I know. Simple things like deleting don't take a lot of time. But some other things take time to document..... I guess maybe even here.

One time I found a rape site. It was obviously authentic. No one can look that terrified and not be, I think. I reported that site. It took some time to disappear... and someone told me that it took more time because this site faced legal action. Not that this one will, but still...

I dono... Terrorism stuff has really bothered me, and some of this stuff dealt with that. If it takes a little more time to espunge... I can wait. It took that rape site some days to come down, but people faced prosecution..

It wasn't a matter of one country's flag. American, German. This Saito guy was hating beyond that.

The thing is.... People from all kinds of life-styles contribute here. Military people, even if other people don't agree with them, some of them are still artistic. One thing I wonder is that if someone believes in something (such like an artistic marine uploading art that has to do with the essence of their work-a-day life) has to refrain because some terrorist attacks them.... doesn't that just let the terrorist win?

You know, the only reason I came upon this was because I wondered why a logon had so many responses. Once there I was deeply offended.

OK, people......sorry about the delay...Real Life[tm] got in the way, and though the No.1 protagonist was already exiled, it seems these logons were the new stamping ground of the great 'War Debate'.
The comments remained for a 'short'[ish] time to help re-inforce/explain the motivation/reason for the exiling, as the Admin involved felt unsure of its appropriateness, that is all.

There was no intention to hide behind some false-reality of 'free speech' and leave them [the comments] there.

He is gone, his comments are gone, and the retaliation he inspired is gone.
All that is left is the graphics, and the comments about the work [not its message as perceived by the pot-stirrers].

If that fails to restore a semblance of sanity then the Logons will go as well.

Bakerstreet, I feel that political artwork doesn't belong here. It's asking for trouble. I don't mean it for general peace artwork, or general military artworks, they are OK, but artwork related to specific political events IMO is asking for what is bound to happen: a political debate in the comments area.
In the case of those particular logons, I guess if there was no "Irak Freedom" title to it, they'd be OK. Just like if I made a logon with a peace sign it would be OK, but if I added "Stop the war in Irak" on it, it would be out of bound.

I agree that the comments were really bad and in no way belonged in the comments area of the skin. But I also feel that subiting the artwork in the first place is making the first statement of a political debate. I feel that those discussions are fine in the messageboard but have no room in the artwork sections of the site.

Just my opinion. Ne official admin decision has been taken on this.

those particluar comments were awful. especially the "hail Osama" part.

nothing wrong with political artwork. personally it think that those logons are pretty poor. a photo with a font slapped on it. probably a ripped photo anyways (even if it is a stock photo, most sites require credits for using their stuff). rather hard to think it was uploaded for an other purpose than just getting praise.

moshi - photos that are the property of the US gov't are considered public property and are ok to use. The logons themselves were indeed a simplistic and jingoistic use of those photos. However, their message was clear and it's not surprising they inspired political ranting.

Most of the admins here are not from the US. Interestingly, the logons were in the queue for a long time. It seemed no one wanted to approve them but the majority of admins being from other countries, there was probably a confusing sense that somehow these were representative of current American interests and expression. Also the pro-war vs anti-war debate was overwhelmingly on the pro side making them appear to have a popularity among a large base of members.

I can understand the dilemma, if we don't accept, is that censorship and if we do is that promoting a nationalistic arrogance? We would not accept an overtly anti-American, or anti-any-country piece but these were not only pro-American they were pro a specific (and controversial) political event. The rhetoric flak was inevitable.

Since we are members of a world community we should not isolate or alienate anyone by having a narrowly defined attitude towards political expression. I made no decision on the logons because I felt my feelings were biased, so I left it up to the other admins. There wasn't any discussion or decision made (as paxx said) they merely got approved because they worked as logons.

I think the real lesson is one that political leaders could learn as well as all of us. Sensitivity to the feelings of all members of the community would not be a bad thing. Jumping on a popularity bandwagon that is expressive of an exclusionary ideology will only create a rift in the community.

But where does it go from there? I don't think anyone is offended by nationalistic pride as long as it's not expressing violence or hatred towards another nation. Maybe that's a fair distinction, show your flag or your landmarks but not your disagreements. Be proud but not pushy?

So... why aren't there any German or French or Canadian flags for logons? I would hate to think that a Canadian Maple Leaf would get rejected after all the Stars and Stripes we've seen. But do we want to be flooded with images of flags and hockey teams?

The one thing about the internet that I like the most is its lack of borders.

ah, i see. it´s also mentioned in the logons comment. would be nice if the uploader´s comment would be on the review page as well.
i guess what raised uproar was the "Iraqui Freedom" tag. for many people that slogan looks like it was brought up by the "ministry of truth".

Paxx never ceases to amaze me...

Making artists express decently what they feel about sex, violence, war, or politics is a skill that has been lost because it is rarely imposed. The result is Robert Mapplethorpe with a rectally-inserted bullwhip or a vial of urine with a crucifix in it. I think you can say anything without resorting to such lurid means, people just aren't required to.

I think in a place like this, with stern requirements as to content, it is good to allow people to express anything they like. If someone is skillful enough to make statements about hard topics without violating the standards, then they are a exercising a great amount of skill.

On the other hand... I don't think there is *ever* a reason to use someone's comments as a soapbox. If the problem is the comments, address the comments or the system through which they are made. I think that one of the reasons that the wallpaper section gets to be so monotonous is that people aren't trying to say anything with their art. Further limiting what they *can* say will make it even more monotonous. We *need* people to say something once in a while.

**

I would like ask again that something be done about post #4: https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=26&SkinID=1156

That is only a US flag, and the reference to the penis size of Americans and such is, I feel, unrelated to the work in question. I mentioned it earlier, but perhaps my post was accidentally overlooked.

Ah well then, an American flag logon must be another political incitement? Saito80 also has a tirade on "Greetings USA 1024" by ONE SHOT (based on SuperheroCanadian's wall with permission). And Saito80's comments also still remain on Oblivicon's One World One Peace logon I mentioned above which, if you read the description, is not an exclusionary or potentially (one would have thought) inflammatory artwork. Will these comments remain?

The "Greetings from Canada" wallpaper set by SuPeRhErOCanadian includes German, US, Brit, etc flags in addition to the Canadian flag. All by request. Without the uproar.

People who comment are responsible for what they say and how they say it. Unless the work is completely out of line (and if it was, why would it be posted?) or even if it is out of line, one can still comment on the work (and even whatever political statement one infers from it) in an adult and responsible manner. (I think I saw a post that in effect said, I don't care for support the subject matter but its an ok work.') Is the attitude some admins *may* have is that "well, the artist was asking for it" in any way mitigate the offensiveness and inappropriateness of the comments and determine that it's even debatable (sp?)whether they should be allowed to remain on this site? One may not be comfortable with the work for one's own reasons and point of view and I can understand that, but that doesn't justify IMO that there was/is even a question of whether or not to delete the offensive comments.

If Superhero's Candian flag had those kinds of comments based on political differences I doubt there would be a question as to whether they should be deleted. (Someone did ask that the German, French flags not be included in the set which I thought was petty, but it wasn't at all similar a comment to Saito80's which still remain on the site.)

Well, there are two ways to consider this.
#1: this is just art, not a political forum. So no political discussion has a place in the art sections. In this case, neither a political artwork, nor political comments are welcomed.
#2: art is a mode of expression, therefore making a political statement through art is acceptable. In that case, the art work itself is the first statement of a political debate, and other political responses are to be not only expected but encouraged. After all, most artists that make social or political statements do so specifically to cause a reaction. In other words, if we are to allow political statements in the artworks, we must also allow a follow-up in the comments area.

It's just a decision we must take. Do we want political discussions in the comments or not.

How about a more basic issue without politics and personal views to distort the central point: Paxx, what kinds of comments are not permissable on this family oriented site? Is there a debate about that?

ok, check this msg on the board: https://www.wincustomize.com/msgboard.asp?BID=WC&id=137328#137345

BTW: a flag is not a political statement, any national attacks on such wallpapers should not be tolerated.

Make no mistake: This site is based in the USA. We try to be fair but if someone thinks we're going to take on an anti-USA attitude or something think twice.

I for one welcome wallpapers and logons or whatever that are of American flags (or any other current flag for that matter) as long as it meets reasonable artistic guideliens (i.e. patriotism isn't a substitute for quality).

frogboy, you took down my link huh? what was the guy thinking....

ok - all the comments on Greetings USA are gone. None of them had anything to do with the art and the non-offensive ones were only referring to the offensive ones, so none were appropriate to leave.

Thanks Baker and GM for pointing these out to us. If any others along a similar vein show up, let us know...

Oblivicon's One World One Peace logon still has Saito80's comments.

so was citizen f**k u b**ch exiled?

good ridence

thats what I want to know as well

MrGrumps and kona0197, see post #28 in this thread.

I was afraid all morning to open this thread (I saw the numbers changing and thought maybe I was in trouble)! Thanks, DavidK. I had been sitting here giving myself lectures about posting this on the board.

https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=26&SkinID=1155

this was the other one.

paxx: I'm not seeing the leap in logic in your second point. A work of art is about politics, so criticism of the art is about politics? No, it is about the artistic work.

To criticize the politics of the art is to criticize the artist's politics. Wouldn't that in itself dissuade people from expressing themselves with art? It is like saying "Well, you can post it, but you are gonna have to deal with the abuse *wink wink*"... Or worse, "People will be abusive, so you aren't allowed to upload it."

Who is gonna make policy, the site or the abusive pigs? Insipid people can make a soapbox out of anything, is the art to blame? I have stifled several works because I know the kind of crap I'll get. Wouldn't you consider that a loss? Not as a reflection on the quality of my artwork, but as the loss of a human perspective?

**

I don't think WC is intentionally doing anything wrong.

Thanks for taking care of the 'Greetings' comments, Dave. I just think it would be a mistake to let 'mob rules' prevent people from uploading legitimate expression. Sure, enforce a standard of decency, but let people have the freedom to express what they can within the limits. The issues are with the mob, not the art.

Interesting, while (as we've seen in another thread here) some Hispanics seem to take offense at the USA having "Anerica" in the title since it is not the continent, this fellow doesn't seem to have a clue that Norte America includes Canada. Or perhaps his knowledge of geography is such that he is unaware that there is indeed something and someone north of the US border. Since this comment therefore includes a vile slur against Canadian manhood, I demand that it be deleted immediately. (Maybe that approach will work.)