There are many reasons why people may have the same avatar. It could be a popular character or movie. Perhaps a picture of a well known celebrity. I find it ludicrous to suggest banning somebody on the basis of having the same picture as somebody else.

I have a copy cat of my name too and he is slandering me and its totaly wrong his name is this unvme4it_ notice the underscore at the end he is even using my same picture and he should be removed this is unfair

grandmasterDB, yesterday you had another avater, you copied Xicalddivas so far I can remember, so now you copied mine only to pester around. And that is what is banworthy. We do not need people that are here only to piss in the pool.

At least it surely "avatar deletion"-worthy

'Impersonating'. Say it with me.

*grumble* Damned if I could firgureout what this topic was about.

Having the same picture is not "imposing". I see a picture I like, I will use it. I don't wish to confuse anyone that I'm you, I have no reason too. I don't like the fact that you want to impose rules on what people can have as avatars. I consider that "pissing in the pool" and banworthy.

So from now on, don't drink apple juice before going on a swim.

Also, I consider it banworthy for anyone to have the word "cat" in their name. Thats just slang for a part of the female anatomy in my book, especially if it's "fuzzy"

Not to triple post, but I say thanks to Tech, because fuzzy's "imposing" really did throw me off.

Look you changed your avatar JUST for this thread. Not because you liked it. Do you even know what this cat says and who it is?

There is nothing against people having "cat" in their name, or "fuzzy".

But there is something against people making nicks like "fuzzycat_", "fuzzvcat", or something just to make it look the same, and just to pester.

It did not happen to me, except grandmasterDB now taking my avatar after I opened this very thread, just to "make his point", or whatever. But I've seen it now happen to a couple of people, and its just not right.

Doing libel is in that way even in real life illegal, so why should it be legal on kdice?

"I don't like the fact that you want to impose rules on ... "

Look what was the famous sentence again? The freedom of one person stops where the freedom of the other person starts?

Having a unique identy is a basic human right.

wtf fuzzycat is MY avatar

I OWN IT

OMFG WTF BBQ

This seems pertinent:

The Court ruled that a public figure could not recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a satire, because under the First Amendment, an obvious satire or parody of a public figure remains protected speech, even if it causes emotional distress to that person. A public figure couldn't recover damages without showing not only that the publication contained a "false statement of fact" (that is, a statement that a reasonable reader would believe to be true), but also that the satirist acted with "actual malice" (that is, "with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true").

The court stated that satire (even outrageous satire) has a long and important history in America and that the Founding Fathers had specifically intended for the First Amendment to protect these types of parodies. The court cited many examples of famous, if bitingly satirical, political cartoons, "from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day." The Court paid particular attention to the cartoons of Thomas Nast, whose cartoons ridiculed the corruption of Tammany Hall and helped bring about the downfall of Boss Tweed. The court noted that Nast's cartoons were successful because of their emotional impact, which arose out of going "beyond the bounds of good taste and conventional manners."

Read more about it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
or
http://hustler.com