Recently there's been quite a bit of controversy surrounding some avatars
(eg. Moonshake and the Minecraft CCTV rendition of the Connecticut school shooting" Not pointing fingers, it's just an example )
some of which I personally think there was no problem with. There's always one or two people who are offended by an avatar, but this doesn't mean the Users right of expression should be removed. Another thing is religion, people occasionally have an avatar that maybe could be considered offensive to some of that religion, but it's not hate speech, and so isn't against the law in any way.

What I am proposing is a clear-cut, easy to understand policy regarding avatars. Something along the lines of "as long as it's not hate speech blah blah blah"

I think moonshake had a clear cut rule not to do that, then he did. I feel that being subjective towards this is the best way to go. No one is actualy that offended for most of these things. (take chirs for example lol)

Playing it by ear over how much of any particularly offensive avvy sparks an outcry is probably the best way to go with this. I mean, it's not like this shit is causing flashbacks and ptsd or anything, it's not a big deal to begin with.