People are seriously upset about the kkk one? I would have picked Muad Dib as "Most Likely To Be Trolled By A KKK smiley". And I would have picked Diacanu as most likely to use it for that purpose.
First...I like Mewa just fine and get along quite well with him under most circumstances. Second...I named that smilie Ray and the other apostle for that thread specifically. It was a joke...but as always the internet is serious business with you. Third...it's pretty myopic to to think black = Mewa when there are more than a few black posters here. Lastly, it's really the KKKers in those smilies that are really being insulted and I suspect poor Muad Dib will have them used against him by Mewa than the other way around in the usual threads.
Lanz is a little bitch. There hasn't been any doubt about that since he took over and scraped the White Room.
Abrasions can be painful. That said, the nerve of him thinking his job is more important than some message board -!
Tamar, just put them on an external site and we can hotlink the fuck out of them instead. Let us know where.
Here's an idea, Mr. Independent Music Producer Who Works at Home and Doesn't Have to Worry about His Employer Finding out He's Hosting Porn on His Site...why don't you buy the board from Lanz and then you can run it any way you want? It's the Free Market thing to do.
I offered to buy it last time. Seems we should be able to find an owner that has the freedom to have a board with anything they want to put on it. If I owned the joint, titties are coming back. Lots of titties. All bans lifted. Smilies out the ying-yang. Taco night every Wednesday. Big recruitment drive for new members.
As others have pointed out, the KKK one could go both ways, and I actually say it more as being used AGAINST those percieved as racist than against any of the blacks on here. In fact I am having a hard time seeing HOW it could be used to troll that way. Looter however was not funny in the least, served no purpose (when would it be used?) and something I would expect to see at racialistforums or some other place.
I didn't think it was an issue. Kind of odd when Tasvir can throw around nigger all day, Mewa can call people cracka, every other person is a pedophile that can die in a fire that the apparent line in the sand is smilies. Why would I assume that there was going to be a problem?
Hmm... I think there is a pretty clear line between allowing certain members to behave like racists and taking official (and say what you like, adding smilies to the board is not something every member can do, so a member of staff had to do it, so it'd be seen as official) actions that make the board ownership appear to be racist. Now you can disagree with the idea that the smilies were racist, however I don't think you can disagree that the looter one at least had the very clear appearance of racism, which is something as board owner Lanz might not want to be putting out.
I guess I should have changed it's color or something. I just grabbed a bunch of stuff we didn't have and added it. It wasn't much deeper than that. I just find it interesting that this is the line considering what goes on around here.
I have found, over the years here, that the lines we tend to draw in the dirt look like crop circles when you stand back and see them from a distance. Most of the smilies didn't bother me, but the :looter: one did. The others were like the rebellious nature of Wordforge, but not that one. It also didn't help that Apostle wanted to rename it :Katrina:, which is just douchetacular coming from him. J.
You seem to be missing the point. There is pretty BIG difference from allowing certain behavior and putting a WF Seal of Approval on the same behavior. Which is what having said smilie in the database would give the appearance of. Now if you had just uploaded that smilie to your flicker and linked it, and then Lanzman had deleted it, I think you would have a point about a random line in the sand.
No, I simply disagree. But that's okay....I don't need to have my way on everything. I added it, it didn't go over well and it was removed...no real harm or foul.
About what exactly? That 'official' actions of staff members are different from statements made by posters?
Not that I want to continue to argue about the irrelevant, but the idea that smilies confer any sort of statement about anything of substance about a board or the owners. Unless you are also saying we endorse suicide, murder, pedophilia, violence, zombies, terrorism and throwing pies in people's faces, the argument is silly and without real merit.
No, I think we endorsed killing zombies, except for Zombie, who is obviously named as such to act as the "decoy" if you will, in the event of a mass zombie invasion. J.
I kinda agree with Tamar. If the owner/staff is going to "endorse" some of the things that have been said in here that have been entered into the database....why not smileys. But then I don't really care and think some are taking things to serious.
