can this image be used as a flag?

[USS Monitor]

I'd love to see that pony swastika because it would be so damn funny. Where can I find it?

Google brings up this:

My memory might be a bit rusty after 152 years at the bottom of the sea, but I don't think that's exactly the same one NIS used. Same concept, though.

[Arana]

By that logic, the Swastika shouldn't be banned because the original symbol actually signifies peace and harmony. Yet, like the Hammer and Sickle, it is associated with mass genocide, as people who did just that used the symbol to represents themselves.

If the policy was to ban every symbol used by someone who committed mass genocide, we would have to ban almost every political and religious symbol in existence, including the Christian cross, the American flag, the Ottoman/Turkish flag, and many many others.

Which is why that is not the policy. The policy, as posted above, is to ban symbols that scream "I want to murder lots of RL people!" according to the popular perception of the symbol in question in the Western world. So yes, there is an element of subjectivity there - the swastika is banned because it is popularly perceived to mean endorsement of mass murder, whereas other symbols are not so perceived. The Christian cross does not scream "I support crusades to murder infidels and take back Jerusalem!" in the minds of most people, the hammer and sickle does not scream "I want to kill Ukrainian peasants!", and the American flag does not scream "I want to drop atomic bombs on cities full of civilians!", despite all those being things that were actually done under those symbols.

Is that unfair? Maybe. But ultimately, a symbol means what people think it means. There is no "real" meaning for any given set of geometric lines and squiggles. The meaning is in the mind of the beholder. So this site bans symbols according to what is assumed to be in the mind of the beholder. The swastika is banned because we assume that most people looking at it will think it means "I want to murder Jews!" and not "I want to build a really good highway system!", despite the fact that both of these are things the Nazis did.

I concur, a symbol means what people associate it with. Unfortunately, most people associate the swastika, a formerly innocent symbol, with genocide and war. As a slightly more innocent example, most people associate this symbol with peace and happiness. It was originally intended to be a stick figure bending over in despair.

[The Archregimancy]

IIRC, Arch used the site from Saudi Arabia a few months ago while on an archaeological dig there.

I lived in Dubai from July 2013 through to April of this year.

During that period, I accessed this site from the UAE, Qatar, and Oman - but not Saudi Arabia.

However, this site is not blocked by the internet filters in any of the countries I was based in.

[Ularn]

By that logic, the Swastika shouldn't be banned because the original symbol actually signifies peace and harmony. Yet, like the Hammer and Sickle, it is associated with mass genocide, as people who did just that used the symbol to represents themselves.

If the policy was to ban every symbol used by someone who committed mass genocide, we would have to ban almost every political and religious symbol in existence, including the Christian cross, the American flag, the Ottoman/Turkish flag, and many many others.

Which is why that is not the policy. The policy, as posted above, is to ban symbols that scream "I want to murder lots of RL people!" according to the popular perception of the symbol in question in the Western world. So yes, there is an element of subjectivity there - the swastika is banned because it is popularly perceived to mean endorsement of mass murder, whereas other symbols are not so perceived. The Christian cross does not scream "I support crusades to murder infidels and take back Jerusalem!" in the minds of most people, the hammer and sickle does not scream "I want to kill Ukrainian peasants!", and the American flag does not scream "I want to drop atomic bombs on cities full of civilians!", despite all those being things that were actually done under those symbols.

Is that unfair? Maybe. But ultimately, a symbol means what people think it means. There is no "real" meaning for any given set of geometric lines and squiggles. The meaning is in the mind of the beholder. So this site bans symbols according to what is assumed to be in the mind of the beholder. The swastika is banned because we assume that most people looking at it will think it means "I want to murder Jews!" and not "I want to build a really good highway system!", despite the fact that both of these are things the Nazis did.

Mods, copy-paste this somewhere into the OSRS; after seeing this argument several dozen times personally it is the clearest explanation of the swastika ban I have ever seen written down.

[CoraSpia]

For the record, confirming that this site is accessible from Saudi Arabia, however slow it is, all that may be my web hosts fault (I think my web host that operates the Saudi Arabia proxy is a tiny little company, so can't complain.)

[Rivercastle]

What if we placed the swastika with the background clearly indicating its religious use?

[New Babylonia]

By that logic, the Swastika shouldn't be banned because the original symbol actually signifies peace and harmony. Yet, like the Hammer and Sickle, it is associated with mass genocide, as people who did just that used the symbol to represents themselves.

Your argument kind of falls apart at that.

No, it really doesn't. From the sticky in this forum:

A common question is why we don't ban nations that mimic the Soviet Union, or the USA, or some other real-life nation/entity with a violent history. Certainly, you can total up the body count of various real-world countries and arrive at awful totals: the Soviet Union under Stalin, for example. The question we ask is whether a mini-Soviet Union nation appears to celebrate violence against RL people. And the answer is probably no: assuming no specific references to the contrary, most people wouldn't make that association, because the Soviet Union is widely known for much more than butchery.

We judge nation pages in isolation, since the typical viewer is not going to hunt down forum posts or regional activity for clarifying context. So while parody nations are fine, that needs to be reasonably obvious from the nation page alone.

In summary, there's only a problem if we think a reasonable person looking at a nation page will think it's endorsing violence against real-life people. We are not crazy-strict about this. We are fairly sensitive to satire and humor. But when a nation appears to be simply rocking out to how cool it was for real-life country X to kill a bunch of people, we will delete that nation.

This is the site policy and has been for well over a decade. It is established and remarkably easy to abide by. So, like the Dude, let's get abidin'.

I wasn't advocating for it not to be banned. Merely pointing out the flaw in their argument.

[The Wolven League]

No, it really doesn't. From the sticky in this forum:


This is the site policy and has been for well over a decade. It is established and remarkably easy to abide by. So, like the Dude, let's get abidin'.

I wasn't advocating for it not to be banned. Merely pointing out the flaw in their argument.

As Con. pointed out, the Western view of he swastika is not "religious", but "Nazi". The hammer and sickle is usually not associated with the Soviet Union, but rather communism as a whole.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I have not seen anyone with "ISIL" or "al-Qaeda" flags. The people you are likely accusing simply have the "motto" of Islam on their flag, the Shadada.

As for the Soviets, the hammer and sickle does not mean Soviets- it means communism, even if the Soviets made it. Even if people think Hitler was as bad as Stalin (vice/versa), the hammer and sickle represents communism, not the people who led communist nations.

North Korea has not committed mass genoicde like the Nazis; there would be no reason to ban them just because their ideaology was extreme, since they have not really done anything horrific on a massive scale, unlike events like the Holocaust.

By that logic, the Swastika shouldn't be banned because the original symbol actually signifies peace and harmony. Yet, like the Hammer and Sickle, it is associated with mass genocide, as people who did just that used the symbol to represents themselves.

Your argument kind of falls apart at that.

Swastika has 4 dots. Hakenkreuz doesn't.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

I don't think that's the reason.... First of all, they're legal in the country where NationStates servers are located, so it really shouldn't be a legal issue. Second, I'm guessing the State flag of Virginia violates indecency laws in Saudi Arabia (and possibly other fundamentalist theocratic dictatorships) due to Lady Justice's exposed breast (even CD's with photos of female pop singers in risque but nevertheless non-breast-exposing outfits require the chest to be sharpied over in Saudi Arabia) but we've already established that's not banned. And AFAIK, we don't ban flags that depict the prophet Mohammed even though those are illegal in a lot of Muslim countries. Hell, my own flag (from my main nation, Gregoryisgodistan) could be considered blasphemey and get me thrown in jail in certain countries.

I doubt we have many users, if any, from Saudi Arabia. This site is probably not accessible from there. It is accessible from Germany and other European countries where Nazi, Neo-Nazi and fascist symbolism is against the law, and we'd like to be able to offer our wonderful game and forums to people from those countries.

If it's a legal issue, why do we allow it in posts on the forum? Surely that would be just as (il)legal as in flags? But I'm pretty sure it's not illegal in Germany to simply look at pictures of swastikas on the internet. Posting them, maybe. But not looking at them, especially when you weren't actively seeking them out. It's not kiddie porn.

[Reploid Productions]

I doubt we have many users, if any, from Saudi Arabia. This site is probably not accessible from there. It is accessible from Germany and other European countries where Nazi, Neo-Nazi and fascist symbolism is against the law, and we'd like to be able to offer our wonderful game and forums to people from those countries.

If it's a legal issue, why do we allow it in posts on the forum? Surely that would be just as (il)legal as in flags? But I'm pretty sure it's not illegal in Germany to simply look at pictures of swastikas on the internet. Posting them, maybe. But not looking at them, especially when you weren't actively seeking them out. It's not kiddie porn.

Because, though a potential issue, the legal issue is only a part of the reasoning; and really, is one of the smaller parts of it. Which, in the end, boils down to "Max doesn't want X, Y, Z things in flags." If the site owner decided to ban the word "mongoose," we'd be similarly obligated (though utterly baffled) to enforce it.

Mods were given a framework to work with, primarily being that flags (and by extension, banners) and nation names/customizable fields must be held to a higher/stricter standard than the forums, because these things lack sufficient context to determine things like "Oh, this is just a roleplay and not advocating real-world violence against real groups of people," and they cannot be argued/debated with, since you can't exactly post a counter-argument to somebody's nation page. A forum post will have additional context (such as being in a roleplaying forum, or as part of a debate,) and it can be argued right there in the thread. (NSG debates can rip it to pieces, somebody RPing a "Nazi" type nation can be RPed with, fought against, or ostracized from participation, and so on.)

[Ziegenhain]

So basically we can't use the Kolovrat or Black sun, both pagan symbols, because one is used by some obscure neo-nazis in Russia and the other is apparently used by stormfront (Who I haven't heard anything from in years)?

This seems a bit....extreme. A quick google search of the symbols pulls up nothing in relation to the Nazis or the like (although google is being literally about black sun and giving me black suns.).

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

You know, if the potential issues are with laws, I'm sure there is a way we can find a way to add code to make it so those flags don't appear in such a country.

After that, its all but a matter of try to talk to Max about it.

I think its hilariously stupid imo, but the Mods have a point, its Max's choice, its his site.

[Constantinopolis]

If the policy was to ban every symbol used by someone who committed mass genocide, we would have to ban almost every political and religious symbol in existence, including the Christian cross, the American flag, the Ottoman/Turkish flag, and many many others.

Which is why that is not the policy. The policy, as posted above, is to ban symbols that scream "I want to murder lots of RL people!" according to the popular perception of the symbol in question in the Western world. So yes, there is an element of subjectivity there - the swastika is banned because it is popularly perceived to mean endorsement of mass murder, whereas other symbols are not so perceived. The Christian cross does not scream "I support crusades to murder infidels and take back Jerusalem!" in the minds of most people, the hammer and sickle does not scream "I want to kill Ukrainian peasants!", and the American flag does not scream "I want to drop atomic bombs on cities full of civilians!", despite all those being things that were actually done under those symbols.

Is that unfair? Maybe. But ultimately, a symbol means what people think it means. There is no "real" meaning for any given set of geometric lines and squiggles. The meaning is in the mind of the beholder. So this site bans symbols according to what is assumed to be in the mind of the beholder. The swastika is banned because we assume that most people looking at it will think it means "I want to murder Jews!" and not "I want to build a really good highway system!", despite the fact that both of these are things the Nazis did.

Mods, copy-paste this somewhere into the OSRS; after seeing this argument several dozen times personally it is the clearest explanation of the swastika ban I have ever seen written down.

*takes a bow* Thank you! For the record, should anyone want to copy-paste this anywhere, you don't need to attribute it to me or anything. I waive all rights to that quote (if this wasn't already implied by posting it on the forum).

[CoraSpia]

If it's a legal issue, why do we allow it in posts on the forum? Surely that would be just as (il)legal as in flags? But I'm pretty sure it's not illegal in Germany to simply look at pictures of swastikas on the internet. Posting them, maybe. But not looking at them, especially when you weren't actively seeking them out. It's not kiddie porn.

Because, though a potential issue, the legal issue is only a part of the reasoning; and really, is one of the smaller parts of it. Which, in the end, boils down to "Max doesn't want X, Y, Z things in flags." If the site owner decided to ban the word "mongoose," we'd be similarly obligated (though utterly baffled) to enforce it.

Mods were given a framework to work with, primarily being that flags (and by extension, banners) and nation names/customizable fields must be held to a higher/stricter standard than the forums, because these things lack sufficient context to determine things like "Oh, this is just a roleplay and not advocating real-world violence against real groups of people," and they cannot be argued/debated with, since you can't exactly post a counter-argument to somebody's nation page. A forum post will have additional context (such as being in a roleplaying forum, or as part of a debate,) and it can be argued right there in the thread. (NSG debates can rip it to pieces, somebody RPing a "Nazi" type nation can be RPed with, fought against, or ostracized from participation, and so on.)

Not contesting his right to make rules for the site, but did Max ever give reasoning for it? Because a blanket ban is ridiculously flawed (a Hindu nation not being able to use swastikas, etc.)

[USS Monitor]

By that logic, the Swastika shouldn't be banned because the original symbol actually signifies peace and harmony. Yet, like the Hammer and Sickle, it is associated with mass genocide, as people who did just that used the symbol to represents themselves.

Your argument kind of falls apart at that.

Swastika has 4 dots. Hakenkreuz doesn't.

It's commonly used as a religious symbol without the dots.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

If it's a legal issue, why do we allow it in posts on the forum? Surely that would be just as (il)legal as in flags? But I'm pretty sure it's not illegal in Germany to simply look at pictures of swastikas on the internet. Posting them, maybe. But not looking at them, especially when you weren't actively seeking them out. It's not kiddie porn.

Because, though a potential issue, the legal issue is only a part of the reasoning; and really, is one of the smaller parts of it. Which, in the end, boils down to "Max doesn't want X, Y, Z things in flags." If the site owner decided to ban the word "mongoose," we'd be similarly obligated (though utterly baffled) to enforce it.

Mods were given a framework to work with, primarily being that flags (and by extension, banners) and nation names/customizable fields must be held to a higher/stricter standard than the forums, because these things lack sufficient context to determine things like "Oh, this is just a roleplay and not advocating real-world violence against real groups of people," and they cannot be argued/debated with, since you can't exactly post a counter-argument to somebody's nation page. A forum post will have additional context (such as being in a roleplaying forum, or as part of a debate,) and it can be argued right there in the thread. (NSG debates can rip it to pieces, somebody RPing a "Nazi" type nation can be RPed with, fought against, or ostracized from participation, and so on.)

I fully understand that, I just don't see how it's a legal issue at all and the material quoted above doesn't mention the legal side of it. I just wanted to be sure on why the rule exists, which according to the link above, has nothing to do with legal issues. Max is of course free to run his wife how he wants, but I'm quite sure it's not a legal issue.

[Luna Amore]

Because, though a potential issue, the legal issue is only a part of the reasoning; and really, is one of the smaller parts of it. Which, in the end, boils down to "Max doesn't want X, Y, Z things in flags." If the site owner decided to ban the word "mongoose," we'd be similarly obligated (though utterly baffled) to enforce it.

Mods were given a framework to work with, primarily being that flags (and by extension, banners) and nation names/customizable fields must be held to a higher/stricter standard than the forums, because these things lack sufficient context to determine things like "Oh, this is just a roleplay and not advocating real-world violence against real groups of people," and they cannot be argued/debated with, since you can't exactly post a counter-argument to somebody's nation page. A forum post will have additional context (such as being in a roleplaying forum, or as part of a debate,) and it can be argued right there in the thread. (NSG debates can rip it to pieces, somebody RPing a "Nazi" type nation can be RPed with, fought against, or ostracized from participation, and so on.)

I fully understand that, I just don't see how it's a legal issue at all and the material quoted above doesn't mention the legal side of it. I just wanted to be sure on why the rule exists, which according to the link above, has nothing to do with legal issues. Max is of course free to run his wife how he wants, but I'm quite sure it's not a legal issue.

I'm pretty sure his wife calls the shots.

[Luna Amore]

Not contesting his right to make rules for the site, but did Max ever give reasoning for it? Because a blanket ban is ridiculously flawed (a Hindu nation not being able to use swastikas, etc.)

See, it isn't a blanket ban. It is possible to have a swastika in your flag. It just can't be used maliciously. Given the swastikas recent history, it is very hard to use it in a way that doesn't make the average user think WW2/Holocaust/Genocide.

The site has a policy against malicious content. That has always been up to interpretation.

[Herrebrugh]

So... I'm hearing conflicting things (or at least they appear conflicting). I'd like to have this made clear for me:

Would such a flag be appropriate for a country called Kana Yala (as this was the flag thereof untill 2010, or so Wiki tells me):

And what about this flag for a nation which has clearly not got anything to do with nazism:

[Luna Amore]

So... I'm hearing conflicting things (or at least they appear conflicting). I'd like to have this made clear for me:

Would such a flag be appropriate for a country called Kana Yala (as this was the flag thereof untill 2010, or so Wiki tells me):

(Image)

And what about this flag for a nation which has clearly not got anything to do with nazism:

(Image)

Context is always important. The first one, IMO, would be ruled illegal. There's no context for it and the natural reaction would be 'Oh swastika, Nazis'. The second one, I personally have no issue with although it does sort of feel like the flag is designed with the purpose of hiding a swastika in it.

A GM with more experience is free to correct me.

[Unified Free Lands]

While we're talking about this, my main nation has a flag that's cyan blue with a white wolfsangel in the middle, would I be able to use this as a flag or in posts? The context is that the country is fascist and was formerly nazist, and therefore nazi symbols are still used very often in official documents and things like that.

[Ziegenhain]

"Kolovrat has also been appropriated by ... neo-Nazis in Russia ..."

So, no.

Neo-nazis have been known to use the German Imperial tri-color and Iron Cross and the Kaiserliche Marine ensign

should these also be banned as well because they are in connection with Neo-Nazi organizations?

I just wanted a clearer answer on use of the kolovrat now that there is all this conflicting information

[Luziyca]

"Kolovrat has also been appropriated by ... neo-Nazis in Russia ..."

So, no.

Neo-nazis have been known to use the German Imperial tri-color and Iron Cross and the Kaiserliche Marine ensign

should these also be banned as well because they are in connection with Neo-Nazi organizations?

You know, I think that what we should just do is ban all custom flags. All users should be forced to use the flags that are available upon creation. Thus, we won't need to worry about offending anyone, or getting these questions being asked every week all the time of whether this flag is okay. If it is not in the settings on the drop-down menu, you can't use the flag.

[The Wolven League]

Neo-nazis have been known to use the German Imperial tri-color and Iron Cross and the Kaiserliche Marine ensign

should these also be banned as well because they are in connection with Neo-Nazi organizations?

You know, I think that what we should just do is ban all custom flags. All users should be forced to use the flags that are available upon creation. Thus, we won't need to worry about offending anyone, or getting these questions being asked every week all the time of whether this flag is okay. If it is not in the settings on the drop-down menu, you can't use the flag.

TOTALLY not sarcastic.

More on topic, I think the ban on swastikas is incredibly stupid, even with Nazi-related flags; if someone wants to RP as a Nazi nation, I believe they should. But Max decides the rule, and we have to abide by them, so I really don't think this thread has any more use for remaining unlocked.