PDA

View Full Version : Proposal: Guidelines regarding posting pictures of dead bodies in sigs, avvy and posts



Tned
06-07-2008, 05:16 PM
We have had a Town Hall discussion open for about two weeks in regards to whether or not displaying images of dead bodies is appropriate.

This subject seems to have first come up when someone put the body of Che in his sig, and then there was retaliation in the form of posting dead/mutilated bodies in other threads.

The results of the discussion were:

4 people were in favor of allowing dead bodies in any situation
3 stated that it depended. As an example, one person said that a peaceful looking corpse would be ok, where a mutilated one would not.
2 stated they didnít care one way or another
11 were against displaying dead bodies


While it should be well known by now that I donít accept the validity of polls for making important forum decisions, as the poll results are generally wrong for many reasons (wording of poll, people voting before reading discussion or even points/questions raised in original post, mistakes/choosing wrong option), here are the results of the poll for informational purposes. It should be noted that a couple prime examples of why poll data is not used in making forum decisions is that one poster said that s/he voted no, because "I donít care" wasnít an option, and another was clearly against dead bodies being displayed, but s/he accidentally voted yes to allow it. I bring these up not because the posters did anything wrong, but to reinforce some of the problems with relying on polls to determine forum decisions.

The poll results were 33 against displaying dead bodies, 12 in favor of displaying dead bodies.

Please note for future discussion, it is critical that if you want your opinion/vote to count, you must join the discussion and make clear your feeling on the subject, and ideally state why your feel the way you do (in regards to why something should or shouldnít be implemented by the forum).

So, after reading all of the discussion on this subject, the following amendment to the rules is being proposed. I will keep this thread open until next weekend to receive comment on it, and then will make this rule, or a variant of it (based on comments here) effective at that time.

The following Amendment/interpretation guideline has been added to the rules. Please review:


Implemented: New Guidelines regarding posting pictures of dead bodies in sigs, avatars and posts

Based on the Town Hall discussion on this subject, it will no longer be acceptable to post pictures of dead bodies in signatures, avatars or posts. Regardless of whether the dead body(s) are peaceful looking or mutilated in some way, posting them will not be allowed.

An exception to this rule will be that displaying something like the ďtomb of the unknown soldierĒ or a picture of Ronal Reaganís casket in the Capitalís rotunda would be acceptable in the context of honoring soldiers, presidents or other individuals. The moderators will have latitude in determining whether or not a given instance is meant to honor or is being used as a political statement or a means to inflame another member or group of members, and in such cases will remove the image in question.

DenverBronkHoes
06-07-2008, 05:33 PM
I want to furthur add that i am totally against censorship, however this is a privately owned website that has rules.. In our case its great we can all discuss the matter and make/change/unmake rules.....

if i want dead bodies there are more than enough websites out there that will show me dead bodies. The same guidelines show be followed for nudity... Why cant my sig/avy be a nice pair of bare breasts? Well cuz its inappropiate based on the rules of the site.... Some people will undoubtedly be offended(not much tho)....

NightTrainLayne
06-07-2008, 05:39 PM
Tned, where is the line going to be drawn regarding bodies/caskets being shown in the context of "honoring" individuals?

This seems like a can of worms being opened. I.E. The rule would appear to prohibit BeefStew from using his sig, but would allow others to display a photograph of Che's body in order to "honor" him.

DenverBronkHoes
06-07-2008, 05:52 PM
Tned, where is the line going to be drawn regarding bodies/caskets being shown in the context of "honoring" individuals?

This seems like a can of worms being opened. I.E. The rule would appear to prohibit BeefStew from using his sig, but would allow others to display a photograph of Che's body in order to "honor" him.

why the need to honor the dead on a football forum? I dont get that. We cant get off the idea that this message board is built around people who like said DENVER BRONCOS(and a few KC fans)

i tihnk opening the worms would start with honoring a dead Denver Bronco.... But why would anyone want to show a dead body of said passed Bronco? Again.. that dead body has a mother and a father and maybe some kids too..... Its not fair. None of us has to know a family member of the dead and its still wrong to be on public display.

DenverBronkHoes
06-07-2008, 05:58 PM
i dont see why honoring the passed has to be a picture of the actual dead body, in a casket or not....

If this was an educational website i could see the reasoning...

but we are all here for the Broncos

SR
06-07-2008, 05:58 PM
I really can't even believe this is an issue. Kinda ridiculous IMO.

broncogirl7
06-07-2008, 06:04 PM
Tned, where is the line going to be drawn regarding bodies/caskets being shown in the context of "honoring" individuals?

This seems like a can of worms being opened. I.E. The rule would appear to prohibit BeefStew from using his sig, but would allow others to display a photograph of Che's body in order to "honor" him.

The Che picture being used by the other member is of him alive, not dead. This person is honoring this person because he believes in what he stood for...it is not being used to inflame others. We may not like Che and what he stood for, but it is not a distasteful photo. Other people are displaying photos of Obama or Bush or McCain...tasteful, many may not like them, but said individuals believe in what they stand for...nothing wrong with that.

broncogirl7
06-07-2008, 06:05 PM
Appreciate your diplomacy, Tned!

yardog
06-07-2008, 06:14 PM
The Che picture being used by the other member is of him alive, not dead. This person is honoring this person because he believes in what he stood for...it is not being used to inflame others. We may not like Che and what he stood for, but it is not a distasteful photo. Other people are displaying photos of Obama or Bush or McCain...tasteful, many may not like them, but said individuals believe in what they stand for...nothing wrong with that.


We if I'm following your logic I would have to agree with Beefs picture and say a dead Che is a good Che for the things he did. So therefore it supports what I believe in.

broncogirl7
06-07-2008, 06:16 PM
We if I'm following your logic I would have to agree with Beefs picture and say a dead Che is a good Che for the things he did. So therefore it supports what I believe in.

My logic is "live" bodies, not dead or mutilated bodies!

Tned
06-07-2008, 06:21 PM
Tned, where is the line going to be drawn regarding bodies/caskets being shown in the context of "honoring" individuals?

This seems like a can of worms being opened. I.E. The rule would appear to prohibit BeefStew from using his sig, but would allow others to display a photograph of Che's body in order to "honor" him.

It can be and will be a can of worms, but I don't think (but am open to suggestions on wording) that we can create a rule that completely covers the situation.

For instance, I don't think we should outlaw the displaying of an image of Reagan's casket, when it is in the context of honoring a past president.

I think BG7 sums things up pretty well with this, so I will continue after this quote:


The Che picture being used by the other member is of him alive, not dead. This person is honoring this person because he believes in what he stood for...it is not being used to inflame others. We may not like Che and what he stood for, but it is not a distasteful photo. Other people are displaying photos of Obama or Bush or McCain...tasteful, many may not like them, but said individuals believe in what they stand for...nothing wrong with that.

I agree that we can't outlaw pictures of certain individuals or even classes of individuals. Is it ok to say that a republican candidate is ok, but a democrat is not (currently I think Obama's face leads in politically orientated sigs)?

Should we say that displaying a leader (or potential leader) of the US is ok, but that a communist/socialist from another country is not? My initial reaction of course is that we shouldn't state one group is ok, but another is not. However, I will add a caveat.

The reason I used vague language such as:


The moderators will have latitude in determining whether or not a given instance is meant to honor or is being used as a political statement or a means to inflame another member or group of members, and in such cases will remove the image in question.

Because I think when it comes to this political stuff, there are going to have to be judgement calls, or have all political stuff outlawed. Since I would hate to have us rule that people can't fly their Obama or Ron Paul sigs anymore, I think the only choice is to give some lattitude to the mods in determining if an image is creating enough of a reaction that it is disrupting the message board. The che dead body sig and mutilated body postings in retaliation are perfect examples. Their existance disrupted the message board.

BroncoBJ
06-07-2008, 06:32 PM
I really can't even believe this is an issue. Kinda ridiculous IMO.

:lol: I thought the same thing.

What about in the lounge? Can people post stuff there or is that also a no? :elefant:

Tned
06-07-2008, 06:37 PM
:lol: I thought the same thing.

What about in the lounge? Can people post stuff there or is that also a no? :elefant:

As we stand now, no dead bodies period.


I really can't even believe this is an issue. Kinda ridiculous IMO.

Could you elaborate? Ridiculous that people think they need to post pictures of dead bodies? Ridiculous that people object to the posting of dead bodies? Some place in between?

BroncoBJ
06-07-2008, 06:42 PM
As we stand now, no dead bodies period.



Could you elaborate? Ridiculous that people think they need to post pictures of dead bodies? Ridiculous that people object to the posting of dead bodies? Some place in between?

:elefant:

I think he probably means its silly to even have this discussion. That people should know when or not its apropriate to post pictures of dead bodies.
Posting pictures of dead bodies just to instigate someone should be a nono.
Crazy were discussing it though but I'm fine either way :salute:

haroldthebarrel
06-07-2008, 06:47 PM
not to be sarcastic. This is something i really wonder about!
But there are a lot of pictures of paintings with Jesus Christ dead. Should they also not be allowed?

yardog
06-07-2008, 06:51 PM
My logic is "live" bodies, not dead or mutilated bodies!

So if put a picture of Jesus hanging on the cross in my signature would you say I have no right to display the picture because he is dead or even worse dying?

Tned
06-07-2008, 06:56 PM
not to be sarcastic. This is something i really wonder about!
But there are a lot of pictures of paintings with Jesus Christ dead. Should they also not be allowed?


So if put a picture of Jesus hanging on the cross in my signature would you say I have no right to display the picture because he is dead or even worse dying?

No, as long as we allow religiously related signatures, I think a picture of Jesus (or what most believe his likeness to be) is fine. However, if someone was clearly putting up an image of Jesus with some comments or in some other way clearly trying to inflame Christians on the board, that is where the mod's "latitude" in determining if it is allowed will come in.

Two things to keep in mind:


As a general rule, we don't want to be any more restrictive that is absolutely necessary.
It isn't ok for people to go out of their way to try and inflame select individuals or entire groups of individuals out of some type of sport or meanness.

frauschieze
06-07-2008, 07:29 PM
Two things to keep in mind:


As a general rule, we don't want to be any more restrictive that is absolutely necessary.
It isn't ok for people to go out of their way to try and inflame select individuals or entire groups of individuals out of some type of sport or meanness.


I think the entire issue really stemmed from having said photos in a sig or avatar, the reason being that there was no way to 'get away' from those pictures without turning off sigs & avys. A single post will not have the same impact as repeatedly seeing an image (and if the picture is posted repeatedly, that could be considered spamming and already subject to the rules). In the interest of being the least restrictive possible, I think eliminating the restriction on individual posts is an idea worth kicking over. In context, the issues where a post of a dead body comes into play are few and far between.

As for the honoring the dead, I don't see why it has to be a dead body/casket picture anyway. I know that's not how my father would want to be remembered. One can honor the dead with other pictures and with words. Yardog's sig has always stuck with me. If you want a way to honor the dead, that's the way to go.

DenverBronkHoes
06-07-2008, 07:30 PM
i dont see the reason to honor ANY dead body.... If u feel so strong about Jesus Christ and Ronald Reagan to where u need to make it absolutely publically known, you should be on a religious or political message board

DenverBronkHoes
06-07-2008, 07:32 PM
I think the entire issue really stemmed from having said photos in a sig or avatar, the reason being that there was no way to 'get away' from those pictures without turning off sigs & avys. A single post will not have the same impact as repeatedly seeing an image (and if the picture is posted repeatedly, that could be considered spamming and already subject to the rules). In the interest of being the least restrictive possible, I think eliminating the restriction on individual posts is an idea worth kicking over. In context, the issues where a post of a dead body comes into play are few and far between.

As for the honoring the dead, I don't see why it has to be a dead body/casket picture anyway. I know that's not how my father would want to be remembered. One can honor the dead with other pictures and with words. Yardog's sig has always stuck with me. If you want a way to honor the dead, that's the way to go.


exactly......

SR
06-08-2008, 12:57 AM
Could you elaborate? Ridiculous that people think they need to post pictures of dead bodies? Ridiculous that people object to the posting of dead bodies? Some place in between?

I think it's stupid we're even debating this topic. If people don't like seeing dead bodies in avatars and signatures, they can turn their damn avatars and sigs OFF. Don't punish everyone just because a few friggin babies don't like it. Quit trying to appease the minority. Make the minority make changes to adapt to the way the majority likes things. That's how it SHOULD be.

Escobar
06-08-2008, 12:59 AM
I think it's stupid we're even debating this topic. If people don't like seeing dead bodies in avatars and signatures, they can turn their damn avatars and sigs OFF. Don't punish everyone just because a few friggin babies don't like it. Quit trying to appease the minority. Make the minority make changes to adapt to the way the majority likes things. That's how it SHOULD be.

Man, you heard bush say that word now its stuck on to you. And the ''majority'' didn't want it.

I personally don't mind. I appreciate it infact.

SR
06-08-2008, 01:06 AM
Man, you heard bush say that word now its stuck on to you. And the ''majority'' didn't want it.

I personally don't mind. I appreciate it infact.

Uh, it has nothing to do with our President. It has to do with appeasing the majority to keep the majority of the core posters here happy, not the minority few. Keep the core of the posters happy, have a good message board. Appease the minority, piss off the core, the message board goes to shit. Same way with economics.

Day1BroncoFan
06-08-2008, 01:11 AM
I think it's stupid we're even debating this topic. If people don't like seeing dead bodies in avatars and signatures, they can turn their damn avatars and sigs OFF. Don't punish everyone just because a few friggin babies don't like it. Quit trying to appease the minority. Make the minority make changes to adapt to the way the majority likes things. That's how it SHOULD be.

The majority is against it according to Tned's OP.

I am against it and I'm not a baby.

I don't like dead bodies and I don't want to turn off sigs because I like most of the sigs and want to see them.

BroncoBJ
06-08-2008, 01:14 AM
I really don't even notice the dead bodies and stuff :lol:

I don't pay attn to sigs/avis much. But people getting hurt feelings and thats understandable. :salute:

NightTrainLayne
06-08-2008, 01:21 AM
Beef has changed his Sig, so I imagine that it won't ever be an issue again.

Tned
06-08-2008, 02:30 AM
Don't punish everyone just because a few friggin babies don't like it. Quit trying to appease the minority. Make the minority make changes to adapt to the way the majority likes things. That's how it SHOULD be.

You've made that false claim a couple times now, about appeasing the minority. In this case, clearly the majority of people that participated don't want to view dead bodies.

Actually, if we simply allow dead bodies in sigs, which the minority want, and tell the majority turn off sig images if you don't want to see it, then we will IN FACT be doing what you claim, and that is appeasing the minority.

Not sure why you are locked onto this appeasing the minority thing, when the whole reason I have the town hall discussions is so that I can get a feel for what the community as a whole, or failing that, a clear majority wants.

Tned
06-08-2008, 02:33 AM
Man, you heard bush say that word now its stuck on to you. And the ''majority'' didn't want it.

I personally don't mind. I appreciate it infact.

Here's an idea, start adding something to Town Hall discussions, or don't participate. I think we have all had enough of your drive by one liners and accusations in the Town Hall threads, rather than participating in a meaningful way.

BroncoBJ
06-08-2008, 02:51 AM
You've made that false claim a couple times now, about appeasing the minority. In this case, clearly the majority of people that participated don't want to view dead bodies.

Actually, if we simply allow dead bodies in sigs, which the minority want, and tell the majority turn off sig images if you don't want to see it, then we will IN FACT be doing what you claim, and that is appeasing the minority.

Not sure why you are locked onto this appeasing the minority thing, when the whole reason I have the town hall discussions is so that I can get a feel for what the community as a whole, or failing that, a clear majority wants.

I think he wishes that you would just do what he wants. :lol:

Davii
06-08-2008, 04:14 AM
We have had a Town Hall discussion open for about two weeks in regards to whether or not displaying images of dead bodies is appropriate.

This subject seems to have first come up when someone put the body of Che in his sig, and then there was retaliation in the form of posting dead/mutilated bodies in other threads.

The results of the discussion were:

4 people were in favor of allowing dead bodies in any situation
3 stated that it depended. As an example, one person said that a peaceful looking corpse would be ok, where a mutilated one would not.
2 stated they didnít care one way or another
11 were against displaying dead bodies


While it should be well known by now that I donít accept the validity of polls for making important forum decisions, as the poll results are generally wrong for many reasons (wording of poll, people voting before reading discussion or even points/questions raised in original post, mistakes/choosing wrong option), here are the results of the poll for informational purposes. It should be noted that a couple prime examples of why poll data is not used in making forum decisions is that one poster said that s/he voted no, because "I donít care" wasnít an option, and another was clearly against dead bodies being displayed, but s/he accidentally voted yes to allow it. I bring these up not because the posters did anything wrong, but to reinforce some of the problems with relying on polls to determine forum decisions.

The poll results were 33 against displaying dead bodies, 12 in favor of displaying dead bodies.

Please note for future discussion, it is critical that if you want your opinion/vote to count, you must join the discussion and make clear your feeling on the subject, and ideally state why your feel the way you do (in regards to why something should or shouldnít be implemented by the forum).

So, after reading all of the discussion on this subject, the following amendment to the rules is being proposed. I will keep this thread open until next weekend to receive comment on it, and then will make this rule, or a variant of it (based on comments here) effective at that time.

The following Amendment/interpretation guideline has been added to the rules. Please review:

TNed,

Excellent job explaining, especially the poll portion.

For clarities sake, while it is acceptablt to post a picture of a casket or tomb, my assumption is it would be unacceptable to post the same of an open casket viewing?

For instance the posting of a picture of an open casket, whether showing the corpse therein or not, is unacceptable?

Would this ruling then prohibit the posting of pictures of those passed before they were gone from this world?

Davii
06-08-2008, 04:24 AM
No, as long as we allow religiously related signatures, I think a picture of Jesus (or what most believe his likeness to be) is fine. However, if someone was clearly putting up an image of Jesus with some comments or in some other way clearly trying to inflame Christians on the board, that is where the mod's "latitude" in determining if it is allowed will come in.

Two things to keep in mind:


As a general rule, we don't want to be any more restrictive that is absolutely necessary.
It isn't ok for people to go out of their way to try and inflame select individuals or entire groups of individuals out of some type of sport or meanness.



Ok.... In keeping with this train of thought here TNed, i'm thinking that...

Well, lets all be honest here. This is all about Beef's Che Gueveara sig.

Now that Beef MUST remove his sig Escobar is free to proudly display Che all he wants. This is clearly meant to inflame posters, most specifically Beef, so would it not in essence be against these rules for Che to appear in sigs and avys at all?

This clearly is the point of Escobar, and clearly was the reason Beef put the pic in his sig in the first place. Since this sig and avy is intended for no other reason than to inflame the Non-Communists on this board it should not be allowed.

haroldthebarrel
06-08-2008, 05:46 AM
I think it's stupid we're even debating this topic. If people don't like seeing dead bodies in avatars and signatures, they can turn their damn avatars and sigs OFF. Don't punish everyone just because a few friggin babies don't like it. Quit trying to appease the minority. Make the minority make changes to adapt to the way the majority likes things. That's how it SHOULD be.

exactly.. I turn off sigs and avatars because it slows down the loading times.
So really I dont even notice it. As far as the pics I dont care either way.
As far as the minority/majority thing. I agree completely as long as people dont Intentioally try to hurt another person. Which I think is out of common courtesy, and in this case it seemed it was intended to do just that.

elsid13
06-08-2008, 06:46 AM
Personally I don't think this is community issue. It about two individuals attempting to annoy each other. (I am not taking sides) The image in question isn't something that wouldn't make the 6 o'clock news or front page of newspaper, so I don't have an issue with it.

I think the little I know of the board, the mods can recognize those images that are to graphic to be displayed and ask the them to removed.

My vote is not to censor the images as a whole.

DenverBronkHoes
06-08-2008, 09:55 AM
are we allowed to be funny in here?

cuz i got a really good 1 i can drop

Northman
06-08-2008, 09:58 AM
We if I'm following your logic I would have to agree with Beefs picture and say a dead Che is a good Che for the things he did. So therefore it supports what I believe in.


Valid point but i think a tombstone or a che picture with a slash through it would suffice for what that purpose. A dead body just isnt appropriate to make that statement.

DenverBronkHoes
06-08-2008, 10:04 AM
keep in mind that to say he did "good" things or "bad" is really buried in the opinions of fellow members....

Its 2 different opinions clashing here that spawned all of this. If i wanted to be an offensive person i would have a pic of George Bush with a red line thru it... solely based on my opinion of him...

Opinions are like coconuts, ...................

Northman
06-08-2008, 10:04 AM
Ok.... In keeping with this train of thought here TNed, i'm thinking that...

Well, lets all be honest here. This is all about Beef's Che Gueveara sig.

Now that Beef MUST remove his sig Escobar is free to proudly display Che all he wants. This is clearly meant to inflame posters, most specifically Beef, so would it not in essence be against these rules for Che to appear in sigs and avys at all?

This clearly is the point of Escobar, and clearly was the reason Beef put the pic in his sig in the first place. Since this sig and avy is intended for no other reason than to inflame the Non-Communists on this board it should not be allowed.

Than beef needs to find another means of representing his dislike of Che. Not that hard really.

KCL
06-08-2008, 11:33 AM
keep in mind that to say he did "good" things or "bad" is really buried in the opinions of fellow members....

Its 2 different opinions clashing here that spawned all of this. If i wanted to be an offensive person i would have a pic of George Bush with a red line thru it... solely based on my opinion of him...

Opinions are like coconuts, ...................

I am a Bush supporter (not of everything he has or hasn't done)but I did
vote for him both times...if you had a pic of him with a red line through it,I
wouldn't care at all.That wouldn't bother most people on here that support him...if any at all.

BTW-Opinions are like coconuts?:confused: I have heard of them being
like something else but not coconuts.;)

I didn't think Beef's sig pic was bad...to me it looked like a drawing of some sorts.I do agree with what Davii posted in his last post. #31

KCL
06-08-2008, 11:36 AM
Than beef needs to find another means of representing his dislike of Che. Not that hard really.

I think you missed the point Davii was trying to make...maybe not!:confused:

SR
06-08-2008, 12:03 PM
This is such a ridiculous arguement! For Pete's sake...if you don't like what people put in their sigs and avatars, turn them shits off.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 12:35 PM
Do any of you guys have an issue with a smiley flying an airplane? If so, I will change it.

KCL
06-08-2008, 12:37 PM
Do any of you guys have an issue with a smiley flying an airplane? If so, I will change it.

well if it had Che in the airplane...it would be alot more acceptable!
As it is right now...Yes I am a little upset with it...:rolleyes:;)

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 12:39 PM
well if it had Che in the airplane...it would be alot more acceptable!
As it is right now...Yes I am a little upset with it...:rolleyes:;)

Well, I was going to use Lenin's Tomb picture, but I already know who the communists are.

SR
06-08-2008, 01:26 PM
Mr Stewart,

Your signature offends me. Please remove it or a formal complaint with upper moderation will be filed. TIA.

James

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 01:28 PM
Mr Stewart,

Your signature offends me. Please remove it or a formal complaint with upper moderation will be filed. TIA.

James

No. Your sig is violent. What Mr. McCaffrey did to that defenseless man was horrible.

SR
06-08-2008, 01:31 PM
No. Your sig is violent. What Mr. McCaffrey did to that defenseless man was horrible.

Maybe I should put a picture of Saddam's two sons dead on the table?

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 01:34 PM
Maybe I should put a picture of Saddam's two sons dead on the table?

I thought they were just asleep.

SR
06-08-2008, 01:36 PM
Could be, but the sections of their face that were damaged by shrapnel looked pretty serious. Maybe I should make a .gif file of one of our B-1s, F-15s, or F-16s dropping some bombs. For all we know, they were empty buildings and we were testing our new infared guidance systems.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 01:37 PM
Could be, but the sections of their face that were damaged by shrapnel looked pretty serious. Maybe I should make a .gif file of one of our B-1s, F-15s, or F-16s dropping some bombs. For all we know, they were empty buildings and we were testing our new infared guidance systems.

That could work. I think the bombs were used to dig a really deep hole for some construction job. Totally peaceful.

SR
06-08-2008, 01:39 PM
That could be it. We were clearing land for a new school for the Iraqi children. That's what it was.

Tned
06-08-2008, 01:46 PM
Mr Stewart,

Your signature offends me. Please remove it or a formal complaint with upper moderation will be filed. TIA.

James

FWIW, I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the moderators or myself started the discussions/polls about dead bodies in sigs. Instead, I was simply asked to make a ruling based on the Town Hall discussion.

Also, if it is clear the majority of posters that participated (contrary to the 'appeasing the minority' BS comments) stated they don't feel having dead bodies in sigs should be allowed, why do you suggest we should 'appease the minority' by allowing them to put dead bodies in sigs/avvies or whatever and then tell the 'majority' that if they don't want to see it, turn off all images?

Tned
06-08-2008, 01:50 PM
Guys, some members asked for a ruling on this, and I spent an hour or two reading through every post, summarizing all the opinions and then creating this explanation and proposal based on it.

Is it really necessary to make a mockery of the process, because I attempt to get input from as many members as are willing to discuss a subject, rather than just making up the rules myself as I go along? :confused:

SR
06-08-2008, 01:51 PM
There are only a few people who get caught up in these discussions. There are way more people who don't give a shit than there are people who care. Personally, I don't care who has what in their avatar or sig. If it only pisses a couple of people off, it's not really worth all of this bullshit IMO.

Poet
06-08-2008, 01:51 PM
If you like looking at the sigs, but you don't like the dead bodies suck it up and stop being a baby.

Poet
06-08-2008, 01:55 PM
There are only a few people who get caught up in these discussions. There are way more people who don't give a shit than there are people who care. Personally, I don't care who has what in their avatar or sig. If it only pisses a couple of people off, it's not really worth all of this bullshit IMO.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.

You have won a fabolous prize SeeingRed. It is the common sense award dinner set with a complimentary tear free grill. This grill is whine and cry baby resistant. You also won a round trip vacation to sourpussville where you can feed the resident infants WAAAABurgers and frenchcries.

More at ten.

KCL
06-08-2008, 01:56 PM
Maybe I should put a picture of Saddam's two sons dead on the table?

:shocked::shocked:

KCL
06-08-2008, 01:59 PM
Personlly what people have in their sigs and avys does not bother me.
But then again..this board isn't about me so I can live with whatever
happens regarding sigs and avys!

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 02:03 PM
Personlly what people have in their sigs and avys does not bother me.
But then again..this board isn't about me so I can live with whatever
happens regarding sigs and avys!

My exact thoughts. We are all big boys and girls here.

elsid13
06-08-2008, 02:31 PM
Well, I was going to use Lenin's Tomb picture, but I already know who the communists are.

I actually was in the mosulem that have had him before the USSR feel. Dude looked like a wax figure in his glass box.

elsid13
06-08-2008, 02:33 PM
Could be, but the sections of their face that were damaged by shrapnel looked pretty serious. Maybe I should make a .gif file of one of our B-1s, F-15s, or F-16s dropping some bombs. For all we know, they were empty buildings and we were testing our new infared guidance systems.

Because nothing like either reactive material or thermobaric warhead to say welcome to the neighborhood.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 02:35 PM
I actually was in the mosulem that have had him before the USSR feel. Dude looked like a wax figure in his glass box.

Man I bet we could sell the shit out of him on Ebay.

elsid13
06-08-2008, 02:40 PM
Man I bet we could sell the shit out of him on Ebay.

The thing I remember is that they had band aids around his fingers because nails were falling out.

atwater27
06-08-2008, 02:41 PM
Che is still a dead communist bitch.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 02:48 PM
The thing I remember is that they had band aids around his fingers because nails were falling out.

Man. Think of the market for those band aids.

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 02:50 PM
FWIW, I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the moderators or myself started the discussions/polls about dead bodies in sigs. Instead, I was simply asked to make a ruling based on the Town Hall discussion.

Also, if it is clear the majority of posters that participated (contrary to the 'appeasing the minority' BS comments) stated they don't feel having dead bodies in sigs should be allowed, why do you suggest we should 'appease the minority' by allowing them to put dead bodies in sigs/avvies or whatever and then tell the 'majority' that if they don't want to see it, turn off all images?

Tned, the majority thanks you and hopefully this can be put to rest. I don't know of any other board that asks for the members input and puts as much time and energy into being far as you do. Hopefully, we can all be respectful and stop with the insults and making fun of people that didn't want dead /mutilated bodies in avs /sigs.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 02:52 PM
Tned, can we also maybe start a discussion about posts other members make on other boards disparaging members on this board?

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 02:54 PM
Tned, can we also maybe start a discussion about posts other members make on other boards disparaging members on this board?

JR already verified Clay's false accusations were false. TIA!

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 02:54 PM
JR already verified Clay's false accusations were false. TIA!

I guess I don't know what you are talking about. Run along to the nation now.

Poet
06-08-2008, 02:54 PM
Tned, the majority thanks you and hopefully this can be put to rest. I don't know of any other board that asks for the members input and puts as much time and energy into being far as you do. Hopefully, we can all be respectful and stop with the insults and making fun of people that didn't want dead /mutilated bodies in avs /sigs.

I am going to have to go with a big fat no on that one.

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 02:56 PM
I guess I don't know what you are talking about. Run along to the nation now.

I am sure you do, but you run along too.:salute:

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 02:57 PM
I am going to have to go with a big fat no on that one.

You are evidently right on that one King.

Poet
06-08-2008, 02:57 PM
You are evidently right on that one King.

It's a gift.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 03:07 PM
Hey,

I am here. I am working on getting broncogirl7 to start posting on this site. She is pretty fed-up with the other one's attitude problems, but we'll see.

Crazy weather in route...be careful.


I'll wait till she IM's me and ask her. She said they are being their usual selfs(sp) and have figured it was you that left, but they said it's no big deal and you will probably be back. Something about you getting tired of talking to yourself and then you'll go back??? She'll tell me more later.

*cough* *cough*

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 03:11 PM
*cough* *cough*

First off beefie...I didn't write it. Second of all...what part isn't true? Are you being a nice young man or are you being rude? I have said it before that I don't appreciate the "ganging up" on members or constantly hassling of certain members and then everyone else in your group joining in... Nothing secretive about that.:rolleyes:

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 03:17 PM
First off beefie...I didn't write it. Second of all...what part isn't true? Are you being a nice young man or are you being rude? I have said it before that I don't appreciate the "ganging up" on members or constantly hassling of certain members and then everyone else in your group joining in... Nothing secretive about that.:rolleyes:

If you were in the circle of trust you wouldn't have any issues. You were almost in once. I am sorry.

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 03:19 PM
If you were in the circle of trust you wouldn't have any issues. You were almost in once. I am sorry.

:coffee:

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 03:21 PM
:coffee:

That is probably what I would respond with also if I was you.

Poet
06-08-2008, 03:21 PM
First off beefie...I didn't write it. Second of all...what part isn't true? Are you being a nice young man or are you being rude? I have said it before that I don't appreciate the "ganging up" on members or constantly hasseling of certain members and then everyone else in your group joining in... Nothing secretive about that.:rolleyes:

Let's be honest here, Beef is nice, I don't know how old he is so I can't comment on the young part. And as far as the ganging up thing goes, meh. Beef and I still go at it (not in the biblical sense, I prefer midgets and Beef can't handle the royal scepter, but not many can). I could make the argument that Nub and Dream and myself gang up on the conservatives in the P and R. I could make the same argument for JRwiz and I doing the same thing. Hell, I could just say that the conservatives and the liberals do the same shit all the time.

The certain members is really more or less CR. And to be more honest CR brings everything upon himself. I have seen the guy attack people just as much as he gets attacked. I have seen the guy refuse to converse with members who are super friendly. Members like Dreadnought, NTL, Topscribe, and others have all tried to be nice to CR and he goes on and pulls his little "OMG VICTIM REPRESSION GO CHE AMERICA SUCKS CONSERVATIVES ARE BAD CHE MAKES ME HOT OH MY GOD REPRESSION YOU DONT GET IT YOU ARE EVIL CAPITALIST I HEARTS TEH CUBA" song and dance.

My dear beloved beef once put a real funny quote about me in his sig. And all I did was laugh it off because it is a message board. And people constantly cry and whine about things that hurt their feelings or bother them. Hell, Dream and NUB get it worse then CR half the time, and they never complain.

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 03:22 PM
That is probably what I would respond with also if I was you.

:coffee:

frauschieze
06-08-2008, 03:25 PM
What I don't understand is why like-minded individuals speaking their mind is considered 'ganging up'. There are a lot of out-spoken people here. Chances are, they're going to put their two cents in. :whoknows:

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 03:28 PM
What I don't understand is why like-minded individuals speaking their mind is considered 'ganging up'. There are a lot of out-spoken people here. Chances are, they're going to put their two cents in. :whoknows:

I'll just refer you back to Tned's post:

Two things to keep in mind:

As a general rule, we don't want to be any more restrictive that is absolutely necessary.
It isn't ok for people to go out of their way to try and inflame select individuals or entire groups of individuals out of some type of sport or meanness. __________________

Poet
06-08-2008, 03:29 PM
I'll just refer you back to Tned's post:

Two things to keep in mind:

As a general rule, we don't want to be any more restrictive that is absolutely necessary.
It isn't ok for people to go out of their way to try and inflame select individuals or entire groups of individuals out of some type of sport or meanness. __________________

I can argue that this post of yours is breaking that second rule towards Beef because you have beef with him.

See how productive that is?

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 03:31 PM
I'll just refer you back to Tned's post:

Two things to keep in mind:

As a general rule, we don't want to be any more restrictive that is absolutely necessary.
It isn't ok for people to go out of their way to try and inflame select individuals or entire groups of individuals out of some type of sport or meanness. __________________

Which is open to interpretation. My response to the Che lovers was that he died like a pig. Or slept like one. I forget. But I guess we can just go ahead and be politically correct, like a Hallmark card, right?

Poet
06-08-2008, 03:32 PM
Which is open to interpretation. My response to the Che lovers was that he died like a pig. Or slept like one. I forget. But I guess we can just go ahead and be politically correct, like a Hallmark card, right?

I cuss in my hallmark cards, cuz I b da thug!

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 03:49 PM
Tned, can we also maybe start a discussion about posts other members make on other boards disparaging members on this board?


I can argue that this post of yours is breaking that second rule towards Beef because you have beef with him.

See how productive that is?

This all began with post #66 by beef. He drew first blood.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff92/broncogirl7_2007/MV5BMTU3MTY1NjI5NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTc.jpg

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 03:54 PM
This all began with post #66 by beef. He drew first blood.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff92/broncogirl7_2007/MV5BMTU3MTY1NjI5NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTc.jpg

I didn't mention any posters or websites. I also have thick skin.

Slick
06-08-2008, 03:56 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aMfr2CgIPhg&feature=related

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 03:59 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aMfr2CgIPhg&feature=related

I agree Slick. We need the behind the back comments on other websites to cease. It isn't good for this site.

broncogirl7
06-08-2008, 04:00 PM
I didn't mention any posters or websites. I also have thick skin.

Refer to post #73. :coffee:

Poet
06-08-2008, 04:01 PM
This all began with post #66 by beef. He drew first blood.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff92/broncogirl7_2007/MV5BMTU3MTY1NjI5NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTc.jpg

But then I could argue that the posters that he allegedly attacks and gangs up on drew first blood too.

Once again, how productive?

KCL
06-08-2008, 04:01 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aMfr2CgIPhg&feature=related

are you willing to pay us 4 mil or whatever that piece of crap
got?;)

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 04:02 PM
Refer to post #73. :coffee:

After you mentioned it. Could you try not to talk behind our backs anymore?

Slick
06-08-2008, 04:05 PM
I agree Slick. We need the behind the back comments on other websites to cease. It isn't good for this site.

Yea...that's definitely not cool.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but if you're not happy leave. It's really that simple.

Slick
06-08-2008, 04:06 PM
are you willing to pay us 4 mil or whatever that piece of crap
got?;)

LMAO...no. I just tried to lighten the mood a little.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 04:07 PM
LMAO...no. I just tried to lighten the mood a little.

Ok, how about free diving lessons?

Slick
06-08-2008, 04:09 PM
Ok, how about free diving lessons?

That I could do...it would be my pleasure, plus I bet you look like a god in neoprene.

frauschieze
06-08-2008, 04:11 PM
I'll just refer you back to Tned's post:

Two things to keep in mind:

As a general rule, we don't want to be any more restrictive that is absolutely necessary.
It isn't ok for people to go out of their way to try and inflame select individuals or entire groups of individuals out of some type of sport or meanness. __________________

You are making the assumption that anyone who voices an opinion that is in line with the majority is flaming someone else. That's a ridiculous statement.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 04:14 PM
That I could do...it would be my pleasure, plus I bet you look like a god in neoprene.

Watching me get into a wetsuit would give you a good idea on how sausage is made.

Tned
06-08-2008, 04:24 PM
There are only a few people who get caught up in these discussions. There are way more people who don't give a shit than there are people who care. Personally, I don't care who has what in their avatar or sig. If it only pisses a couple of people off, it's not really worth all of this bullshit IMO.

I can't help it if only a 'few' people choose to get involved in setting the rules. What do you suggest as an alternative:


I just set all the rules with no feedback from members of the message board?
We have no rules or moderators, since mods can only mod to rules?


I'm not trying to be a smart ass (ok, only a little), but I am serious, what alternative do you suggest. If you say the way I am doing things is so ass backwards, what's your alternative?

KCL
06-08-2008, 04:27 PM
I can't help it if only a 'few' people choose to get involved in setting the rules. What do you suggest as an alternative:


I just set all the rules with no feedback from members of the message board?
We have no rules or moderators, since mods can only mod to rules?


I'm not trying to be a smart ass (ok, only a little), but I am serious, what alternative do you suggest. If you say the way I am doing things is so ass backwards, what's your alternative?

Tned....FWIW...I think you're doing an excellent job here and as far as I
can tell, so are the mods.

You can't please everybody...and you know this so don't try.You're
doing enough already!:beer:

yes I am sucking up....I want Tned! ;)

Slick
06-08-2008, 04:39 PM
Tned....FWIW...I think you're doing an excellent job here and as far as I
can tell, so are the mods.

You can't please everybody...and you know this so don't try.You're
doing enough already!:beer:

yes I am sucking up....I want Tned! ;)

I agree. Call it sucking up or whatever. I've thanked Tned for his dedication to this site both monetarily and mentally many times in PM's or salutes.

For my money, this is the best Bronco forum going. Obviously we all don't see eye to eye on all subjects and we never will, but this place is as good as it gets IMO.

I really never cared for Politics or Religion as discussion areas, and I even went as far as making a thread about it. I quickly realized that it was really my problem not the communities, and I dealt with it. I still browse those forums basically for laughs and sometimes information, but rarely post in them.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is what more can we ask for from a message board? If things posted here really bother you that much take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why?

atwater27
06-08-2008, 04:57 PM
Watching me get into a wetsuit would give you a good idea on how sausage is made.

You, wetsuits and sausage.
I have a raging hard on right now.

Mike
06-08-2008, 06:13 PM
Mountain...molehill....

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k145/bubba_thudd/mounthill.jpg

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 06:58 PM
Mountain...molehill....

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k145/bubba_thudd/mounthill.jpg

That mountain reminds me of a boobie and I am offended. I demand satisfaction.

SR
06-08-2008, 07:07 PM
I can't help it if only a 'few' people choose to get involved in setting the rules. What do you suggest as an alternative:


I just set all the rules with no feedback from members of the message board?
We have no rules or moderators, since mods can only mod to rules?


I'm not trying to be a smart ass (ok, only a little), but I am serious, what alternative do you suggest. If you say the way I am doing things is so ass backwards, what's your alternative?

I never said you're doing anything backwards. You do a great job here and I'm very grateful for this message board because it's the only one I post on anymore.

My suggestion is to not do anything. Don't try to make a new rule. Don't try to appease anyone. If someone is really unhappy because of something as stupid as a friggin signature or avatar, they have three choices that they can make so they don't have to see said sig or avatar; put that person on ignore, turn off sigs and avatars, or leave the message board. If someone is willing to get this pissy because of a picture of a dead retard like Che, then let them get pissy. BFD. Don't try to make a new rule to appease that person or those people. They have a choice, let them make it. Don't worry about making them happy.

elsid13
06-08-2008, 07:08 PM
That mountain reminds me of a boobie and I am offended. I demand satisfaction.

I figured Cwill already took care of you

Tned
06-08-2008, 07:52 PM
I never said you're doing anything backwards. You do a great job here and I'm very grateful for this message board because it's the only one I post on anymore.

My suggestion is to not do anything. Don't try to make a new rule. Don't try to appease anyone. If someone is really unhappy because of something as stupid as a friggin signature or avatar, they have three choices that they can make so they don't have to see said sig or avatar; put that person on ignore, turn off sigs and avatars, or leave the message board. If someone is willing to get this pissy because of a picture of a dead retard like Che, then let them get pissy. BFD. Don't try to make a new rule to appease that person or those people. They have a choice, let them make it. Don't worry about making them happy.

That's the part your missing, I am not appeasing the person(s) upset about Che being dishonored. Most of those that joined the discussion made it clear they don't think people should have dead bodies in sigs.

I don't think it has anything to do with Beef/Escobar/Che or anyone else, as much as it has to do with posting pics of dead bodies, no matter who they are, is in bad taste. People don't come here to see corpses in sigs.

Is it really fair to tell people that don't want to see corpses, almost certainly the majority (and the discussion/poll would confirm that), that their two options are two look at corpses in sigs or turn off sigs?

The way I see that approach, it is appeasing the small minority (albeit possibly vocal) that feel that corpses or anything else should be allowed in sigs.

The minority in this debate is not Escobar or the other one or two people that would be upset that Che is dishonored, it is the people that think displaying dead bodies should be 'OK'.

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:00 PM
I think you missed the point Davii was trying to make...maybe not!:confused:

I didnt miss his point. But the difference is Escobar's av or sig is that it isnt a dead corpse. I have no problem with people poking fun at one another. But, it simply comes down to how you do it. You cant tell me that Beef cant find another means of poking fun back at Escobar without using a dead corpse. If he needs help i can do that for him. My issue has never been about people bickering back and forth or trying to outdo each other with a sig war. At the end of the day Beef's sig was offensive based on what it was, not what it was about. From what i hear Che is a bad guy and its probably great that he is dead. But i dont want to see his dead body or anyone else's in every thread that i come into. I may not agree with Escobar's belief in Che but he hasnt posted a picture of Che standing over dead corpses or anything else that is over the top. If Beef came up with another sig that still got his point without the dead corpse it wouldnt be an issue. Here you go, this would suffice as a adequate sig where Beef could still get his point across.

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/archive/che-no-gr.gif

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 08:05 PM
Thanks Anubis. You are an asset to this board!

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:14 PM
I guess what I'm really trying to say is what more can we ask for from a message board? If things posted here really bother you that much take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why?


Hmmm, why. Probably has a lot to do with limits really. You say that its not a big deal. Where do you draw the line Slick? Can i show some titties in my av? Can KCLady have a big schlong in her avy? Would that bother you at all? How bout a pedafile? How bout someone being a huge Hitler fan with a picture of a pit full of dead jews in his sig? How bout an album cover with a woman mounting an upside down cross saying "**** me Jesus"?

And keep in mind that none of these would be secluded to the Lounge. Nope. they would be broadcasted all over the message board for children and all people to see. No limits whatsover. Personally, lets do it! Lets get crazy man! Lets let it all hang out!! Woohooo! And it the end of the day dude its just about RESPECT. If i posted something that pushed the boundaries of normal decency that wasnt kept in a certain forum (The Lounge) and someone found it offensive i would be expected to remove it.

I find it funny that some people's arguements to being able to push those boundaries are "Well, its just a forum so why get worked up about it?". Well, the same can be said for those individuals. Why is it so important for someone to post a dead corpse or any other picture that is inappropriate? If the forum isnt that big a deal than it shouldnt be a big deal to remove the picture. Just saying.

Tned
06-08-2008, 08:15 PM
I didnt miss his point. But the difference is Escobar's av or sig is that it isnt a dead corpse. I have no problem with people poking fun at one another. But, it simply comes down to how you do it. You cant tell me that Beef cant find another means of poking fun back at Escobar without using a dead corpse. If he needs help i can do that for him. My issue has never been about people bickering back and forth or trying to outdo each other with a sig war. At the end of the day Beef's sig was offensive based on what it was, not what it was about. From what i hear Che is a bad guy and its probably great that he is dead. But i dont want to see his dead body or anyone else's in every thread that i come into. I may not agree with Escobar's belief in Che but he hasnt posted a picture of Che standing over dead corpses or anything else that is over the top. If Beef came up with another sig that still got his point without the dead corpse it wouldnt be an issue. Here you go, this would suffice as a adequate sig where Beef could still get his point across.


:2thumbs: Great post.

Opinions on Che aside, I think what you posted is the KEY that some are missing. This topic has NOTHING to do with Che, it has to do with whether or not posting corpses are in good taste and member's of this message board should have two choices:


View corpses in sigs


or


Turn of sigs

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 08:15 PM
So I guess a naked lady and a dude pointing a handgun is great for children.

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:18 PM
Thanks Anubis. You are an asset to this board!

I knew i was good for something. :D

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:19 PM
So I guess a naked lady and a dude pointing a handgun is great for children.

If its offensive and im asked to remove it i will do so. I wont cry and stomp my feet about it. :beer:

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 08:21 PM
If its offensive and im asked to remove it i will do so. I wont cry and stomp my feet about it. :beer:

But that is not hypocrtical at all is it? I mean there are children on this board.

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:30 PM
But that is not hypocrtical at all is it? I mean there are children on this board.


Yea, there could be and if i get a complaint about it or am asked to remove it i will do so no questions asked. I can always replace it with something else. Afterall, i have computer skillz, ninja skillz, etc.

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:33 PM
I didnt miss his point. But the difference is Escobar's av or sig is that it isnt a dead corpse. I have no problem with people poking fun at one another. But, it simply comes down to how you do it. You cant tell me that Beef cant find another means of poking fun back at Escobar without using a dead corpse. If he needs help i can do that for him. My issue has never been about people bickering back and forth or trying to outdo each other with a sig war. At the end of the day Beef's sig was offensive based on what it was, not what it was about. From what i hear Che is a bad guy and its probably great that he is dead. But i dont want to see his dead body or anyone else's in every thread that i come into. I may not agree with Escobar's belief in Che but he hasnt posted a picture of Che standing over dead corpses or anything else that is over the top. If Beef came up with another sig that still got his point without the dead corpse it wouldnt be an issue. Here you go, this would suffice as a adequate sig where Beef could still get his point across.

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/archive/che-no-gr.gif

But I also believe Escobar does it for a reason and not for a good reason either...that is why I said I think you are missing Davii's point.

frauschieze
06-08-2008, 08:34 PM
Hmmm, why. Probably has a lot to do with limits really. You say that its not a big deal. Where do you draw the line Slick? Can i show some titties in my av? Can KCLady have a big schlong in her avy? Would that bother you at all? How bout a pedafile? How bout someone being a huge Hitler fan with a picture of a pit full of dead jews in his sig? How bout an album cover with a woman mounting an upside down cross saying "**** me Jesus"?

I just wanted to point out we already have someone with a Brian Peppers/Che mixed avy, which would in part fill the pedophile criteria. :D

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:37 PM
But I also believe Escobar does it for a reason and not for a good reason either...that is why I said I think you are missing Davii's point.

Oh, of course he does it to get at Beef. But he does it in a way that is acceptable.

Tned
06-08-2008, 08:37 PM
I just wanted to point out we already have someone with a Brian Peppers/Che mixed avy, which would in part fill the pedophile criteria. :D

The main thing I have gotten from this discussion is that I don't know enough about world news/events, since I had no idea who this che dude is, and still barely do (Carol posted a link to a page about him a while back, which I skimmed).

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:37 PM
If its offensive and im asked to remove it i will do so. I wont cry and stomp my feet about it. :beer:

I honestly never noticed your avy or what is in it.I see it but it doesn't really register with me what it is.I just don't pay much attention to stuff like this...but hey thats just me!:D

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:39 PM
I just wanted to point out we already have someone with a Brian Peppers/Che mixed avy, which would in part fill the pedophile criteria. :D

Well, i dont know who Brian Peppers is personally.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 08:40 PM
I honestly never noticed your avy or what is in it.I see it but it doesn't really register with me what it is.I just don't pay much attention to stuff like this...but hey thats just me!:D

Naked lady and a handgun pointed at you. But lets ban peaceful dead bodies.

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:40 PM
I honestly never noticed your avy or what is in it.I see it but it doesn't really register with me what it is.I just don't pay much attention to stuff like this...but hey thats just me!:D

And thats all fine and well, but even if you were offended and i was asked to remove it i would. You probably didnt really notice it because there is so much going on in the photo itself. Its not that easy to even spot the girl because she blends in with the flames.

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:41 PM
Oh, of course he does it to get at Beef. But he does it in a way that is acceptable.

Acceptable? To who? Himself....it might not be a dead Che...but none the less...regardless its purpose is to get at Beef!:rolleyes:

Like I stated earlier...I could care less what people have in their avys or
sigs as long as its not personally attacking another person on here so to
speak.JMO!

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:42 PM
Naked lady and a handgun pointed at you. But lets ban peaceful dead bodies.

You have a point there Beef!

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:43 PM
And thats all fine and well, but even if you were offended and i was asked to remove it i would. You probably didnt really notice it because there is so much going on in the photo itself. Its not that easy to even spot the girl because she blends in with the flames.

Oh a burning female huh? :mad:

;)

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:43 PM
There, just to show how easy it is i changed my avy. All is well in the land of Broncos Forums.

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:45 PM
Acceptable? To who? Himself....it might not be a dead Che...but none the less...regardless its purpose is to get at Beef!:rolleyes:



And? Beef can rebuttle with the picture i found for him. End of problem. :lol:

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:45 PM
Oh a burning female huh? :mad:

;)


She was hot to trot?

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:47 PM
There, just to show how easy it is i changed my avy. All is well in the land of Broncos Forums.

Try again...that is a evil looking person in that pic...:eek:

:D

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:47 PM
Try again...that is a evil looking person in that pic...:eek:

:D


Yea, the cat does look pretty evil.

frauschieze
06-08-2008, 08:47 PM
Oh, of course he does it to get at Beef. But he does it in a way that is acceptable.

Isn't that flaming? :confused:

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:48 PM
Yea, the cat does look pretty evil.

A cat is a person?:confused:

frauschieze
06-08-2008, 08:49 PM
Well, i dont know who Brian Peppers is personally.

Brian Peppers is a bad, bad dude. And ugly too.

girler
06-08-2008, 08:49 PM
Acceptable? To who? Himself....it might not be a dead Che...but none the less...regardless its purpose is to get at Beef!:rolleyes:

Like I stated earlier...I could care less what people have in their avys or
sigs as long as its not personally attacking another person on here so to
speak.JMO!

This is a really interesting conundrum. Should political statements be kept in the political forum?? Yet who is a whole person without their political opinions? So does the political statement TRULY express who the person is?

I have no answer. But I do think it should go both ways, without becoming whiny of course.

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:49 PM
Acceptable? To who? Himself....it might not be a dead Che...but none the less...regardless its purpose is to get at Beef!:rolleyes:

Like I stated earlier...I could care less what people have in their avys or
sigs as long as its not personally attacking another person on here so to
speak.JMO!


Isn't that flaming? :confused:

My point exactly Frau!

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:50 PM
A cat is a person?:confused:


Mine was pretty much till i had to put her down. But thats another story.

Northman
06-08-2008, 08:52 PM
Isn't that flaming? :confused:


Emm, no. I would call that baiting. But as i already explained i dont care if they want to go at each other. Just do it in a civil manner and without the over the top pictures.

KCL
06-08-2008, 08:56 PM
Emm, no. I would call that baiting. But as i already explained i dont care if they want to go at each other. Just do it in a civil manner and without the over the top pictures.

I agree with Frau...it is flaming...you can call it baiting or w/e you like.

frauschieze
06-08-2008, 08:59 PM
I agree with Frau...it is flaming...you can call it baiting or w/e you like.

Baiting or flaming.....it's still against the COC. :whoknows:

I still think the better argument to have is on the banning and suspensions. Mods need more power around here and there needs to be more structure so the underlying issues are resolved instead of these superficial ones.

Northman
06-08-2008, 09:05 PM
Baiting or flaming.....it's still against the COC. :whoknows:

I still think the better argument to have is on the banning and suspensions. Mods need more power around here and there needs to be more structure so the underlying issues are resolved instead of these superficial ones.


Well, i havent looked at their rules on how they (the mods) define "flaming". If posting a picture of a guy/girl/cat/dog/parrot/president/whatever is considered flaming i think that is a bit over the top as far as rules go. JMO.

Tned
06-08-2008, 09:16 PM
Isn't that flaming? :confused:


Emm, no. I would call that baiting. But as i already explained i dont care if they want to go at each other. Just do it in a civil manner and without the over the top pictures.


I agree with Frau...it is flaming...you can call it baiting or w/e you like.


Baiting or flaming.....it's still against the COC. :whoknows:

I still think the better argument to have is on the banning and suspensions. Mods need more power around here and there needs to be more structure so the underlying issues are resolved instead of these superficial ones.

Two things to consider:

First, whether it is baiting or flaming, once people start responding in kind, it is MUCH harder for the mods to sort out, vs. reporting it.

Second, I think we need to be REAL careful about what is considered baiting/flaming and starting to talk about mods banning people for such actions. It's a two way street. It can't just be the 'baiters' that most of us don't agree with. If you start to look at how many 'socialist' cracks are made, for instance, and by which members, do you want all of them banned/suspended for baiting? Just as an example.

If the reality is that all we had was one or two people with unpopular views going around baiting the masses, it might be that the mods could deal with them, but it isn't quite that simple. Those guys get baited, or outright attacked, just as much or more often than the dish it out.

So, what to do. I can promise you that if the solution is to temp ban everyone that baits or flames and the mods were to do that equally, meaning just looking at whether someone has baited, rather than whether or not they are someone holding an unpopular view, there will be a LOT of bans on this message board and there will be a lot of displeasure.

I'm open to anything, which is why I created the thread about how bans should be handed out, but the old "be careful what you ask for" definately applies here.

It is not just the communist/socialist supporters that bait, it goes on in the liberal/conservative threads. The global warming threads. The Shanny evil/great threads. The Travis Henry threads (thank goodness those are over), and many otherwise very good posters are guilty of baiting/flaming.

frauschieze
06-08-2008, 09:21 PM
Two things to consider:

First, whether it is baiting or flaming, once people start responding in kind, it is MUCH harder for the mods to sort out, vs. reporting it.

Second, I think we need to be REAL careful about what is considered baiting/flaming and starting to talk about mods banning people for such actions. It's a two way street. It can't just be the 'baiters' that most of us don't agree with. If you start to look at how many 'socialist' cracks are made, for instance, and by which members, do you want all of them banned/suspended for baiting? Just as an example.

If the reality is that all we had was one or two people with unpopular views going around baiting the masses, it might be that the mods could deal with them, but it isn't quite that simple. Those guys get baited, or outright attacked, just as much or more often than the dish it out.

So, what to do. I can promise you that if the solution is to temp ban everyone that baits or flames and the mods were to do that equally, meaning just looking at whether someone has baited, rather than whether or not they are someone holding an unpopular view, there will be a LOT of bans on this message board and there will be a lot of displeasure.

I'm open to anything, which is why I created the thread about how bans should be handed out, but the old "be careful what you ask for" definately applies here.

It is not just the communist/socialist supporters that bait, it goes on in the liberal/conservative threads. The global warming threads. The Shanny evil/great threads. The Travis Henry threads (thank goodness those are over), and many otherwise very good posters are guilty of baiting/flaming.

Very true. There is no easy answer, which is a big part of the reason I've been silent on the banning/suspension thread. I just don't know where to draw that line for the good of the community. SOMETHING needs to be done, but I just don't know what.

girler
06-08-2008, 09:25 PM
Two things to consider:

First, whether it is baiting or flaming, once people start responding in kind, it is MUCH harder for the mods to sort out, vs. reporting it.

Second, I think we need to be REAL careful about what is considered baiting/flaming and starting to talk about mods banning people for such actions. It's a two way street. It can't just be the 'baiters' that most of us don't agree with. If you start to look at how many 'socialist' cracks are made, for instance, and by which members, do you want all of them banned/suspended for baiting? Just as an example.

If the reality is that all we had was one or two people with unpopular views going around baiting the masses, it might be that the mods could deal with them, but it isn't quite that simple. Those guys get baited, or outright attacked, just as much or more often than the dish it out.

So, what to do. I can promise you that if the solution is to temp ban everyone that baits or flames and the mods were to do that equally, meaning just looking at whether someone has baited, rather than whether or not they are someone holding an unpopular view, there will be a LOT of bans on this message board and there will be a lot of displeasure.

I'm open to anything, which is why I created the thread about how bans should be handed out, but the old "be careful what you ask for" definately applies here.

It is not just the communist/socialist supporters that bait, it goes on in the liberal/conservative threads. The global warming threads. The Shanny evil/great threads. The Travis Henry threads (thank goodness those are over), and many otherwise very good posters are guilty of baiting/flaming.

Poor Tned. We are all just babies. :laugh:

KCL
06-08-2008, 09:30 PM
Poor Tned. We are all just babies. :laugh:

Maybe when this is all over and resolved (if ever) us women on here can
all get together and drive to Arkansas and do Tned a favor!

Examples:

1-wash his car
2-mow his lawn

you know stuff like that...what do you think Tned?;)

Tned
06-08-2008, 09:37 PM
Poor Tned. We are all just babies. :laugh:

lol, no, not at all. Well, not most :lol:


Very true. There is no easy answer, which is a big part of the reason I've been silent on the banning/suspension thread. I just don't know where to draw that line for the good of the community. SOMETHING needs to be done, but I just don't know what.

Yes, it is a major problem, actually. The thing is that when most people say "give the mods the ability to ban" they don't think about the fact that justice has to be metered out fairly. A popular poster that flames a liberal or socialist or Plummer lover can't escape punishment, but someone that supports communism gets banned for baiting.

Once you start giving mods the power to ban at will there are two choices. Meter out justice fairly, OR play favorites. Once the 'play favorites' game starts, where does it end. Do the mods, most of who seem to be Republican leaning, get to freely ban libs, but give Republicans a pass? What about when there are disagreements about Shanahan and people start flaming, should the mods give the pass to those that do or don't like Shanahan?

Before Henry was gone, did the free pass go to the flamers that did or didn't like Henry?

And so on, and so on.

Trust me, I am sick and tired of some of the "drive by baiting" that has been going on, such as derailing the ban thread with cracks about unfair mods, and I have PM'd some of those individuals with STERN warnings.

However, I will admit to being in a quandary when it comes to where the 'start banning em' line should be drawn. I know BM went totally down hill when mods started banning people willy nilly, which started about a year before the IP system was implemented, at the height of the Jake wars. They implemented a one strike policy and people were being banned way to quickly and it was the beginning of the end for us regulars of BM.

As I said, I don't have the answer, I wish I did.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 09:50 PM
So the Jake Wars were a Bronco Nation-wide issue. I guess that is a little comforting.

Tned
06-08-2008, 10:06 PM
So the Jake Wars were a Bronco Nation-wide issue. I guess that is a little comforting.

Totally out of control on Mania. I think there are still some that have hard feelings from the Jake wars.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 10:16 PM
Totally out of control on Mania. I think there are still some that have hard feelings from the Jake wars.

Well, obviously the right decison was made. :D

Tned
06-08-2008, 10:22 PM
Well, obviously the right decison was made. :D

You mean throwing away a run at the playoffs by putting a rookie in ;)

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 10:24 PM
You mean throwing away a run at the playoffs by putting a rookie in ;)

To get killed in the first round? Jake was having an awful year. Jay played about where jake would have.

Tned
06-08-2008, 10:27 PM
To get killed in the first round? Jake was having an awful year. Jay played about where jake would have.

I'm a "get to the playoffs and anything can happen" kind of guy, but you are right about Jake having an awful year, and Jay played pretty well, wins/losses aside and there is no guarantee we would have gotten in with Jake, since the defense stopped winning games for the team in the second half.

Northman
06-08-2008, 10:30 PM
To get killed in the first round? Jake was having an awful year. Jay played about where jake would have.

Agreed. People tend to forget that Jake had a chance to be the hero when he came in for a hurt Cutler against San Fran only to throw a INT on his first pass. Technically, Cutler should of been playing after Jake's awesome 4 turnover game against the Rams in week 1.

BroncoBJ
06-08-2008, 10:30 PM
I liked our defense a lot better during the first 6 games of the year that Jake started.
Then after that it went to hell which made Jake lose more and more games.
And put Jay in.

I wish Jay started the whole year. :salute:

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 10:31 PM
I'm a "get to the playoffs and anything can happen" kind of guy, but you are right about Jake having an awful year, and Jay played pretty well, wins/losses aside and there is no guarantee we would have gotten in with Jake, since the defense stopped winning games for the team in the second half.

That is my other argument. The defense was soooo bad, that it would have not mattered if 7 came back. Shanny knew this, and Cutty was going to start the next year anyway, and coupled with Jake's decidedly below average play, it was a no-brainer.

Plus, lets not kid ourselves. Jake was mailing it in there at the end.

Tned
06-08-2008, 10:44 PM
That is my other argument. The defense was soooo bad, that it would have not mattered if 7 came back. Shanny knew this, and Cutty was going to start the next year anyway, and coupled with Jake's decidedly below average play, it was a no-brainer.

Plus, lets not kid ourselves. Jake was mailing it in there at the end.

I don't subscribe the the Jake was mailing it in talk. People said that as early as the AFCCG or earlier and anyone that watched the game could see that wasn't the case. He might have had limited talent, but he played his heart out.

Your other points are dead on.

Anyway, we should probably get back to talking about corpses. Sorry for getting us off topic.

BeefStew25
06-08-2008, 10:46 PM
I don't subscribe the the Jake was mailing it in talk. People said that as early as the AFCCG or earlier and anyone that watched the game could see that wasn't the case. He might have had limited talent, but he played his heart out.

Your other points are dead on.

Anyway, we should probably get back to talking about corpses. Sorry for getting us off topic.

Okay one more point:

During the game, Jake tried. People in jail also tried. It was his preperation during the week that sucked. Thus, he mailed it in.

Davii
06-08-2008, 11:04 PM
You know, I honestly think this is the first time a thread has ever been derailed by actually talking about football.

Congratulations guys, it's a new era for the forums.

Lonestar
06-09-2008, 12:34 AM
Okay one more point:

During the game, Jake tried. People in jail also tried. It was his preperation during the week that sucked. Thus, he mailed it in.

We really do not know about his prep now do we.. Seems it was damned fine all year.

IMO the OLINE mailed it in, along with the RB's and our defense certainly did no one any favors by allowing Ben to set a NFL record :laugh::laugh: on making 3rd and long completions..

NO ONE played well in that game, the beginning of the end for not only Jake but many others also..

topscribe
06-09-2008, 12:37 AM
Because I think when it comes to this political stuff, there are going to have to be judgement calls, or have all political stuff outlawed. Since I would hate to have us rule that people can't fly their Obama or Ron Paul sigs anymore, I think the only choice is to give some lattitude to the mods in determining if an image is creating enough of a reaction that it is disrupting the message board. The che dead body sig and mutilated body postings in retaliation are perfect examples. Their existance disrupted the message board.


I might add, for the assurance of the members here, that I can't imagine
any one of us Mods making such judgment calls without submitting the issue
to the the other Mods and Admin for their input and discussion. I think I can
speak for all the Mods in that this will virtually always be the case . . . I say
"virtually" because "always" is a very big word, but I cannot imagine a case
where we would not take the others into advisement.

-----

Lonestar
06-09-2008, 12:41 AM
I might add, for the assurance of the members here, that I can't imagine
any one of us Mods making such judgment calls without submitting the issue
to the the other Mods and Admin for their input and discussion. I think I can
speak for all the Mods in that this will virtually always be the case . . . I say
"virtually" because "always" is a very big word, but I cannot imagine a case
where we would not take the others into advisement.

-----

I can say that I know of no instance that a mod acted arbitrarily in asking a member to remove an avy or Sig.

I can also say that there have been many discussions about this same topic and in some cases we did not always have the same opinion..

Cleveland Rocks
06-09-2008, 01:53 AM
Uh, it has nothing to do with our President. It has to do with appeasing the majority to keep the majority of the core posters here happy, not the minority few. Keep the core of the posters happy, have a good message board. Appease the minority, piss off the core, the message board goes to shit. Same way with economics.

If you consider it that way, sorry.

I did not vote. I refused to vote. So, my feelings were not on record. The night that I first saw the photo I had an emotional reaction and was quite angry. But my feelings changed after I had slept on it. I was no longer angry and considered it good that somebody decided to remind the board of somebody's sacrifice.

SR
06-09-2008, 05:33 AM
If you consider it that way, sorry.

I did not vote. I refused to vote. So, my feelings were not on record. The night that I first saw the photo I had an emotional reaction and was quite angry. But my feelings changed after I had slept on it. I was no longer angry and considered it good that somebody decided to remind the board of somebody's sacrifice.

You're so far out there I really have no idea how on Earth to respond to that post. For starters, I wasn't talking to or about you.

Tned
06-09-2008, 06:42 AM
Ok, I finally read about this guy. He helped put Castro in power, great guy, only thousands of people have drowned or risked drowning to try and escape the brutal dictatorship that he helped install. All this about a murder that died 40 years ago. Amazing.

Anyway, as I have said before, this isn't about some murder that died 40 years ago and is revered by a fringe group. It is about whether or not displaying corpses in signatures is acceptable in this message board and if it should, where is the line drawn (peaceful corpse vs. mutilated corpse). Up to this point, some people chimed in and those that did made it clear, they didn't want to see corpses displayed.

If anyone thinks that feeling (not wishing to view corpses) DOESN'T represent the vast majority view of the message board, then s/he needs to get the word out for those that think corpses in sigs is appropriate to come in here an state why.

This is about corpses, not some guy that ruined the lives of so many.

Davii
06-09-2008, 07:45 AM
Ok, I finally read about this guy. He helped put Castro in power, great guy, only thousands of people have drowned or risked drowning to try and escape the brutal dictatorship that he helped install. All this about a murder that died 40 years ago. Amazing.

Anyway, as I have said before, this isn't about some murder that died 40 years ago and is revered by a fringe group. It is about whether or not displaying corpses in signatures is acceptable in this message board and if it should, where is the line drawn (peaceful corpse vs. mutilated corpse). Up to this point, some people chimed in and those that did made it clear, they didn't want to see corpses displayed.

If anyone thinks that feeling (not wishing to view corpses) DOESN'T represent the vast majority view of the message board, then s/he needs to get the word out for those that think corpses in sigs is appropriate to come in here an state why.

This is about corpses, not some guy that ruined the lives of so many.

TNed,

Is this where we talk about Jay taking over for Jake?

TIA.

claymore
06-09-2008, 07:49 AM
Hey Tned, whats the chances we can have images of Amhminajad, and hugo chavez taken down. I feel those are pretty un American and it offends me worse than dead pictures. Also, anti American comments etc. That really pisses me off.

Not being a bish, but The master bater, and you know who Im talking about, does that crap on purpose.

Tned
06-09-2008, 01:32 PM
Hey Tned, whats the chances we can have images of Amhminajad, and hugo chavez taken down. I feel those are pretty un American and it offends me worse than dead pictures. Also, anti American comments etc. That really pisses me off.

Not being a bish, but The master bater, and you know who Im talking about, does that crap on purpose.

Yes, I do know and agree with the sentiment, but currently they are not against the rules.

If enough of you feel strongly about not allowing anti-American type figures to be represented in sigs, create a Town Hall thread on the subject and get feedback. I try and keep my personal feelings on a back burner in terms of the rules, so therefore I need to here from as many members as possible on a subject.

If someone like Osama Bin Laden is portrayed, then that should be immediately removed, because of the murder of Americans on 9/11, where these other figures are not so cut and dry, and again that infamous 'line' will have to be defined, so therefore I will not take action in directing the mods or modifying the rules until their is a Town Hall discussion of some kind.

Hope that makes sense.

BroncoJoe
06-09-2008, 03:42 PM
Tned, what about a picture of a skeleton?

BeefStew25
06-09-2008, 03:47 PM
Tned, what about a picture of a skeleton?

But a skeleton without hands.

Slick
06-09-2008, 03:52 PM
Hmmm, why. Probably has a lot to do with limits really. You say that its not a big deal. Where do you draw the line Slick? Can i show some titties in my av? Can KCLady have a big schlong in her avy? Would that bother you at all? How bout a pedafile? How bout someone being a huge Hitler fan with a picture of a pit full of dead jews in his sig? How bout an album cover with a woman mounting an upside down cross saying "**** me Jesus"?

And keep in mind that none of these would be secluded to the Lounge. Nope. they would be broadcasted all over the message board for children and all people to see. No limits whatsover. Personally, lets do it! Lets get crazy man! Lets let it all hang out!! Woohooo! And it the end of the day dude its just about RESPECT. If i posted something that pushed the boundaries of normal decency that wasnt kept in a certain forum (The Lounge) and someone found it offensive i would be expected to remove it.

I find it funny that some people's arguements to being able to push those boundaries are "Well, its just a forum so why get worked up about it?". Well, the same can be said for those individuals. Why is it so important for someone to post a dead corpse or any other picture that is inappropriate? If the forum isnt that big a deal than it shouldnt be a big deal to remove the picture. Just saying.

No titties, no schlongs, hopefully no pedophiles, no pics of dead jews, and no **** me Jesus pictures...but I'm pretty sure that has all been covered anyway.

I guess I'm just more of a brush it off and go to the next post kind of person, plus, I've never been a victim of an attack or been the attacker. I try to contribute to the discussion threads when our opinions are solicited, and this is the only board I've ever been a member of that does that. I'm just a laid back, mellow guy. I live in the Carribean, dive for a living, and never sweat the small stuff.

I agree with a post Mike made a few pages back where he said, Mountain out of a molehill. If I was truly that unhappy about things here at Broncos Forums I'd probably talk to Tned about it, make a discussion thread, or just post somewhere else.

Northman
06-09-2008, 04:01 PM
I guess I'm just more of a brush it off and go to the next post kind of person,


Except if there were titties, schlongs, pedophiles, dead jews, and **** me jesus pictures. Then all of a sudden you wouldnt be brushing it off correct? :lol:

At the end of the day everyone has their limits. What may suit you just fine may not suit another. And hence why it must be discussed and settled one way or another.

BeefStew25
06-09-2008, 04:03 PM
Except if there were titties, schlongs, pedophiles, dead jews, and **** me jesus pictures. Then all of a sudden you wouldnt be brushing it off correct? :lol:

At the end of the day everyone has their limits. What may suit you just fine may not suit another. And hence why it must be discussed and settled one way or another.

Which was funny when you had titties, blood, and handguns in your avatar.

Northman
06-09-2008, 04:06 PM
Which was funny when you had titties, blood, and handguns in your avatar.

Uh no. There was no titties and blood. And i have no problem with a handgun in a avatar or sig.

SR
06-09-2008, 04:08 PM
So I'm going to get a new avatar with titties and blood, then have a gun in my sig.

Northman
06-09-2008, 04:09 PM
So I'm going to get a new avatar with titties and blood, then have a gun in my sig.

Knock yourself out champ. :lol:

Poet
06-09-2008, 04:11 PM
So I'm going to get a new avatar with titties and blood, then have a gun in my sig.

I am going to get a new avater with titties bleeding and shooting guns! TAKE THAT!!!!!!!!!

Broncos Mtnman
06-09-2008, 04:14 PM
I can't help it if only a 'few' people choose to get involved in setting the rules. What do you suggest as an alternative:


I just set all the rules with no feedback from members of the message board?
We have no rules or moderators, since mods can only mod to rules?


I'm not trying to be a smart ass (ok, only a little), but I am serious, what alternative do you suggest. If you say the way I am doing things is so ass backwards, what's your alternative?

If you are going to use the faulty polls as the basis for decisions, then why don't you make an effort to get EVERY member to vote, not just the few who choose to visit the forum.

Isn't there some feature to send a mass PM or something? Couldn't it be put at the top of every page like some of the announcements are?

However, if you are going to use a poll as a basis for making your decisions, it seems more could be done to get a true representation of OPINIONS before making a new rule.

We have 689 members (with nearly 400 active) and yet we have a poll where only 45 people vote. That doesn't even qualify as a quorum.

girler
06-09-2008, 04:14 PM
So I'm going to get a new avatar with titties and blood, then have a gun in my sig.

Like FemBots with a bloody nose?

claymore
06-09-2008, 04:35 PM
Yes, I do know and agree with the sentiment, but currently they are not against the rules.

If enough of you feel strongly about not allowing anti-American type figures to be represented in sigs, create a Town Hall thread on the subject and get feedback. I try and keep my personal feelings on a back burner in terms of the rules, so therefore I need to here from as many members as possible on a subject.

If someone like Osama Bin Laden is portrayed, then that should be immediately removed, because of the murder of Americans on 9/11, where these other figures are not so cut and dry, and again that infamous 'line' will have to be defined, so therefore I will not take action in directing the mods or modifying the rules until their is a Town Hall discussion of some kind.

Hope that makes sense.Roger. Its gotta be hard to not force wield your power. Just making a point. But I might start that thread. :eek:

Broncos Mtnman
06-09-2008, 04:37 PM
Roger. Its gotta be hard to not force wield your power. Just making a point. But I might start that thread. :eek:

Let me know if you do. I'm in.....

Slick
06-09-2008, 05:51 PM
Except if there were titties, schlongs, pedophiles, dead jews, and **** me jesus pictures. Then all of a sudden you wouldnt be brushing it off correct? :lol:

At the end of the day everyone has their limits. What may suit you just fine may not suit another. And hence why it must be discussed and settled one way or another.

Actually most of those pics really wouldn't bother me, I was just saying they've already been addressed, or at least I think they have, but yes I agree. It's nice that we can discuss these things instead of abiding by a single persons manifesto. We should all be grateful for that and I think most of us are.

BroncoJoe
06-09-2008, 06:51 PM
Tned, what about a picture of a skeleton?

Bump - so Tned can see this question.

Thanks.

Davii
06-09-2008, 06:54 PM
Is that Al Davis sig I had of a mummified head pasted on Al Davis' body still legal?

Slick
06-09-2008, 06:57 PM
Is that Al Davis sig I had of a mummified head pasted on Al Davis' body still legal?

If it's not it should be...that was classic.

Tned
06-09-2008, 07:00 PM
If you are going to use the faulty polls as the basis for decisions, then why don't you make an effort to get EVERY member to vote, not just the few who choose to visit the forum.

Isn't there some feature to send a mass PM or something? Couldn't it be put at the top of every page like some of the announcements are?

However, if you are going to use a poll as a basis for making your decisions, it seems more could be done to get a true representation of OPINIONS before making a new rule.

We have 689 members (with nearly 400 active) and yet we have a poll where only 45 people vote. That doesn't even qualify as a quorum.

I don't use polls, I have stated that time and again. I only take into account responses in a thread, which is why you don't see me creating polls in Town Hall threads.

No, there is no mass PM that I am aware of, only the ability to email every member, but I don't think it is appropriate to email every member.

On issues I consider extremely important, like the banning procedures, I post threads in the four main forums, requesting people visit the thread and provide input. Beyond that, there is little I can do.

At a certain point, it is like whether or not a person is going to visit a polling station and be part of the process, or just complain about the results later.

Tned
06-09-2008, 07:03 PM
Tned, what about a picture of a skeleton?

Out of context, I wouldn't even begin to say. If we introduce a no corpse rule, then I would say the mods, and I will have to interpret images on a case by case basis and see if they violate the spirit of the rule.

It is impossible to define every type of image in a rule. At a certain point common sense and good taste should take over, and then the mods have step in when needed.

BroncoJoe
06-09-2008, 07:13 PM
Out of context, I wouldn't even begin to say. If we introduce a no corpse rule, then I would say the mods, and I will have to interpret images on a case by case basis and see if they violate the spirit of the rule.

It is impossible to define every type of image in a rule. At a certain point common sense and good taste should take over, and then the mods have step in when needed.

I understand, and am not posting this to start any kind of "stir", but if others are allowed to post pictures that are "offensive" to some members, can we post something like this?

http://e-vestnik.bg/imgs/che_guevara/skeleton-che-081007.jpg

Broncos Mtnman
06-09-2008, 07:52 PM
I don't use polls, I have stated that time and again. I only take into account responses in a thread, which is why you don't see me creating polls in Town Hall threads.

No, there is no mass PM that I am aware of, only the ability to email every member, but I don't think it is appropriate to email every member.

On issues I consider extremely important, like the banning procedures, I post threads in the four main forums, requesting people visit the thread and provide input. Beyond that, there is little I can do.

At a certain point, it is like whether or not a person is going to visit a polling station and be part of the process, or just complain about the results later.


The principle still applies tned.

Why not send an email to all members when it's a policy change? And, I would consider rules extremely important, but that's just me.

Thanks for all you do.

Tned
06-09-2008, 08:11 PM
The principle still applies tned.

Why not send an email to all members when it's a policy change? And, I would consider rules extremely important, but that's just me.

Thanks for all you do.

I understand, and I'll give it some thought. I would like as much feedback as possible, but I think if we go the email route it would have to be infrequent, maybe notifying members about multiple discussions at one time.


I understand, and am not posting this to start any kind of "stir", but if others are allowed to post pictures that are "offensive" to some members, can we post something like this?

http://e-vestnik.bg/imgs/che_guevara/skeleton-che-081007.jpg

As I said, it is all about context. If your reason is to try and piss off the commie/che lovers, then I would say no, it isn't ok.

BroncoBJ
06-09-2008, 09:06 PM
Who is Che anyways? :confused:

I never heard of him until a few days ago :eek:

KCL
06-09-2008, 09:08 PM
Who is Che anyways? :confused:

I never heard of him until a few days ago :eek:

Get with the program...:rolleyes:

BroncoJoe
06-09-2008, 09:45 PM
As I said, it is all about context. If your reason is to try and piss off the commie/che lovers, then I would say no, it isn't ok.

OK. Now answer me this: Said members (commie/che lovers) purposly have his (or another commie/murderer) as their avatar and/or signature, and the sole purpose is to piss off the AMERICAN's that post on this site.

Is that OK?

Again, Tned, I'm not trying to stir the pot, and am just looking for answers as to what is acceptable, and what is not. Behavior wise...

BeefStew25
06-09-2008, 09:48 PM
OK. Now answer me this: Said members (commie/che lovers) purposly have his (or another commie/murderer) as their avatar and/or signature, and the sole purpose is to piss off the AMERICAN's that post on this site.

Is that OK?

Again, Tned, I'm not trying to stir the pot, and am just looking for answers as to what is acceptable, and what is not. Behavior wise...

Joe, you are a patriot and a statesman.

BroncoJoe
06-09-2008, 09:51 PM
Joe, you are a patriot and a statesman.

I've often thought of running for office, but alas, might have too many "skeletons" in my closet I'm afraid.

BeefStew25
06-09-2008, 09:51 PM
I've often thought of running for office, but alas, might have too many "skeletons" in my closet I'm afraid.

Did the skeletons have hands?

BroncoJoe
06-09-2008, 09:55 PM
Did the skeletons have hands?

I can neither confirm, nor deny such statement.

Tned
06-09-2008, 10:02 PM
OK. Now answer me this: Said members (commie/che lovers) purposly have his (or another commie/murderer) as their avatar and/or signature, and the sole purpose is to piss off the AMERICAN's that post on this site.

Is that OK?

Again, Tned, I'm not trying to stir the pot, and am just looking for answers as to what is acceptable, and what is not. Behavior wise...

It's a different debate. This one is about whether members should have to be subjected to corpses, and similar, images.

It may be that we need to have an additional discussion about images that could be considered anti-American, or simply designed to upset the masses, but that is a dangerous line to draw in the sand, because once you start censoring unpopular images/sigs, where do you stop???

BroncoJoe
06-09-2008, 10:06 PM
It's a different debate. This one is about whether members should have to be subjected to corpses, and similar, images.

It may be that we need to have an additional discussion about images that could be considered anti-American, or simply designed to upset the masses, but that is a dangerous line to draw in the sand, because once you start censoring unpopular images/sigs, where do you stop???

I agree 100%. As previously stated, I'm not really into censorship, although some images are pretty offensive - to nearly everyone with eyes and vision.

At some point, however, a line does need to be drawn. If you saw someone burning the American flag outiside your home, what would you do?

I know what I would.

Tned
06-09-2008, 10:09 PM
I agree 100%. As previously stated, I'm not really into censorship, although some images are pretty offensive - to nearly everyone with eyes and vision.

At some point, however, a line does need to be drawn. If you saw someone burning the American flag outiside your home, what would you do?

I know what I would.

When I agreed to create and subsidize this forum, I made a commitment not to impose my will or opinions on the message board. So, what I would do doesn't matter as much as what the community as a whole (the best that can be determined) wants.

BroncoJoe
06-09-2008, 10:14 PM
When I agreed to create and subsidize this forum, I made a commitment not to impose my will or opinions on the message board. So, what I would do doesn't matter as much as what the community as a whole (the best that can be determined) wants.

The exact reason I'd never start a forum. I admire you, Tned, but I could never run a forum that allows some of the clowns that post here. Football smack is one thing, dissing America is another.

Again, that's why I could never run a forum. Don't get me wrong - I love the P&R section, but my allegiance to my country runs deep.

Tned
06-09-2008, 10:17 PM
The exact reason I'd never start a forum. I admire you, Tned, but I could never run a forum that allows some of the clowns that post here. Football smack is one thing, dissing America is another.

Again, that's why I could never run a forum. Don't get me wrong - I love the P&R section, but my allegiance to my country runs deep.

Mine does too, and some of the sigs and opinions make me sick. However, I need the members of this message board to define how they want THEIR message board, their community, to be run, and I will enforce that.

Lonestar
06-10-2008, 12:02 AM
Mine does too, and some of the sigs and opinions make me sick. However, I need the members of this message board to define how they want THEIR message board, their community, to be run, and I will enforce that.

Which mean of course that if Joe wants to start a town hall discussion and get a vote going it is his prerogative.. It gets the ball rolling..

Cleveland Rocks
06-10-2008, 12:58 AM
OK. Now answer me this: Said members (commie/che lovers) purposly have his (or another commie/murderer) as their avatar and/or signature, and the sole purpose is to piss off the AMERICAN's that post on this site.

I don't have Guevara in my signature to "piss" off "gun-toting Republicans". I have Guevara in my signature because he is a fellow Socialist who shares in my ideals. I had Guevara in my signature long before people made him an issue on this board. Just as I had Lenin in my signature.

Davii
06-10-2008, 01:37 AM
I don't have Guevara in my signature to "piss" off "gun-toting Republicans". I have Guevara in my signature because he is a fellow Socialist who shares in my ideals. I had Guevara in my signature long before people made him an issue on this board. Just as I had Lenin in my signature.

And I had Che Obama in my sig because I was supporting you.

Cleveland Rocks
06-10-2008, 03:44 PM
And I had Che Obama in my sig because I was supporting you.

Yea ..... riiiiiiiighttttt

:rolleyes:

Davii
06-10-2008, 03:50 PM
Yea ..... riiiiiiiighttttt

:rolleyes:

Stealing my lines. :tsk:

Time for a new poll for rule considerations. :lol: