What's the editorial policy regarding Nazism and Nazis?

Nicholas King said:I suppose that particular signature from a supermoderator opens up quite a wide range of potentially incorrect—and I really mean incorrect—interpretations and reactions regarding "how he can do it while I cannot, you guys are this or that" when someone’s signature or avatar is removed, which should be an unquestionable action. It seems to me that someone might, perhaps emboldened by your stance which was misinterpreted, put "Jack-in-the-box" in their own signature and then start demanding their rights just because a supermoderator is allowed to have certain things.

It is just a simple question: do you actually need it? 🙂

I would say it isn't just needed, but it is absolutely essential, perhaps for the very reasons you mentioned. Because with that signature, even coming from a supermod, a whole new dimension of freedom is introduced—though I guess it is a freedom tied to responsibility. If one presents a solid and competent argument for their position, then I suppose nothing should be an issue. However, if an argument lacks merit and fails to respect basic politeness, common sense, or sound legal principles, then well, we all know how those situations are handled.

That applies to both sides, and even to any third party involved. Even in the case of Klingons. Especially Klingons, I suppose. 🙂

wiredangler5 said:...

Don't even get me started on Alex Watson. Just looking at how he approaches things, I can immediately see the limitations of his argument. It's obvious he just wants to keep rambling on without actually grasping a single word I've said—whether he's genuinely unable to understand or just choosing to ignore the point...
And honestly, it scares me to think how little he actually knows about this subject in general. Since I don't know him, I have no idea if he’s ever picked up an actual history book or if his entire worldview is based on nothing more than a couple of Sven Hassel novels...

...

Hey, my bad.
I’ve always had a bit of an aversion to reading books, especially history. They just don't grab me.

But I took the time to read through everything you wrote in this thread, and man, was I wrong.

I guess it's totally fine to put quotes from Nazi criminals in your signature. Even if we're talking about someone who played a massive role in starting the war, the pogrom against the Jews (and several other groups), and a few other things...

Sorry again, and thanks for the history lesson. 👍

Nicholas King said:Another debate heading down history lanes. I guess every cloud has a silver lining—no one is out there mentioning the family or anyone else affected. 😁

Would you believe that I haven't actually felt like writing about history here from the very start? To be honest, I just haven't had the heart to get into any big debates about it, for a whole bunch of different reasons.
Look, Slavko laid things out so that if I had to explain myself to admins who aren't familiar with this field, I’d have to be as brief and clear as possible. But this topic is just too complex. It's a slippery slope for so many reasons, making it hard to simplify. Before you know it, you're drifting into history—and honestly, there's nothing more tedious than getting bogged down in history.

I honestly wasn't sure if I should even bother posting about this here. But, here we are. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done. I'll just wait to see what the admins have to say.

Nicholas King said:Basically, that one supermoderator's signature opens the door to a whole mess of possible misinterpretations—and the reactions that follow.Why does he get to do it while I can't? Everyone keeps pointing fingers at me.It’s like when someone removes a signature or an avatar that really needed to go. I feel like someone else, emboldened by how your change was misinterpreted, is just going to go ahead and put that exact thing in their own signature.Jack-in-the-boxAnd then people start demanding their rights just because a supermoderator is allowed to have an opinion.

Just a simple question: do you actually need it? 🙂

It’s true, this opens up a ton of different possibilities. We've dealt with countless reports regarding disputed signatures, locations, or avatars before. Aside from the stuff that's strictly illegal under US law—where there was never any doubt—we just handled everything else on a case-by-case basis.
We handled it that way because we didn't want to open Pandora's box. If we banned one specific thing, we'd end up banning ten other similar things just to compensate, and that would make life a nightmare for everyone.
In the past, we used to handle reports by actually looking at the context—evaluating what was really being said, how offensive it truly was, and the actual message behind it.

Nicholas King said:I think I remember a line from your first post that said, "If that's an issue, no problem, I've got plenty of quotes." It might be better to... Politically savvy. Maybe I should just post one of those quotes.

I thought about that too. But here's the thing: if I decide to go all-in on something, I tend to commit fully. I stand by this because I know exactly where the quote comes from and the context behind it. It’s a tricky subject since it touches on such sensitive ground.

What do you think, Nicholas King? Is my signature—which is just these specific words pulled from the speech I explained—really a bigger issue than, say, a copy of Mein Kampf being sold legally in bookstores? Or the fact that photos taken by Adolf Hitler are sought after as art in America? My point is, we see the "Bible" of his persecutions sold openly so people can study history through a different lens.
It's complicated since we haven't really debated it, but do you think it's a larger problem that such evil is sold without issue, yet I might get crucified over this signature as if I actually wrote ?
If the admins want to handle it differently, that's fine with me. I'll respect the decision, whether they remove it or I do it myself while I'm online. I just hope they make the call by looking at both sides of the argument. I don't want it to be like what Slavko described on the first page, when an admin banned an avatar for no real reason—just to keep the peace or out of a lack of understanding.

Alex Watson said:Hey, sorry.
I've always had a bit of an aversion to reading books, especially history. They just aren't my thing.

But I made an effort to read everything you wrote here, and I see how wrong I was.

It's perfectly okay to put quotes from Nazi criminals in a signature. Even if it's someone responsible for the war, the pogrom against the Jew (and other groups), and a few other things...

Sorry again, and thanks for the history lesson. 👍

It's nice of you to come back and share your thoughts, even if you clearly didn't grasp the point. 🙂
I'll leave your post for the admins to decide how to categorize it.

wiredangler5 said:It’s true, opening that door creates endless possibilities for this kind of thing. But honestly, we've dealt with reports regarding controversial signatures, locations, or avatars countless times before. Aside from things that are strictly illegal—where there's absolutely no room for debate—we've always handled everything else on a case-by-case basis.
The reason we operated that way was because we didn't want to open Pandora's box by issuing a blanket ban on one specific thing, which would just trigger ten other similar issues and make life incredibly complicated for everyone.
So, those kinds of reports were resolved by looking at the specifics: the context, whether it was actually offensive, the underlying message being sent, and so on...

I actually really enjoyed this little history lesson, though I do need to look over the other sections of this PDF. Look, promoting Nazism or any other criminal ideology is strictly forbidden, but not everything that touches upon them counts as active promotion. While many avatars, signatures, quotes, or locations leave zero doubt about their purpose, many others involve decisions that are much more nuanced and require looking at the situation from multiple angles.

Even though I totally get what Slavko and the Jew were aiming for when they were explaining to wiredangler5 why his signature was considered problematic, I personally don't think there's anything here that warrants us removing it—plus, wiredangler5 explained himself so thoroughly, which I really appreciate. Some people might find it morally questionable, sure, but he isn't breaking the rules.

I actually noticed wiredangler5's signature a long time ago, but since I didn't know who said it, I did a quick Google search. That's how I found out it was part of a motivational speech by one of those Nazi radicals, but even then, I didn't think it needed to be taken down. After this whole thread popped up, I took a closer look at the situation, read through everything you all wrote (you guys actually could have avoided the trolling!), did a bit more digging, and my opinion hasn't changed. There will always be misinterpretations, as some of you pointed out, but that's why we're here—to clear things up and resolve these dilemmas.