Serial killer avatars

[BrokenBliss]

Just curious -- do we not care about them or is it just considered free speech, this is a private site, chalk it up to questionable taste, and all that business?

 

[GrumpyFrog]

Who's "we"?

 

[BrokenBliss]

Who's "we"?

The site.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

The site.

Well, the forum has rules against NSFW avatars, but I don't think that pictures of serial killers can exactly be classified as NSFW - there is no gore or blood, and they are not obscene. There don't seem to be any other rules about avatars. It's also not against any law to show pictures of serial killers, as far as I know. If you're more interested in personal opinions of site administration, I can't speak on their behalf of course, but from the rules standpoint - there isn't a rule against that.
Sorry if I'm still being obtuse and not understanding the question.

 

[BrokenBliss]

Well, the forum has rules against NSFW avatars, but I don't think that pictures of serial killers can exactly be classified as NSFW - there is no gore or blood, and they are not obscene. There don't seem to be any other rules about avatars. It's also not against any law to show pictures of serial killers, as far as I know. If you're more interested in personal opinions of site administration, I can't speak on their behalf of course, but from the rules standpoint - there isn't a rule against that.
Sorry if I'm still being obtuse and not understanding the question.

No, you understood. There was a lot of discourse recently when someone complained to the mods about the Elliot Rodger avatar being upsetting to them. Today I noticed one of our regular antagonists changed theirs to another famous killer, so I wanted to bring it up again, curious about policy, as well as others' thoughts on the matter – which I'd still like to hear. (Elliot is still there, btw.)

 

[WhiteRabbit]

It's embarrassing edgelord shit imo, but I just ignore it.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

one of our regular antagonists

What a classy and respectable way to say "probable troll", I applaud you.

Regarding personal opinions - I do not care about the avatars and chalk them up to either poor taste or an attempt to get attention via deliberately provocative behaviour that is best left unfulfilled by ignoring the antics. But I can understand people getting upset by these avatars. It's a bit of a grey area - if the users were making threads to discuss how Elliot Rodget/Jeffrey Dahmer/Columbine shooters etc. were just poor misunderstood babies I would be more bothered, but avatar is a grey area that doesn't necessary mean a direct statement of support for the twisted philosophy or crimes of the person on the avatar, so I'm not sure whether it would be fair to punish people for putting up avatars like that if they upset someone. It would be nice of them to change the avatars to something more neutral for the sake of those that get upset, but I can also understand a defensive reaction if they are harshly confronted about it. I did notice a new serial killer avatar appearing after the complaint about Elliot Rodger and I do think that it is potentially, how do I put it...deliberately antagonistic. There might be some hope for the second "Sherri event" among a small part of local population, but I'm afraid they will be sorely disappointed by the lack of further trashfire spectacle.

 

[Someone123]

A big issue with serial killer avatars is that this makes it looki like the site promotes violence, which gives fuel to outside people who want to shut down the site.

 

[Feeding Pigeons]

It's embarrassing edgelord shit imo, but I just ignore it.

You don't just have to ignore it, you can actually have your browser remove the image with add-ons and whatnot. I do that when a forum has an image that makes me particularly disgusted or nauseous.

A big issue with serial killer avatars is that this makes it looki like the site promotes violence, which gives fuel to outside people who want to shut down the site.

I've said this before: people who wanna get this site shut down are gonna try to do that no matter what. Theres not that much of a point trying to play nice when you're on the fringe of an already sensitive topic.

 

[BrokenBliss]

What a classy and respectable way to say "probable troll", I applaud you.

Funny you should say that... Combined with your comments below, as the new one I refer to was directly involved in said incident that got Sherri going that night. I was talking to her right before she disappeared, unaware of what was taking place elsewhere. When she showed me why she was so upset, plus seeing said person was just a few days old, I instantly thought this guy is a troll and expected him to be banned in a couple days, as he seemed to be delighting in provocation in numerous threads.

Regarding personal opinions - I do not care about the avatars and chalk them up to either poor taste or an attempt to get attention via deliberately provocative behaviour that is best left unfulfilled by ignoring the antics. But I can understand people getting upset by these avatars. It's a bit of a grey area - if the users were making threads to discuss how Elliot Rodget/Jeffrey Dahmer/Columbine shooters etc. were just poor misunderstood babies I would be more bothered, but avatar is a grey area that doesn't necessary mean a direct statement of support for the twisted philosophy or crimes of the person on the avatar, so I'm not sure whether it would be fair to punish people for putting up avatars like that if they upset someone. It would be nice of them to change the avatars to something more neutral for the sake of those that get upset, but I can also understand a defensive reaction if they are harshly confronted about it. I did notice a new serial killer avatar appearing after the complaint about Elliot Rodger and I do think that it is potentially, how do I put it...deliberately antagonistic. There might be some hope for the second "Sherri event" among a small part of local population, but I'm afraid they will be sorely disappointed by the lack of further trashfire spectacle.

Deliberately antagonistic, you say? Polite words, as well.

 

[Dysgenic Pup]

Who has these? I'm not as well versed around the forum as some.

 

[Someone123]

You don't just have to ignore it, you can actually have your browser remove the image with add-ons and whatnot. I do that when a forum has an image that makes me particularly disgusted or nauseous.

I've said this before: people who wanna get this site shut down are gonna try to do that no matter what. Theres not that much of a point trying to play nice when you're on the fringe of an already sensitive topic.

It's not a mater of playing nice, it's just a matter of keeping the site focused on the pro-choice for ctb mission, and promoting violence undermines that mission.

 

[BrokenBliss]

I've said this before: people who wanna get this site shut down are gonna try to do that no matter what. Theres not that much of a point trying to play nice when you're on the fringe of an already sensitive topic.

It's not a mater of playing nice, it's just a matter of keeping the site focused on the pro-choice for ctb mission, and promting violence undermines that mission.

I agree with the latter. Someone reads the NYT article and wants to see for themselves what we're about, brings us up and sees images of serial killers chosen to represent our members – to them it would seem glorified serial killers – they have a visceral reaction and leave with a very negative impression. They're not going to stick around for a thoughtful analysis of our content.

 

[Feeding Pigeons]

I agree with the latter. Someone reads the NYT article and wants to see for themselves what we're about, brings us up and sees images of serial killers chosen to represent our members – to them it would seem glorified serial killers – they have a visceral reaction and leave with a very negative impression. They're not going to stick around for a thoughtful analysis of our content. Even the NYT didn't do that.

You're assuming the NYT had any intention of giving the website a fair shot in the first place.

 

[BrokenBliss]

You're assuming the NYT had any intention of giving the website a fair shot in the first place.

Well, of course they didn't. That was kind of an afterthought to the rest of my point.

 

[Weebster]

I changed it to an anime serial killer. Happy?

 

[BrokenBliss]

I changed it to an anime serial killer. Happy?

I noticed that, and did not miss the lack of subtlety in your choice. Thanks for inspiring a conversation.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

I wonder how much crossover there is between the audience of anime and of NYT.

 

[Cathy Ames]

I hadn't recognized the Elliot Rodger avatar. Ignorance really IS "bliss."

 

[BrokenBliss]

I hadn't recognized the Elliot Rodger avatar. Ignorance really IS "bliss."

Sorry about that. Reality does suck.

 

[PreussenBlueJay]

"Sherri event" among a small part of local population, but I'm afraid they will be sorely disappointed by the lack of further trashfire spectacle.

I know it's immature but I regret missing whatever that was.

 

[GentleJerk]

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/profile-picture-guidelines.82591/ I can see where you're coming from. I think 'we' have established that while many users don't agree, the site mods and admins don't have a solid stance on the matter, or any enforceable rules against it.

Concerning potential (or likely) trolls, the difficult thing is, we as sincere users are here on honest terms, with good intentions. We put effort into our posts, contribute a part of our identity in doing so, and the dialogue we engage in is meaningful to us. We feel the need to share and stand up for what we believe, try to make constructive contributions, grow with our little online community, and inevitably we invest a lot in doing that. When something bad happens or there is some trespass, we feel the urge to apply our efforts and become personally involved.

Trolls on the other hand are simply here to fuck with things for their own agenda, which could be as simple as cheap entertainment. They aren't emotionally invested in being here, they can effortlessly integrate with the forum and stick around by simply not being too obvious. Like some sort of psychological jerk-judo, they can observe what makes people tick and use a minimal amount of effort to illicit a huge response- all the while remaining completely detached from the repercussions. Create a little discord here, sow a little chaos there. Sometimes they even have groups that work in cahoots. A lot of them are more tech savvy than the average member and might operate multiple accounts. It's almost like a job, just showbusiness, nothing personal.

I think that unless people don't care or are quite gullible, they can usually tell the difference between trolls or those just using a dummy account for some hidden agenda, and someone who is genuinely sincere. If not, then I guess they will be troll snacks. It's the nature of the internet, after all.

I personally think that the number of fake profiles, straight up trolls, throwaway/dummy accounts, or social engineering profiles who are simply tallying up bias likes and support or generating certain content in order to sway public opinion in some way, probably exceeds the number of genuine members who are here posting as... their true self.

My solution is to not get too emotionally invested if possible, and if the mood is right, strike a fair blow to an antagonist when I see the opportunity. I'm not overly concerned with popularity here.

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

Hopefully my avatar still flies. For what it's worth I am remorseful for the killings of Gooby and Spodermen.

 

[Sakura94]

Eliot "The supreme gentleman" is practically a meme, well it is. I'm more accustomed to darker aspects online. I can see how it can be upsetting to many though. I would tag Rain and ask but I don't want to disturb her.

 

[Chinaski]

It's embarrassing edgelord shit imo, but I just ignore it.

Evergreen reply imo.

 

[whatevs]

I know it's immature but I regret missing whatever that was.

It was fun but also very sad and concerning. I used it as a piercing reminder of how fake everyone is on the Internet, and that goes both ways, both for "Sherri" and the people that trashed her for a part of her personality that was in fact ugly, but shouldn´t just make all the time she spent giving advice and supporting people irrelevant.

I got a 20% warning ban out of the debacle, as I chose to white-knight Sherri fruitlessly. Not against her ban, mind you, as the insults she hurled at RainAndSadness would always result in a ban, just against the people making shit up once she was ejected (shit they added on top of the "transphobia", which was real going by what she wrote) . Group dynamics when someone is branded an enemy are scary. Lord of the Flies was a documentary.

 

[PreussenBlueJay]

It was fun but also very sad and concerning. I used it as a piercing reminder of how fake everyone is on the Internet, and that goes both ways, both for "Sherri" and the people that trashed her for a part of her personality that was in fact ugly, but shouldn´t just make all the time she spent giving advice and supporting people irrelevant.

I got a 20% warning ban out of the debacle, as I chose to white-knight Sherri fruitlessly. Not against her ban, mind you, as the insults she hurled at RainAndSadness would always result in a ban, just against the people making shit up once she was ejected (shit they added on top of the "transphobia", which was real going by what she wrote) . Group dynamics when someone is branded an enemy are scary. Lord of the Flies was a documentary.

I caught a bit of it looking through the threads after the fact. I don't know what to believe about everything. I'm going to miss Sherri's broken English at least. Kinda sucks for people to leave once you get used to having their little picture next to some pleasant text.

 

[Someone123]

Hopefully my avatar still flies. For what it's worth I am remorseful for the killings of Gooby and Spodermen.

Your duck avatar is very triggering for a lot of people, it's all ducked up in my opinion.

 

[Chinaski]

Group dynamics when someone is branded an enemy are scary. Lord of the Flies was a documentary.

This is not entirely inaccurate but is probably best coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly call for users to be banned when in the comforting company of supportive peers or make repeated snarks at the expense of others when they think they aren't looking.

 

[BrokenBliss]

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/profile-picture-guidelines.82591/ I can see where you're coming from. I think 'we' have established that while many users don't agree, the site mods and admins don't have a solid stance on the matter, or any enforceable rules against it.

Concerning potential (or likely) trolls, the difficult thing is, we as sincere users are here on honest terms, with good intentions. We put effort into our posts, contribute a part of our identity in doing so, and the dialogue we engage in is meaningful to us. We feel the need to share and stand up for what we believe, try to make constructive contributions, grow with our little online community, and inevitably we invest a lot in doing that. When something bad happens or there is some trespass, we feel the urge to apply our efforts and become personally involved.

Trolls on the other hand are simply here to fuck with things for their own agenda, which could be as simple as cheap entertainment. They aren't emotionally invested in being here, they can effortlessly integrate with the forum and stick around by simply not being too obvious. Like some sort of psychological jerk-judo, they can observe what makes people tick and use a minimal amount of effort to illicit a huge response- all the while remaining completely detached from the repercussions. Create a little discord here, sow a little chaos there. Sometimes they even have groups that work in cahoots. A lot of them are more tech savvy than the average member and might operate multiple accounts. It's almost like a job, just showbusiness, nothing personal.

I think that unless people don't care or are quite gullible, they can usually tell the difference between trolls or those just using a dummy account for some hidden agenda, and someone who is genuinely sincere. If not, then I guess they will be troll snacks. It's the nature of the internet, after all.

I personally think that the number of fake profiles, straight up trolls, throwaway/dummy accounts, or social engineering profiles who are simply tallying up bias likes and support or generating certain content in order to sway public opinion in some way, probably exceeds the number of genuine members who are here posting as... their true self.

My solution is to not get too emotionally invested if possible, and if the mood is right, strike a fair blow to an antagonist when I see the opportunity. I'm not overly concerned with popularity here.

Thank you (belatedly), @GentleSoul, for your thoughtful and informative reply. I really appreciate the depth of detail in addressing the many angles of it all. It is unfortunate that some choose to use the site with calculating intentions, but I guess that comes with the topic's territory. He who inspired this thread came onto the scene initially with a public presentation oddly similar to that of the sociopath chosen to represent him in avatar form. (To clarify, that is once said killer was caught and gleefully "performing" in the public eye.) I don't get the payoff from that choice, but to each their own, I guess. It was a class act to switch it out.

I had never intended to post publicly here and just wanted to use the site for my own research and acquisition. Since that was proving difficult without the search box (especially since this was during the lockdown on source information in the NYT aftermath), I became a member and kept posting to gain my privileges. I unexpectedly became invested in the community and the remarkable service it provides. I was in deep desperation before I happened across this place, so I feel compelled now to contribute and assist others that find themselves in need of the help that I myself found here. Hopefully I don't end up driven out because of my emotional investment.