# rules



## TimeHP

Hi.
Reading the rules of the fora I saw that we are asked to keep our language clean and decent, and I agree with this, of course. 
But, if I'm not wrong, there are warnings only about words, not about pictures - avatar, for instance...
Don't you think that pictures can be as much offensive as words?
Many thanks.
Ciao


----------



## PaoPao

Interesante... creo que tienes razón.  Te apoyo.


----------



## Jana337

TimeHP said:


> Hi.
> Reading the rules of the fora I saw that we are asked to keep our language clean and decent, and I agree with this, of course.
> But, if I'm not wrong, there are warnings only about words, not about pictures - avatar, for instance...
> Don't you think that pictures can be as much offensive as words?
> Many thanks.
> Ciao


Please PM a moderator if you have seen something that is offensive. 

Jana


----------



## timpeac

As Jana says - pictures would be covered as much as words. All things are subjective so any concerns should be PM'd to a moderator.


----------



## claudine2006

TimeHP said:


> Hi.
> Reading the rules of the fora I saw that we are asked to keep our language clean and decent, and I agree with this, of course.
> But, if I'm not wrong, there are warnings only about words, not about pictures - avatar, for instance...
> Don't you think that pictures can be as much offensive as words?
> Many thanks.
> Ciao


I think they could be, so it's necessary to check them.


----------



## fenixpollo

I imagine that also goes for anything in the profile, too. Correct?


----------



## Jana337

fenixpollo said:


> I imagine that also goes for anything in the profile, too. Correct?


Por supuesto. 

Jana


----------



## cuchuflete

In general, we try to be open minded. Avatars, profile data, and signatures and user names that have a strong likelihood of being offensive to a large number of foreros are changed, usually with the collaboration of the forero.  

We do *not* try to remove anything that just might offend one member in a thousand.


----------



## TimeHP

Thank you. 
I couldn't and wouldn't censure anyone.
It was just a consideration about the fact that we seem to give more importance and attention to words thant to pictures.  
Ciao


----------



## geve

TimeHP said:


> It was just a consideration about the fact that we seem to give more importance and attention to words thant to pictures.


It seems consistent with what draws us together here, and the name of this place


----------



## TimeHP

Yes, Geve. 
But if your avatar would be, say, a logo of a multinational company... 
Well I'd like that rules were clearer about the fact that we can't advertising in this forum.
Ciao


----------



## DDT

TimeHP said:


> Well I'd like that rules were clearer about the fact that we can't advertinsing in this forum.
> Ciao


They look clear to me, but please do not hesitate to post any specific doubt you might have about them.

You can find everything concerns WR policy about advertisement in rules 32  39 in WR rules

DDT


----------



## geve

TimeHP said:


> Yes, Geve.
> But if your avatar would be, say, a logo of a multinational company...
> Well I'd like that rules were clearer about the fact that we can't advertising in this forum.
> Ciao


Well, technically my avatar _is_ advertising... you can still buy books telling the adventures of this French heroine. Which is why I agree with Tim that all things are subjective, and the advertising potential of avatar pictures is probably covered by rule 37:


> The forums are not a venue for advertisements in any way. It will be the sole discretion of WordReference and its moderators as to what constitutes an advertisement.


Thank you WR and its moderators for letting me wander freely in my costume of underage upholder of the law!


----------



## TimeHP

Now it seems a bit complicated...
Anyway I don't know your French heroine but I'm not against your avatar.
Ciao


----------



## cuchuflete

We try to assess the purpose of a link, an avatar, a signature...
If it is coincidentally related to a product or organization, it is usually not a problem.  If the apparent intention is promotion of anything, it is subject to deletion.  

Yes, it is subjective.  The only way to eliminate the subjectivity would be to eliminate avatars and signatures.  If anything seems questionable to you, please contact any moderator.


----------



## TimeHP

Very clear. Thank you.


----------



## maxiogee

One of my many avatars (I'm a fickle, inconstant and inconsistent git!) was the logo of Amnesty International. One person spoke to me about it.

Was I wrong to have used it?


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:


> One of my many avatars (I'm a fickle, inconstant and inconsistent git!) was the logo of Amnesty International. One person spoke to me about it.
> 
> Was I wrong to have used it?


Why?


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> One of my many avatars (I'm a fickle, inconstant and inconsistent git!) was the logo of Amnesty International. One person spoke to me about it.
> 
> Was I wrong to have used it?


I don't think so. Amnesty International is a respectable organasation, and as far as I know, it's not a commercial company. So why not use its logo as your avatar?


----------



## lauranazario

TimeHP said:


> But if your avatar would be, say, a logo of a multinational company...


The avatar I chose does happen fall in that category you mention... but I chose it because it happens to the kind of computer I own --nothing else. 

I do not believe my red avatar is blatant advertising... it just identifies me as a proud Mac user.


----------



## maxiogee

lauranazario said:


> The avatar I chose does happen fall in that category you mention... but I chose it because it happens to the kind of computer I own --nothing else.
> 
> I do not believe my red avatar is blatant advertising... it just identifies me as a proud Mac user.



So, it's true - computers are now more like humans. You've got one which harbours the sin of pride? Mine is jealous!


----------

