To get this straight, you therefore think reasonable = four. It's nice that you've finally clarified your rationale on how you will moderate avatars.

If four people don't like something, then it's not allowed.

Even when the main case here is about a supposedly evil murderer that affected the people in soviet countries, notably Russia. Yet in 2003: "Fewer than a third of all Russians regarded Stalin as a murderous tyrant"... Therefore him being a tyrant is evidently not a mainstream belief in the place where apparently he did the most damage, so is it fair to treat it as such?

Anyway, guess we only need two more people to complain about Beyonce then she is removed too? As similarly with TheBetterYodel, I find her music pretty offensive ;)

Also, lots of people have previously complained about mild nudity (due to them being at work etc), like bouncing tits and stuff like that. Probably more than four. How come you still tolerate those kinds of pictures?

In my opinion, your justification for removing Stalin is not strong enough, considering he has lots of support in ex soviet nations. And I'm getting a bit bored or saying the same shit over and over. Even though, you now say your happy to talk, you clearly aren't. That's evident from your lack of a response and your eagerness to "take action" just for talking about the guy.

So I will end it here. Some of the mods might think I've been trolling with this post. No, I've been bored while working. Sure some of the comments within my posts have been joke like (as always), but the reasoning was because I'm against you placing unnecessary further restrictions on the site... because you're afraid of people taking offence, when on the most part they wont. And in the case of Stalin... sure you might get four numpties complaining, but you will also annoy those that view him positively and cunts like me.

So I say you should revoke the rule (although you wont since your probably arrogant as fuck), and leave it be... Because I'm not the only one that shares this view, and otherwise that's just your personal bias showing.

@Immigrant: I don't really care about avatars, so I will only address your points on Stalin and his assessment.

'Even when the main case here is about a supposedly evil murderer that affected the people in soviet countries, notably Russia.'

Not only in Russia; and not only in the former Soviet Union. Public opinion on Stalin might be mixed in Russia, but it's almost overwhelmingly negative in other former Warsaw Pact countries. Take Poland as an example. The NKVD has executed more than 20,000 Polish POWs and civilians [including half of their officer corps] at Katyn on Stalin's (written) orders. The Poles consider this an act of genocide.

'"Fewer than a third of all Russians regarded Stalin as a murderous tyrant"... Therefore him being a tyrant is evidently not a mainstream belief in the place where apparently he did the most damage, so is it fair to treat it as such? '

If you just look at the 'body count' of victims, you might conclude that he did the most damage in Russia, but that might not give you an accurate picture. Acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing were allegedly perpetrated against ethnic minorities in what most international observers regard as the territory of Ukraine (including Crimea). Russians were only systematically targeted if they belonged to "undesirable" or suspicious classes (bourgeoisie, landowners [kulaks], intelligentsia etc.) or if they were political enemies of Stalin.

And to some extent, the mixed-to-positive assessment of Stalin among Russians can also be explained by what psychologists call the 'halo effect', which means that some people's thoughts on Stalin's character and 'crimes' might be influenced by their overall impression.

"He won the Great Patriotic War and made Soviet Russia the second power in the World, so he couldn't have been a muderous tyrant. The human rights violations and crimes must have been committed by other people (like NKVD chiefs Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria) without his consent."

The same is true for Mao, except in his case it was the Gang of Four who took the blame for the 'excesses' of the Cultural Revolution.

All of what was just said above is really key for Stalin in particular.

Let me explain some rationale and answer some more questions. No, four complaints doesn't equal a vote to ban. It was 'at least' four. Four times I can recall it being brought up at tables and the person in question with the avatar even removed it admitting they'd added it to push the boundaries. They respectfully removed it.

Why not Bush 43? Well he hasn't been found guilty of any crimes or murdered in excess of a million people. His activities, I personally, don't agree with though. He's not denounced by his own government unlike destalinisation (not desalination, that's different) under Kruschev post-WW2. Medvedev recently said his image was beyond repair in recent years.

The bans are here for several reasons, some more important than others:
* Most are picked solely to upset/get a rise out of people.
* It has affects advertising on kdice/gpokr/xsketch (IOGC).
* The people specifically listed are (near) universally reviled.

Here's some boundary pushing issues and questions which I don't have all the answers to yet: Mao Zedong et all. I don't know how to deal with this, yet... I've sought some advice though.

There's also more pressing issues relating to... There's only three advisors/mods here on kdice. The other two are around but less so in May due to personal reasons. I'm here more as a result.

People have noticed the lack of advisors around and there's been rampant PGA lately. Those people were sorely mistaken that they were not being watched. There's also replays now. Cheat medals are hollow medals. Earn them!

* Please just think about your actions and how it may hurt others. Yes, people troll on the internet, and it happens here a lot. But c'mon, Hitler? Stalin? Godwins law in motion.

Immigrant: I apologise for the -post, it was probably an ill thought action. Thanks to Vermont for the advice, too. What I asked from you is to debate without resorting to personal attacks. Please.

Oh since the benevolent chinese government wont condemn Mao he's ok but Stalin is bad because his government did condemn him (eventually)?

That's as statist a way of thinking as I ever saw. I can only hope that Europes power continues to ebb in the coming century. Your thinking has degraded beyond repair.

oh and Aus since you are AUS but you act like your brussels companion.

What about commie lobsters?

I'll give a last reply, since I've had some detailed responses.

> Why not Bush 43? Well he hasn't been found guilty of any crimes or murdered in excess of a million people"

"About half a million people died in Iraq as a result of war-related causes between the US-led invasion in 2003 and mid-2011, an academic study suggests." --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256

Why is the bar set at a million, as opposed to half that figure? I don't understand, it's still mass murder. Seems like you only said that just to keep Bush out of your new rules.

There is also plenty of evidence highlighting that Bush's war was a false flag. As well as countless human right abuses occurring during his time of presidency, e.g. torture and depleted uranium being dropped on civilian areas. He was the leader of the country committing those abuses, therefore he is responsible.

You also can't be guilty if you haven't been tried in court. As the saying goes "innocent until proven guilty", and unfortunately he hasn't been tried yet... Therefore I disagree with that stance of yours.

I'm not only using him as an example because of the half a million causalities in his war, but because Louis said Stalin should be banned because he isn't "forgotten" by many Russians... You go over to Iraq today and see how many of them have forgot the Americans.

However I accept your apology, and I will also apoligise for the personal attacks.

@flagsrweak

I'm not saying polish people have to like Stalin. But in my view, they shouldn't have the right to remove another mans hero, just because some nasty stuff happened in a war decades ago.

War is never pretty, stuff happened on all sides. Winston Churchill, a man that a lot of people are proud of in my country wasn't perfect. He bombed civilians areas in Germany.

If Germans were to be still annoyed about that to this present day, then I would think they had a chip on their shoulders but wouldn't really care. I would be annoyed however if they wanted to ban pics of Churchill, as he is a hero for many. Same goes for Stalin.


Peace

Commie lobsters are definitely banned, Gurgi.

This thread still going??

Its missing the point to argue about which dictator was worse. Its about free speech vs hate speech.

Look at it this way:

Hate speech: picture of Hitler with "Kill Jews" written across it

Not hate speech: picture of Hitler with "Never again" written across it.

Without that context, a picture of Hitler is just a picture of a historical figure and trying to censor it only makes you look silly.

Hitler not only murdered people but he murdered style.

The toothbrush moustache will never be the same.