New Policy Discussion - **NO** Politics (& maybe Religion) in Sigs

Since the old thread was proving too hot to handle, and this issue is not going to die without some higher-up comment, I think we need to go forth and debat this issue.

New ModSquad Policy - Politial references have been banned from signatures.

There is an idea going that religious references may also be banned, but that is not official nor should we make it so. Just pointing out.

So what do you think" Here's what I said when I found out:

"Perhaps someone can give a good reason for allowing politicised signatures on a Star Wars messageboard? I see none." I know this was commented on before, but no one listened. Yes, we have a board for religious, political and social discussion, as well as an arts & culture forum. They have no place on a Star Wars website, you are right. However, the JC is a SW mesage board in name only. It is a global community of nearly 80,000 people that wish to discuss a variety of topics. At first, Star Wars prevailed; it still does, but people also want to get to know each other and hope to see this community grow beyond Episode 3 and the DVD releases. So, in keeping with that, the new, non-SW forums were created. First was Miscellaneous, then it became the YJCC, we saw fan art, fan films, the Senate, the Amphitheatre and the RP Forum may open its doors to non-SW RP in the near future (who starts that petition ).

Diversity is the hallmark of a good message board.

Now, we have this bit-o-censorship that I do not agree with and in fact think is a way of eliminating a problem (users complaining/flaming others based on sigs) witha heavy-handed edict that even I would never have condoned. What is the problem? Really, I think this is an inane move, a knee-jerk response to a problem that is not very old. If someone has a problem with a signature, you look at the individual signature. You do not eliminate a whole section of thought because of a few problem users! How can you even think that would solve the problem?

EDIT: Religous or political, I see no difference. The problems related to these sort of signatures in the past have been miniscule. Deal with the user, the source of the problem, not with the idea, not by putting a blanket ban on a whole forum - punishing a more than 70,000 people - for the actions of a few.

Come now. Let's show common sense.

What do you think, fellow users?


Edit: This party's over. Unless of course
another mod sees reason for it to be re-opened.

 

Something tells me this is going to get ugly.

*tiptoes out of Comm*

 

I agree with MrEhm on this issue... totally

the mere fact that the thread got locked when people wished to question this decision because someone didn't like the fact that we're not mindless automatons, but people who question things really disturbs me.

 

Something I was about to post in response in the other thread (by the way, I'm not sure this one will last very long):

"Come now. Let's show common sense."

I wish it were that simple.

Unfortunately, that is something not possessed by everyone that posts here.

We have to take account of that when we formulate new rules - and that is exactly what we have done.

If you want to discuss politics, no one is stopping you. It just has to be kept to the right forum.

Above all, this is a Star Wars messageboard. Most people that come here don't want to discuss politics. Therefore, they should not have other people's political views, which they may find offensive, thrust upon them.

If they decide that they want to enter the Senate, then they can do so. That's their decision - and they do so with the understanding that they may be offended by some of the opinions held by those posting there.

This rule is about protecting posters and maintaining a friendlier environment. It's not an exercise in censorship.

 

I think instead of doing their jobs and moderating/handling problems individually the group has decided to apply the "easy" solution of curtailing freedom of expression.

Considering sigs have been around for a while and have been used for political/religous statements in the past with no "problem" this decision smacks of hasty decision-making and short-sightedness.

This decision is bad for the forums as a whole and offensive.

 

Even though I don't like this new policy, put it in perspective.


Common sense is the most uncommon thing there is.
This is a privately owned site, if you don't like they way it runs, then leave.

EDIT: Wow, I didn't realize how nasty it got in the update thread.

 

Well this is perhaps one of the lamest ideas I've heard... yes let's take away one of the things that shapes many people's lives and beliefs.

 

This is a privately owned board stevo, and I sincerely doubt the owners will like that fact those they allow to administer it are close to disallowing religious sigs as offensive.

 

I would disagree[to GCC's last statement]. This is about banning a whole avenue of thought. That is censorship.

Now don't get me wrong - inflammatory sigs should be removed, but each should be looked at on an individual basis. To slap a blanket ban on all signatures is just ludicrous!

Profanity, sexual ludeness, flaming other members, inflammatory/instagatory remarks - you remove those from signatures, but not simple statements.

Kessel Runner is the "liberal champion of the JC" - that is political and it has not been removed from his sig. It also is not harming anyone. Sure, he's being a bit egotistical with that statement (hehe) but he is not attacking anyone.

 

I take offense to the blatant glorification of drug use in Stev0's signature, and suggest he be asked to change it, as de-criminalizing of certaIN drugs, including "pot" is a highly political issue in some areas...

 

I echo everything gcc said. We are doing this for the long-term good of the JC. You may not understand it now, but it will all make sense later down the road.

 

VIVA LE RESISTANCE!!!!!

AIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYI!

 

As for commone sense - the super and silent majority have it. A few trouble makers around here don't. Lets not bundle everyone up in a sack and beat them just because some random fool did something wrong.

 

This is exactally why I do not support the new policy . . .

 

Above all, this is a Star Wars messageboard. Most people that come here don't want to discuss politics. Therefore, they should not have other people's political views, which they may find offensive, thrust upon them.

Frankly...


People who are offended by a simple/harmless political or religous statements in someone's sig need to grow the hell up and enter the real world.

If someone is not mature enough to handle opposing viewpoints why then should they ruin the freedom of expression for the rest of us?

I echo everything gcc said. We are doing this for the long-term good of the JC. You may not understand it now, but it will all make sense later down the road.

Your condescention makes me want to puke all over my monitor.

 

I echo everything gcc said. We are doing this for the long-term good of the JC. You may not understand it now, but it will all make sense later down the road.

I respectfully submit that this is very patronizing, and does not help this discussion.

But I'm going to bed as I think that we are not going to get any resolution any time soon.

~H~

 

"I would disagree[to GCC's last statement]. This is about banning a whole avenue of thought. That is censorship."

Signatures aren't 'avenues of thought,' at best they are a method of making a statement which no one can respond to. You don't discuss things via signature. If anything, this is allowing better debate of political subjects. If you have something political to say, you have to do so in an environment that invites opposition to your viewpoint.

The encouragement of debate is the antithesis of censorship.

 

Dammit, I couldn't edit my post above . . .


The reason I don't support this policy is because there is a fine line on what is acceptable and what is not. To give the mods the power to change whatever they think is right wrong is a little overboard.

 

I echo everything gcc said. We are doing this for the long-term good of the JC. You may not understand it now, but it will all make sense later down the road. - Son of the Suns

Whoa there, buddy. This is not one of those long-term solutions. This is a short-term reaction, a quick fix to a problem. The problem you wish to curtail - inflammatory political signatures - can be dealt with still and forevermore on an individual basis. Why? Because sigs have always been handled on an individual, case-by-case basis. They are unique signatures, are they not? No two are really alike. You cannot blame and punish the masses for the minority's action, can you?

Well, you have.

How is this long-term? So you won't have to deal with it anymore - is that what you want to ease, the moderating burden or the horrendous signature problem that seems to be set to cripple the JC in the near future?

 

*applauds loudly for Spike*



and apologies to Stevo, I was merely illustrating a point I made earlier, that almost anything could be twisted into politics or religion, i.e. the old "certain point of view" way of doing things...

 

Hmmm - not sure how I ended up with 3 of the same message!

 

Ok, that's it. Since you people can't discuss anything in this forum without resorting to flaming, this discussion is over.

 

Re-opened.

Keep it civil. Resorting to flaming or discussing anything but the subject matter may result in bannings.

 

So what excactly does TF.N have against free speech? I don't see how it would be a problem to address the issue with those who have inflammatory/provocatory statements in their sigs on an individual basis rather than a blanket banning of people's opinions.


o]||||{ -------SaberSlinger-------

 

Shut up, Dan. Take your drama crap elsewhere. We're trying to have a civil discussion without drama. It's not proving to lighten the mood. We need discussion, debate - not spamming by socks that should be banned.