Discussion in 'Communications' started by Son of the Suns, Aug 11, 2002.
Farraday, I think I love you.
...but I might love your sig more.
"Commemorating a tragedy has nothing to do with politics."
But 9/11 was more than just a simple tragedy; it was an act of terrorism, which is, by its very nature, political. Any comment on it necessarily crosses into the realm of the political. According to the new rule, they should not be allowed.
What about sigs that express patriotism? That is often a political act. Or quotes for the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?
No one answered my question about banning religious sigs. Surely that?s even more contentious then politics.
Or is it because that would go over with the staff like a lead balloon?
Thank you DarthJurist, I do so hope no one is offended by my sig, I'm not sure I could maintain a straight face while telling them where they could file their objections.
Speaking for myself only, as this was not throughly discussed, I would consider religious statements to be no different than political statements.
Thats such a heartning thought SotS.
I wonder if you brought this up with the AC?
Given it's only been two days since the incident with Vaderbait which I have no doubt set this off I seem to doubt it.
Why are they there if you don't use them to keep you from making fools of yourselves?
Why are you so bitter, farraday?
Might it be more fair to say I'm continualy amazed but the complete lack of thought that goes into some decisions?
Well, maybe not fair...
So I guess haveing "God Bless America" in your sig would result in a doubled ban time.
just one question.
Who decided what is considered political or religious, and what is not? I mean, depending on a "certain point of view" one could find a political or religious slant in almost every sig, if one tried hard enough..
I mean, in SotS, sig, he makes reference to creatures of the Underworld, therefore, one could therefore say his sig promoted Satanism...
In MrEhm's post, for instance, he refers to "you know, "white on rice" sort of stuff." One could make an argument for that being a racist statement..
In Green's sig, he quotes the Clash somg, "Rock the Casbah" which I could say means he supports Islam.
as the old quote goes, "Before attending the mote in thy neighbor's eye, attend the beam in thine own...."
Let's have a small reality check here, eh?
Fingorfin - you are arguing semantics. Yes, terrorism is done for political (and often religious) reasons, but that does not mean we remember those who died in that light. We remember victims as victims, and linking to a memorial is reminding us of those who died, not supporting various political ideas. Take System of a Down - the band, mainly Serj, had some very harsh things to say about the US post-Sept11 (the 13th to be precise), yet they and he still shared in the world-wide, unpartisan mourning for the victims because it was a tragedy first, a political act second. Follow? Hell, it's all semantics.
"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.
A lot of thought goes into these discussions, farraday. Do you think we just sit down and come up with random rules that have no purpose?
"I mean, in SotS, sig, he makes reference to creatures of the Underworld, therefore, one could therefore say his sig promoted Satanism... "
One wonders if it's the right kind of thought considering in a very short time a few here managed to think up one or two problems with it.
I also assume from your silence that this wasn't brought up with the AC.
Of course I'm willing to admit I could be mistaken on that point. I very rarely speak ex cathedra.
Oops, religious type statement outside of the senate. Take me away officer SotS.
We both know that these decisions take a lot of time to be made. Heh, it took half a year to ban PreacherBoy. A-hehe, pardon.
But seriously, what's going on? This does not speak of long-term discussion. This is an issue that should have been tossed around in the Advisory Council and there should have been some indication to the regular members that there are growing concerns with politics and religion in sigs. Let some of your discussion leak on purpose, like often is done in Congress, so you can get a feel for what this would do. No, I do not think this edict should be kept nor should it have even been thought of after so few incidents. This is the sort of reaction made when a whole group of people do something, not a few users.
Do you think we just sit down and come up with random rules that have no purpose?
*resists urge to nod*
I'll just content myself with a rousing chorus of "Deutchland Uber Alles"
and as to the "rolls eyes" comment, Kristian, it's commentary like that that makes it obvious why people take these updates less and less seriously.