[Gossamer]

If it's true that all religious/political discussion must be kept in the PL, then is it okay to have these kind of (often inflammatory) statements in a signature? Just a few that I've noticed:
-Anything related to Israel, comparing them to Nazis, friend of them, etc
-The religious right is neither
-The only atomic weapons ever used, were instituted by a Democrat.
-If Jesus is the King of Peace, it's time for a little regicide. (that means killing a king)
-Assorted Bible verses

I'm saying that even though there are some of these that I agree with and some that I find downright offensive, to be fair none should be allowed if political and religious statements are to be kept in the PL.

[turtle777]

I agree. There are some sigs that are outright flamebaits. I see no reason why they should be allowed outside out the PWL.

Since you can't restrict sigs to a forum, I think they should go.
On the other hand, it's gonna be real hard to draw the line.

-t

[mac128k-1984]

Never mind

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I agree. There are some sigs that are outright flamebaits. I see no reason why they should be allowed outside out the PWL.

Since you can't restrict sigs to a forum, I think they should go.
On the other hand, it's gonna be real hard to draw the line.

-t

What if someone only posts in the PL? Then is it ok?

Let the fun begin!

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dakar

What if someone only posts in the PL? Then is it ok?

That is one thing I thought of, and it would make things difficult. But in all honesty, I don't think it's too much to ask of people just to avoid statements like that in sigs. They don't have to let us use sigs at all, and there are millions of things you could put there besides a possibly offensive statement.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dakar

What if someone only posts in the PL? Then is it ok?

For me, yes.

Originally Posted by Dakar

Let the fun begin!

As if it hasn't started yet...

-t

[brassplayersrock²]

i know having to look at swastikas in a person or twos signature has made me put them on my ignore list. i don't need to see something like that when surfing on a computer forum

Alex

[Big Mac]

I am very tempted to agree with you, Gossamer. However, those signatures remind everyone who's who, and although there are some very annoying ones, I'd rather those people display such sentiments out in the open.

[Kevin]

I've decided to stick strictly with artsy stuff and stuff I've been interested in lately.

While sometimes said sigs are good, even though I don't agree with them, I say let people hang themselves.

If they want to advertise that they are morons, let them. It helps weed them out.

Having said that I don't think all those you listed can really be seen as offensive.

And I doubt anything like this happens.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

i know having to look at swastikas in a person or twos signature has made me put them on my ignore list. i don't need to see something like that when surfing on a computer forum

Alex

To be fair, the only time I can recall seeing a swastika in a signature here, it was an actual left-facing fylfot swastika, not a right-facing Nazi swastika. And I don’t see anything offensive about putting a sun wheel in your signature...

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I agree. There are some sigs that are outright flamebaits. I see no reason why they should be allowed outside out the PWL.

Since you can't restrict sigs to a forum, I think they should go.
On the other hand, it's gonna be real hard to draw the line.

-t

It's that type of sig that makes me hide ALL sigs.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Person Man

It's that type of sig that makes me hide ALL sigs.

What ? Are you telling me you have never seen my turtle collection ?

-t

[stwain2003]

I think religious things should be allowed in sigs, just not things that blaspheme a religion. For example, I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't mind if a Buddhist put something in their sig. Not to say that I'd agree with what it said, but the regicide comment in completely unacceptable.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Oisín

To be fair, the only time I can recall seeing a swastika in a signature here, it was an actual left-facing fylfot swastika, not a right-facing Nazi swastika. And I don’t see anything offensive about putting a sun wheel in your signature...

Well, which symbol is more widely known...

Originally Posted by Kevin

Having said that I don't think all those you listed can really be seen as offensive.

I definitely agree that they're not all offensive...I mean who would argue with someone putting a nice, uplifting Bible verse or something...I'm just saying that if anti-religious sigs go, to be fair, the religious ones have to go too.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

However, those signatures remind everyone who's who

Like I said, there's a million different things they could have there. And lots of people change their sigs fairly often, so it's not always a perfect way to know who's who.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

I think religious things should be allowed in sigs, just not things that blaspheme a religion. For example, I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't mind if a Buddhist put something in their sig. Not to say that I'd agree with what it said, but the regicide comment in completely unacceptable.

But there are a lot of Bible verses I could post that would offend people that hold beliefs contrary to what the Bible says, even if the verse isn't inflammatory toward a different religion. So it's hard to draw a line there, which is why I don't think we can only allow a certain category, because the definition will always be stretched and it would just cause more anger between posters and mods.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

I think religious things should be allowed in sigs, just not things that blaspheme a religion.

That doesn't make sense.

For example, if somebody who's Jewish decides to have a signature which says that Jesus was nothing but a confused Jewish magician, or if somebody who's Muslim decides to maintain one that says he was not the son of "God" but only a prophet, I can foresee a lot of Xtians getting distressed about it, even though neither statement is actually blasphemous.

Also, bear in mind that there are plenty of people who think that religion is utter nonsense, and faith the last resort of the intellectually challenged, and that they'd have every right to be affronted by people constantly shoving their own beliefs upon others, much in the same way that somebody like yourself might feel offended by signatures like "There is no God but Man.", "God is dead." , "Religion is the opiate of the masses.", etc.

Personally, I have placed several posters on ignore, purely on account of their unnecessarily religious signatures.

[Andy8]

sans sig is best i think

[Oisín]

Well, which symbol is more widely known...

Worldwide? Probably the original swastika. Amongst the part of the world’s population that constitutes the member base of this forum? Probably the Nazi one.

Still, if you see a swastika superimposed on a stylistic image of the sun, with something written in Devanagari next to it, it would be more logical to think that it’s a Hindu symbol, rather than that it has anything to do with the Nazis.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Well, which symbol is more widely known...

That depends on the region. In Japan this sign is used to locate (Buddhist) temples on maps.

In either case, I would either forbid or allow all signatures of this sort, be it imagery or text. However, since these cases are rather rare, I wouldn't forbid them, but deal with the member in question when the problem arrises.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

That depends on the region. In Japan this sign is used to locate (Buddhist) temples on maps.

In either case, I would either forbid or allow all signatures of this sort, be it imagery or text. However, since these cases are rather rare, I wouldn't forbid them, but deal with the member in question when the problem arrises.

So, make it clear: should we report people that use that kind of symbols ?

-t

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Personally, I have placed several posters on ignore, purely on account of their unnecessarily religious signatures.

What about the anti-religious sigs. Are those people put on ignore too?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What about the anti-religious sigs. Are those people put on ignore too?

-t

[marden]

When I pass by a Buddhist Temple or a sign that says there's a Buddhist Temple here I am not compelled to go inside and practice or discuss their religion. I'm not compelled to do anything. As we tell the Muslim world when they are upset over an offensive word or cartoon, there is no freedom from being offended, so neither should we be hypocritical about our tolerance of expression.

The P/L was created, to allow the people in the lounge to enjoy pleasant convo without the passion that arises when people discuss politics and religion and such. As long as their is an enforcement of the topic segregation I think the question of offensive sigs is like an ink blot test. It shows you what makes you lose self control. I think it's a helpful exercise for people who truly believe in freedom of speech to put their money where there mouths are. I think it's a indication that some people "want to be the boss of me" whoever I may be.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by marden

The P/L was created, to allow the people in the lounge to enjoy pleasant convo without the passion that arises when people discuss politics and religion and such. As long as their is an enforcement of the topic segregation I think the question of offensive sigs is like an ink blot test. It shows you what makes you lose self control. I think it's a helpful exercise for people who truly believe in freedom of speech to put their money where there mouths are. I think it's a indication that some people "want to be the boss of me" whoever I may be.

Emphasis added

Have you been in the P/L lately it can be neither pleasant or without passion.

I think people who go out of their way to offend others hide behind the freedom of speech argument too much.

The only reason why they have those sigs is to offend people and irrate. I disagree in that it being a helpful exercise. The US government invokes limits on what can be said/printed or broadcast. If the US goverment limits some things its not inconceivable that Macnn should have limits themselves.

Without limits there is only anarchy and being a forum for civilized conversation there should be limits on what can be posted and/or shown on someone's sig.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

The only reason why they have those sigs is to offend people and irrate.

Funny.

If I put something hateful about Rob in my sig, I'd get banned for flame-baiting.

If I put something hateful about Christians in my sig, I am allowed to stay ?

Hello, MacNN, what's going on ?

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

Without limits there is only anarchy and being a forum for civilized conversation there should be limits on what can be posted and/or shown on someone's sig.

I think that's a dangerous road to travel, Michael. There are some signatures around here to which I take strong offense. And I have thought about asking that such signatures be limited to the PL. But that could not work due to technically reasons and more importantly because there would be no way to apply a fair standard that everyone could live with. In any event, isn't it often said that the remedy to distasteful speech is more speech? The mods and admins have a certain standard regarding content regulation in mind, and apparently those sigs we find distasteful do not violate that standard.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The mods and admins have a certain standard regarding content regulation in mind, and apparently those sigs we find distasteful do not violate that standard.

Yeah, which brings us back to the problem of subjectiv standards and double standards.

In many cases, the mods don't react until people get reported. Once you have been reported, you are guilty until proven innocent. You get banned, even if you can show that you didn't act differently than the reporting party. Whoever reports first must be (a priori) the victim.

-t

[Oisín]

Emphasis added

Have you been in the P/L lately it can be neither pleasant or without passion.

I think he meant that the P/L was created so that people in the regular Lounge would be able to have normal conversations (largely) without the passionated bickerfests in all the political and religious topics, by locking all those up in a room of their own.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Once you have been reported, you are guilty until proven innocent. You get banned, even if you can show that you didn't act differently than the reporting party. Whoever reports first must be (a priori) the victim.

I don't have a ton of experience on the subject, but that sounds a bit unfair to the staff. When I apparently got reported over a comment, DH gave me a warning but didn't take punitive action.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I don't have a ton of experience on the subject, but that sounds a bit unfair to the staff. When I apparently got reported over a comment, DH gave me a warning but didn't take punitive action.

I dunno.

I got temp-banned TWICE w/o any warning whatsoever.
The basic response from the mod was "get over it", not trying at all to look into the matter.
I have seen a fair share of double standards when it comes to banning.

-t

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

But that could not work due to technically reasons and more importantly because there would be no way to apply a fair standard that everyone could live with.

How about no political or religious statements in sigs?
I agree that a lot of people that have those sigs have use them as low jabs at another people group/religion, and that shouldn't be allowed, IMO.

I'm with what_the_heck...are we to report people with sigs that offend us?

[Person Man]

EDIT: Ah, screw it. I'm not gonna go there.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

What ? Are you telling me you have never seen my turtle collection ?

-t

Das hab' ich nicht gesagt.

I've seen your turtle collection. You can still see sigs by looking at individual user's profiles.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Das hab' ich nicht gesagt.
I've seen your turtle collection. You can still see sigs by looking at individual user's profiles.

Kluger Junge

-t

[porieux]

...

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by porieux

"Report sigs that offend us"? Can you grow up please?

IF you don't want to see sigs, turn them off in the preferences. In fact I may do just that myself.

I disagree. There have been a couple of sigs that I thought were very out of line that I reported. Free speech is great and all, but I don't think young kids need to be exposed to that stuff on this board. I also don't need my boss at work seeing some of the rather offensive images people put in their sigs.
Threads have a nsfw tag, but until sigs do too, they need to be policed.

[porieux]

...

[marden]

Originally Posted by Oisín

I think he meant that the P/L was created so that people in the regular Lounge would be able to have normal conversations (largely) without the passionated bickerfests in all the political and religious topics, by locking all those up in a room of their own.

Yes. Exactly.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

How about no political or religious statements in sigs?
I agree that a lot of people that have those sigs have use them as low jabs at another people group/religion, and that shouldn't be allowed, IMO.

I'm with what_the_heck...are we to report people with sigs that offend us?

Are the Muslims right to be able to force us to restrict our expression because it offends them?

Are the America Haters right to say whatever they want about America or Bush because they are exercising free speech?

Are atheists right to force all religion out of society?

Are fundi Christians and radislamics right to be able to eliminate all sexual oriented messages?

[marden]

Originally Posted by porieux

"Report sigs that offend us"? Can you grow up please?

IF you don't want to see sigs, turn them off in the preferences. In fact I may do just that myself.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by porieux

I say again. Grow the **** up.

If you don't want to see the sigs, turn them off.
It would be different if that were not an option but it is.

We don't care what your boss doesn't want to see at work.
Stay off the forums at work then. I can't imagine your job
involves needing to visit MacNN. (i sure hope not)

No need to get personal.
You are missing the point of my post anyway. It isn't that I don't want to see the sigs, it's that I don't want to see the offensive ones. And I wasn't only talking about myself. Kids don't need it either and I don't think it should be expected of them to turn off sigs. Or of the visitors that aren't members and can't turn sigs off. This is the same point I made in the avatar thread.

I am back in school actually, so I don't have a boss. I was giving an example that did not need to be applied only to myself. My tech job had no problem with me visiting macnn btw.

[porieux]

...

[Chuckit]

Couldn't the same logic apply to posts in general?

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Couldn't the same logic apply to posts in general?

And it does. We confine it to the PL for just that reason. Since we can't confine the sigs to the PL we have this thread.

Who are you, or anyone else here, to say this is not a kid's site? I don't remember giving a CC# or being asked my age when I registered.

Again, it isn't just about me and turning off the sigs. Most people here don't know the feedback forum exists and don't realize they can offer input. If I wanted to block a few images I would just add them to my adblock filter.

I don't mind the religious or political ones that focus on the good, it's the ones that compare two religions/nationalities/whatever to each other and imply that one is superior. Sigs that call for the destruction of a people are bad, sigs that say I love bush/muhammed/whoever are fine by me.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by SSharon

I don't mind the religious or political ones that focus on the good, it's the ones that compare two religions/nationalities/whatever to each other and imply that one is superior. Sigs that call for the destruction of a people are bad, sigs that say I love bush/muhammed/whoever are fine by me.

Good is pretty subjective. Someone from the US might think it "good" to have a "support our troops" kind of signature, but that does not necessarily mean it's not an offensive statement to somebody who is, say, an Iraqi or Iranian, or pacifist.

Similarly, somebody from Israel might think it "good" to have an anti-Palestinian signature, but that does not necessarily mean it isn't going to be offensive to others. Besides, does "whoever" include people like Hitler, Pol Pot, Bin Laden? Would that still be okay?

Just switch some of the national/religious references in any given signature out for their perceived opposites, I think you'll find it's impossible to avoid offending someone.

Point being: To the easily offended, the fact that you're offended says more about yourself than it does about the offender. It's not a case of "OMFG, I'm so offended, I just have to report the f*cker, hope they ban him, OMFG how dare he have that in a sig, WTF! MODS! MODS! MODS!"

At least, I don't think that should be the case, it seems grossly disproportionate to me.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by porieux

Still, this is not a kid's site, and I don't think anyone cares what people who don't even bother to register for the forum think.
.

Um, it surely is. It's not an adult site. It's "for everyone" site.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

-t

Well you notice it didn't get answered.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by porieux

If you don't want to see the sigs, turn them off.
It would be different if that were not an option but it is.

I don't like that line of argumentation.

You could also argue then to allow hatespeech and other things, since you could just turn of the internet ( = opt to not use it at all). Where would that lead us to ?

-t

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Good is pretty subjective. Someone from the US might think it "good" to have a "support our troops" kind of signature, but that does not necessarily mean it's not an offensive statement to somebody who is, say, an Iraqi or Iranian, or pacifist.

Similarly, somebody from Israel might think it "good" to have an anti-Palestinian signature, but that does not necessarily mean it isn't going to be offensive to others. Besides, does "whoever" include people like Hitler, Pol Pot, Bin Laden? Would that still be okay?

Although 'good' is always subjective I did not say your opinion of the sig needs to be good. Maybe it would be more clear if I said that it would be ok if the sig supported your position without implying some sort of negative consequence on your opponent.

support our troops is a good point though. even things that promote one side can be at the expense of another. getting offended by someone supporting their national defense is different than a sig that says nuke israel.

I think people know when their sigs are in good taste and wouldn't object to changing it if they got a PM from another member.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by porieux

Still, this is not a kid's site.

http://forums.macnn.com/members/c-a-t-s-ceo/


Alex