Got to say Pursey, you seem a bit ban happy.

And its a slippery slope trying to define who is unacceptable as an avatar - you've certainly tied yourself in knots trying to justify it.

I'd back off if I was you...

Might try Mao, think he killed more people than Stalin

As a former mod, I'd like to weigh in for a moment. Not that there's much weight, but perhaps even a couple feathers worth will add something of value to the conversation.

Pursey, you don't appear to be willing to engage in a reasonable conversation. While certainly not everyone here is constructive (an understatement I know) you should consider that whenever policies are changed or updated that people will have questions and concerns, and it's part of your role to respond in a thoughtful, conscientious manner.

As an example, comments made about Stalin's popularity are not off-base or made off, although you dismissed them as such. You can read about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Views_on_Stalin_in_contemporary_Russia

Rather than giving examples and then saying 'on a case-by-case basis,' perhaps articulate the rationale you'll use when assessing each case. Then it's easy to explain why that would apply to Stalin but not to other historical leaders involved in activities you'd view unfavorable.

Put another way: Would you ban Genghis Khan? Caesar? Mao? Pol Pot? Castro? How would you go about making those decisions?

I apologize if I seem like one more person piling on, which is not my intent. I'm sincerely attempting to offer a way to prevent some complaints in the future. That being said, I do recognize that with the crowd round these parts you'll certainly receive lousy feedback no matter what you do.

Just in response to these two; I'm not sure I've been ban happy. Other than Immigrant, I'm reasonably sure (I just woke up and I'm lazy) all I've modded for lately is blatant PGA.

Vermont; thanks, I'll take it on board. I've consistently been available via email and that's been the case since I started here. You take my username and add the gmail domain to it. If someone wants to debate or discuss an action they *can*. Or they can appeal it to Jurg/Int/Ryan.

The line is currently set where it begins to offend a reasonable number of users or where its already specifically ruled out by a previous decision of Ryan etc.

[Just a note on Stalin, the figure appears to be 22 to 26% not 'over half' and is limited to Russia - not the former Soviet Union. So we're talking perhaps 20 million people having a positive view of the guy.

I daresay 20 million have a positive view of Hitler - there's 7 billion+ in the world. In light of Vermont's input, which I value as a former mod, I'll add +post back to Immigrant but the rules stay simple - the discussion stays in this thread and doesn't bleed into games or other threads.]

I want to preemptively report any beyonce avatars. I find her to be offensive.

#AllLivesMatter

I don't get how it's 20 million/22% when the Russian has a population of over 140 million (and presumably, adult population of well over 100 million), but popularity is hardly a solid basis for evaluating a dictator.

One thing that makes Stalin way more popular among his compatriots and Russians is that he has won the Second World War and expanded the Soviet Empire, while Hitler lost the war that left Germany in ruins.

You'll probably find very few people that have a
positive assessment of Stalin among ethnic Ukrainians (the Holodomor is considered a genocidal act by several historians and some countries), ethnic Crimean Tatars (that were forcibly relocated from Crimea), Poles (Katyn massacre) etc.

Funny how you only decide to give me post back when your actions are under pressure from other users. You must know you did something wrong.

> "The line is currently set where it begins to offend a reasonable number of users"

Hmmm, as I've said many times. Who is seriously getting offended by Stalin on kdice? Other than the obvious far left dipshit barry, and yourself. Two people does not constitute as "reasonable" in my estimation. Considering you both probably find the sky offensive.

There is a reasonably large anti-muslim sentiment nowadays due to all the allahu akbar terror attacks. Does that mean we can ban avatars relating to islam? As the proportion of those against the religion of peace is most likely "reasonable", despite what you might want it to be.

Also, as Vermont said quite rightly. You're not willing to engage in any conversation whatsover. It seems whenever you haven't got an argument, you just want to ban. It's an easy way of avoiding criticism, so I can understand your motive behind it.. but it doesn't reflect well on yourself as a moderator.

If you want to specifically look at those in old soviet countries that hate stalin (rather than how many people on kdice would actually take offence) . Then as I've mentioned about 10 times, many many people in the middle east hates George W Bush for his illegal wars that have basically resulted in the islamic state forming. 205 million residents in the middle east I would consider a large proportion too. Therefore I fail to see why you're not taking action in this field, when your so willing to ban stalin.

Lets be honest, your rules seem pathetic. You're bias towards your polticial, social views etc are showing.

I'm not a commie / a russian, so I have no intention of having stalin as a picture. But if I was, I wouldn't hesitate to change the picture to it since your new restrictions are pathetic as fuck.

*your

Immigrant, I'm cool with talking with you and having you have +post, but you need to quit the personal attacks.

I had four separate complaints about Stalin avatars, fyi.

RE: Vermont, I reversed my ban because he felt it was OTT. On reflection it was. But, your discussion needs to be civil and not include personal attacks.