails you'd never get an answer, you'd never get any certainty.
</div>Which may be, in some users' opinions, better than voting on a vote that doesn't completely cover the matter at the time of voting.
</div>
<p>What's the problem with going on a case-by-case basis for these things?! </p><noscript>
</noscript>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>KnightoftheLight wrote: Meh, neutral. I'd rather the vote was a little more concrete. :P </p> </div>It doesn't get more concrete than this.
</div>It would be more concrete without the statement of "Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. " hanging over the vote
</div>Feels pretty concrete to me. What's more concrete than admins deciding on stuff? Don't you trust us anymore?
</div>It's not necessarily about trust, more certainity. When you say "tbd" that means we can't be certain about that category of things.
</div>But you can be certain once the decision is taken...?
<p>I don't see the problem here. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>The problem is that we won't be certain until a specific answer on what will and won't be allowed is given, and that wouldn't happen until after this vote passed, <i>if</i> it passes
</div>If the vote fails you'd never get an answer, you'd never get any certainty.
</div>Which may be, in some users' opinions, better than voting on a vote that doesn't completely cover the matter at the time of voting.
</div>
<p>What's the problem with going on a case-by-case basis for these things?! </p><noscript></noscript>(Edited by Alemas2005)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Veralann wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>KnightoftheLight wrote: Meh, neutral. I'd rather the vote was a little more concrete. :P </p> </div>It doesn't get more concrete than this.
</div>It would be more concrete without the statement of "Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. " hanging over the vote
</div>Feels pretty concrete to me. What's more concrete than admins deciding on stuff? Don't you trust us anymore?
</div>It's not necessarily about trust, more certainity. When you say "tbd" that means we can't be certain about that category of things.
</div>But you can be certain once the decision is taken...?
<p>I don't see the problem here. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>The problem is that we won't be certain until a specific answer on what will and won't be allowed is given, and that wouldn't happen until after this vote passed, <i>if</i> it passes
</div>If the vote fails you'd never get an answer, you'd never get any certainty.
</div>Which may be, in some users' opinions, better than voting on a vote that doesn't completely cover the matter at the time of voting.
</div>
<p>What's the problem with going on a case-by-case basis for these things?! </p><noscript></noscript>
</div> <p>That's currently what we're doing, from what I can tell. This vote was supposedly to give one concrete and specific answer to all of them, was it not? </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>KnightoftheLight wrote: Meh, neutral. I'd rather the vote was a little more concrete. :P </p> </div>It doesn't get more concrete than this.
</div>It would be more concrete without the statement of "Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. " hanging over the vote
</div>Feels pretty concrete to me. What's more concrete than admins deciding on stuff? Don't you trust us anymore?
</div>It's not necessarily about trust, more certainity. When you say "tbd" that means we can't be certain about that category of things.
</div>But you can be certain once the decision is taken...?
<p>I don't see the problem here. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>The problem is that we won't be certain until a specific answer on what will and won't be allowed is given, and that wouldn't happen until after this vote passed, <i>if</i> it passes
</div>If the vote fails you'd never get an answer, you'd never get any certainty.
</div>Which may be, in some users' opinions, better than voting on a vote that doesn't completely cover the matter at the time of voting.
</div>
<p>What's the problem with going on a case-by-case basis for these things?! </p><noscript></noscript></div> <p>That's currently what we're doing, from what I can tell. This vote was supposedly to give one concrete and specific answer to all of them, was it not? </p>
(Edited by Veralann)
0
<p>A please
</p><p><span style="color:#DF0101;">Yada</span> <small><span style="color:black;">Dark</span></small> <span title="This user is an administrator of Picsou Wiki."><span class="plainlinks">
</span></span> <span title="This parrot is a Vanguard member."><span class="plainlinks">
</span></span> 12:22, December 9, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
</span></span> <span title="This parrot is a Vanguard member."><span class="plainlinks"></span></span> 12:22, December 9, 2016 (UTC)
</p>
(Edited by Dark Yada)
0
<div class="quote">Veralann wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Veralann wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>KnightoftheLight wrote: Meh, neutral. I'd rather the vote was a little more concrete. :P </p> </div>It doesn't get more concrete than this.</div>It would be more concrete without the statement of "Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. " hanging over the vote</div>Feels pretty concrete to me. What's more concrete than admins deciding on stuff? Don't you trust us anymore?</div>It's not necessarily about trust, more certainity. When you say "tbd" that means we can't be certain about that category of things.</div>But you can be certain once the decision is taken...?
<p>I don't see the problem here. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>The problem is that we won't be certain until a specific answer on what will and won't be allowed is given, and that wouldn't happen until after this vote passed, <i>if</i> it passes </div>If the vote fails you'd never get an answer, you'd never get any certainty. </div>Which may be, in some users' opinions, better than voting on a vote that doesn't completely cover the matter at the time of voting.</div>What's the problem with going on a case-by-case basis for these things?!
</div>That's currently what we're doing, from what I can tell. This vote was supposedly to give one concrete and specific answer to all of them, was it not? </div> <p>No, most of them?
</p><p>Blatantly obvious stuff like swastikas, KKK images, Nazi propaganda, etc. will definitely be blocked. </p><p>It's just that there are bound to be images that may or may not be considered offensive, like the "baba booey" thing, which I've been told is slightly dodgy. For that sort of thing, the admins can take care of it. </p><p>Again, I don't see a problem.</p><noscript></noscript>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Veralann wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Veralann wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>KnightoftheLight wrote: Meh, neutral. I'd rather the vote was a little more concrete. :P </p> </div>It doesn't get more concrete than this.
</div>It would be more concrete without the statement of "Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. " hanging over the vote</div>Feels pretty concrete to me. What's more concrete than admins deciding on stuff? Don't you trust us anymore?</div>It's not necessarily about trust, more certainity. When you say "tbd" that means we can't be certain about that category of things.</div>But you can be certain once the decision is taken...?
<p>I don't see the problem here. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>The problem is that we won't be certain until a specific answer on what will and won't be allowed is given, and that wouldn't happen until after this vote passed, <i>if</i> it passes </div>If the vote fails you'd never get an answer, you'd never get any certainty. </div>Which may be, in some users' opinions, better than voting on a vote that doesn't completely cover the matter at the time of voting.</div>What's the problem with going on a case-by-case basis for these things?! </div>That's currently what we're doing, from what I can tell. This vote was supposedly to give one concrete and specific answer to all of them, was it not? </div> <p>No, most of them?
</p><p>Blatantly obvious stuff like swastikas, KKK images, Nazi propaganda, etc. will definitely be blocked. </p><p>It's just that there are bound to be images that may or may not be considered offensive, like the "baba booey" thing, which I've been told is slightly dodgy. For that sort of thing, the admins can take care of it. </p><p>Again, I don't see a problem.
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
<div class="quote">Keplers wrote:
<p>Oh, and what even is freedom of speech. </p> </div> <p>freeze peach guys!!!! </p><p>voting a) </p>
<p>Oh, and what even is freedom of speech. </p> </div> <p>freeze peach guys!!!! </p><p>voting a) </p>
(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)
2
<p>I vote A, not because I feel Nazism is a hate symbol, but because I feel no one here is responsible enough to use Nazism and related images in an appropriate manner.
</p>
(Edited by Rapmilo)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
I vote A, not because I feel Nazism is a hate symbol, but because I feel no one here is responsible enough to use Nazism and related images in an appropriate manner.
</p>
</div>
<p>this is also true
</p>
(Edited by EveryOpenEye)
<p>I personally feel the chat moderaters can more than decide when something becomes inappropriate by theirselves without needing to have the entire conepts blocked completely. If someone is offended by what is said or shown then it needs to stop. Otherwise, "hate" symbols are hardly EVER used to promote actual hate here and shown more ironically than anything. I don't see this as something that needs to be blocked. So though I don't personally condone hate symbols by any means, I don't think they should be banned altogether if someone uses them ironically. This is why I am going to vote B).Â
</p>
(Edited by Romaniandude12)
1
<div class="quote">Romaniandude12 wrote:
I personally feel the chat moderaters can more than decide when something becomes inappropriate by theirselves without needing to have the entire conepts blocked completely. If someone is offended by what is said or shown then it needs to stop. Otherwise, "hate" symbols are hardly EVER used to promote actual hate here and shown more ironically than anything. I don't see this as something that needs to be blocked. So though I don't personally condone hate symbols by any means, I don't think they should be banned altogether if someone uses them ironically. This is why I am going to vote B). </div> <p>The whole point of the vote is because hate symbols shouldn't be used ironically in the first place.</p><noscript></noscript>
I personally feel the chat moderaters can more than decide when something becomes inappropriate by theirselves without needing to have the entire conepts blocked completely. If someone is offended by what is said or shown then it needs to stop. Otherwise, "hate" symbols are hardly EVER used to promote actual hate here and shown more ironically than anything. I don't see this as something that needs to be blocked. So though I don't personally condone hate symbols by any means, I don't think they should be banned altogether if someone uses them ironically. This is why I am going to vote B). </div> <p>The whole point of the vote is because hate symbols shouldn't be used ironically in the first place.
</p><noscript></noscript>(Edited by Alemas2005)
<p>A
</p><p>I was looking for the "muh freedom of speech" reason for B, not disappointed.
</p><p>And look, if you really think this should be allowed why don't you go play with people who are like you? The place can be found on Reddit and it's called The_Donald.
</p>
(Edited by Anonymous 67a8f391a32fb7.13434178)