I would concur that it is rather gross, but it could also be construed as a form of political speech. If the user is against abortion, that avatar would certainly project an aversion to the process, at least insofar as "backroom" procedures are concerned.

Moreover, he rules say "no porn", not "no gross avatars" and I would have to say that the avi in question does not constitute porn and so should not be subject to deletion.

TY, that is what I was thinking. My avatar did NOT violate the rules and should not have been deleted. Nor should my ability to upload a new avatar have been revoked.

I saw it and instantly was grossed out by it and the visual it gave me, to the point I almost wanted to puke. I didn't revoke any other rights so that you could post on the forum in case you cared to dispute it.

I stand by my decision that that avatar should not be used. If you can be trusted to put up a different one, then I'll be willing to give you that chance, since you did post here with a reasonable plea.

As for rules, I'm working on compiling a rules section that I intend to pass by Ryan to see if he goes with it or not. But in the meantime, common sense rules carry the day. Meaning, if for the most part, people would find something offensive, then it is likely offensive. (not clear, sure, which is why im working on a rules section).

Ill return your right to change avatar. But if you do another picture to go along with your name, chances are it wont be appropriate..

So i'm guessing Grunvagr is pro-life?

ew.

ew life?

I see you picked a lone hanger in memory of your fallen avatar. ^^

Apparently an illustrated blob puts it over the edge into vile revulsion.

monte bump