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

How 'bout we scrub the hair off of it?

 

To keep beating the dead horse

Clarifying what I said earlier:
Banning someone should be a last resort, when they're totally unreasonable. Free speech is an endangered right, and I would hate to see it disappear in a discussion board. The Internet is the most free place in the world, so far...until the special interests and PC-mongers take over.

 

Agreed.

 

This chimp has volunteered to clean up the beaten dead horse once he's finished washing the cat:

[image=http://www.oldmatador.com/anim_monkey.gif]

 

3 cheers for reasonable mods!

 

Here's cheer number 1.


[image=http://www.animecowboy.com/gallery/Cowboy_Bebop/Spike_Spiegel/spike30.jpg]

 

what i don't get is why one or two people's "offensive" political sigs required a swift and hardcore abolishment of all political sigs. this seems like taking the easy way out rather than dealing with the real issue which is individuals rather than the entire community. since when are any and all political sigs so dangerous and inflammatory? there are many forms of political statements that are in fact completely benign in nature. the notion that ANY form of political sig is detrimental to the community is completely ridiculous and narrow minded.

oh, and by the way, saying that something (anything) doesn't belong here because this is a star wars message board is a cop out. this is a large and diverse community. star wars is the foundation, the common denominator, not a requirement for discussion.

 

Beating the dead horse is my favorite part of the job.

 

Radiohead, the monkey pic was kinda cute the first time, now it's just annoying. If you don't have anything of import to offer, then why post?

 

The Senate Floor is intended as the only forum in the JC for political discussion.
I'm not lookin to discuss when it's in my sig. I guess I can't say "I am a man" in my sig because it might offend people.

Failure to remove all or part of a signature when asked could result in your banning from the forums.


Ah, this would've been nice to know before they banned me.

Sorry, this whole thing is bull.

 

Vanderbait, glad to see you're back. This whole situation is bush....

 

Glad to have you back, Vaderbait. I was just wondering when this entire situation would be cleared up satisfactorily. The whole situation is, as mentioned, really unnecessary.

 

When can we expect a decision by the Administration about the matter?

 

stevo,

Vertical wrote this a bit further back;

As an update on this situation, the mods who are online right now are currently discussing the proposed policy, and the way in which it was enacted.

For the record, this policy is not in effect. Consider it a proposal for the time being, and make use of this thread to voice your opinions on such a policy. Criticism is welcome, but please make it constructive. Taking this as an opportunity to slam the administration as a whole may be satisfying for you, but that's not the point of this thread. I think we're all aware that this situation wasn't handled ideally, and we're working on a better solution for everyone.

Again, this policy is not in effect. It is being discussed with the AC, in the Mod Squad, and here. We're interested in getting everyone's thoughts, and the mods will make the final call on this issue, once an informed majority opinion is reached. This may take a day or so, but we want to get as many opinions on this as possible.

 

It goes against the Constitution.

 

^ ?

 

This proposition is not right. Here is an example :

JC member A is attracted to the opposite sex. JC member B is far right wing and believes homosexuality is wrong. B takes offense to the fact that A is homosexuel and states the fact in his or her sig. B complains with others, because they are always others, that its disturbing and political. A is banned.

One example but there are thousands more.

 

The Constitution only applies to acts of the government. This board is privately owned; they can make whatever rule they see fit. I do not agree with the policy, but it is within their right to enact it.

 

It goes against the Constitution.

Even though I am on the side opposite the Administration on this issue, the only constitution that applies to this situation is the TOS. The idea is to keep the administration from changing the TOS -- the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with this since, as far as I know, TF.n does not take federal funding.

JC member A is attracted to the opposite sex. JC member B is far right wing and believes homosexuality is wrong. B takes offense to the fact that A is homosexuel and states the fact in his or her sig. B complains with others, because they are always others, that its disturbing and political. A is banned.

That confused me beyond words.

So are you saying that by these guidelines a person attracted to the same sex could be banned through the actions of another attracted to the opposite sex?

 

No, he means that depending on the person and situation, almost anything can cause a person to take offense.

 

Thats right, some people always take advantage of the system . . .

 

That's fine, I wasn't questioning the logic. I was just looking for a clarification. Thank you.

 

Wow. Just wow.

Did you guys really think the common lowly poster was just going to blindly sit back and let this happen?

This just goes to show just how foolish some of this board's admin's decisions are...before their "reviews".

It also goes to show just how worthless the whole concept of the Advisory Council was and how it was just there to throw the board members a bone. I said it way back when and I was right, sorry to say.

Still I'm heartened to see enough people complained that the admins had to do a little backpeddling.

 

This thread is for constructive comments only. Learn from Padme : Rebuild from within the frame work

 

Critisizing the mods doesn't get anything accomplished. . .