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

Ah, so the thread wasn't closed, or wasn't created at all. My apologies. This still should have been brought up with the AC in my opinion. Doing so would've avoided this entire thread.

Ah, well-said, JGM.

 

Lack of politics makes strange bedfellows, I guess.

I can see that there has been some change since I went to sleep. Vertical has acknowledged the problem that faces the Administration now. They jumped into making a decision, purposely left out the Advisory Council - the group set up to give serious opinion on issues like this - and then expect regular users to swallow this tripe? Well, now they know the "solution" is no more than a poor excuse at policy.

What is to be done? Of course, this policy will not be enforced until it is rethought. I don't see how anyone could follow an edict so weakly made.

 

i agree Maddux. this decision is causing too many problems, & it need to be fixed quickly.

 

I agree with Dan, and JGM on this issue...

 

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.

Thanks, and apologies for the mess.

Vertical

 

Thank you, Vertical. I, for one, very much appreciate your cool-headedness.

AYBABTU?

 

Kudos, newlywed.

 

Vertical, I think the reason many of us are or were upset with the Administration as a whole was this was presented to us by SotS, acting as a member of the Admin staff, and informing us that this was a unanimous decision on the part of the Admins, as a whole.

I see now that his stating this was "in error", but at the time, he certainly made it seem like this was the opinions of the Administration. I'm sure you can understand our concerns.

 

Absolutely, I can understand your reaction. The claim that this was a 'unanimous' decision, while correct from a certain point of view (meaning - those who participated in the discussion all supported the idea), is a bit misleading. I can't speak to whether or not SOTS understood that this way of phrasing it could be misinterpreted, but I can certainly understand the confusion.

It's a sticky situation, and we'll be doing our best to resolve the issue in a timely and fair manner. I hope you guys can be patient with us as the last thing we want to do is make MORE hasty decisions.

Thanks, and again, sorry for the confusion.

Vertical

 

Alas, level-headedness prevails. Thanks Vert


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

 

I don't agree with the argument that "We have the Senate, so all politics should be kept there". I'm going spoiler free for episode III, but what if someone has a sig saying something about it? If we went along with the logic of that argument, I could say, "Please keep it in the Episode III Spoilers forum". The same could apply to someone refrencing the EU in their sig. I might get mad because I haven't read that particilar book they get their sig from.

Edit: Forget that /\


I am glad to see that this wasn't a unanimous decision, and that people like Vertical and Knight Writer think it needs more discussion.

 

Of course, Vert... I seem to recall your "fairness of judgement" in matters regarding signature controversy...



I only hope that that issue is resolved soon, and some consensus, or happy medium, is achieved, as this matter has proven to be incredibly volatile, on both sides...

 

"We have the Senate, so all politics should be kept there". I'm going spoiler free for episode III, but what if someone has a sig saying something about it? If we went along with the logic of that argument, I could say, "Please keep it in the Episode III Spoilers forum".

Actually, signatures are not allowed to have Episode III spoilers in them unless that user posts exclusively in 3SA. That's an old policy, and once included AOTC as well.

 

I don't agree with the argument that "We have the Senate, so all politics should be kept there". I'm going spoiler free for episode III, but what if someone has a sig saying something about it? If we went along with the logic of that argument, I could say, "Please keep it in the Episode III Spoilers forum".


Actually, spoilers are not allowed to be in sigs because they could ruin the movie for a spoiler-free person like yourself.

EDIT: Dang you Knightwriter!

 

Levity.












That's what we need.

 

Actually, signatures are not allowed to have Episode III spoilers in them unless that user posts exclusively in 3SA. That's an old policy, and once included AOTC as well.

Ahh, I see, that's very good to know.

 

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

So what about sigs mentioning EU? Should they be banned to "keep it in the right forum"?

"Therefore, they should not have other people's political views, which they may find offensive, thrust upon them."

Having a political statement in a sig is hardly "thrusting it upon" someone. Thrusting it upon someone would be something like constant unwanted PM's. Which have nothing to do with sigs.

"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."

People should have that understanding when they step into the outside world, when they get on the internet, when they register at a message board.

"This is a privately owned site, if you don't like they way it runs, then leave."

Then what is the point of the communications forum? Are we not to communicate with the administration unless we agree everything they do?

And another thing I disagree with: The fact that names mention religious figures are "no longer appropriate". Does that just apply to the religious figures of the folks who run this place(Jesus, Satan, etc), or does it apply to other things as well? Would the name Darth_Buddha be banned? What of my name? It has the word saint in it, is that now inapropriate? Is that just a proposal until further discussion, like the sig issue?

Hmm. Instead of actually working to solve problems, you just throw rules at them. Replace rules with money and you'd be politicians.

OH NOES! DON'T BANE MEH!!!1!

 

until the admins can guarantee us that they know the intent of a person's "political" sig, they should be a little more cautious...

 

"Hair isn't a right, it's a privilege!"

I thought a deviation would be a suitable new manual sig.

Is the signature feature a privilege instead of a right?

 

In this case, the hair was an abomination.

[image=http://www.sunglassplanet.com/Traficant2.jpg]

AYBABTU?

 

Does anyone else find it ironic that this decision had only lead to more sigs of a relegious and political nature?

 

Not really, if you tell people they can't do something and they don't like it-- chances are, they'll do it.

Thanks Vertical and KnightWriter for some rationality.

 

It is good to see clearer heads prevailing in here. Last thing we need are more Drama Monkeys in here to rile people up.

 

Does anyone else find it ironic that this decision had only lead to more sigs of a relegious and political nature?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

I've apparently missed the bulk of the discussion, but I just need to ask: What kind of person is going to get so upset over another user's sig? If I were to flip out and get all worked up because someone has different political beliefs in his or her sig or mentions belief in a different religion, I would think that speaks volumes about me, in a negative fashion, while having nothing to do with the sig or the user who owns the sig.

And for the record I agree with Dan, Emh, AYBABTU, JGM, EP, and everyone else who is against this and has said what I would have said had I been here.

Amazing.