Town hall discussion on whether or not religious and political sigs/avvies be allowed

[Tned]

The question is fairly simple, should members be allowed to have political avatars or signatures, and the same goes with religious.

In both cases, the sub-question is whether or not only positive portrayals should be allowed:

I pray to God every morning
vs.
There is no God, regardless of what some peasant statue worshippers believe.

Obama/Biden 2008
vs.
A vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of the failed George Bush policies.

Those are just some of the issues related to this and the examples above were thrown up quickly, because I have to leave for work, but you get the idea.

Please discuss your opinion on this subject. Since P&R is opt in, due you believe the next step is to remove everything political and religious in sigs, and keep it just generic or football orientated, or leave it the way it is now.

Please discuss your thoughts on this, but don't be limited to what I have posted when giving your opinion on this subject.

Any personal attacks, slams or attempt to derail this thread or pull in issues outside of this topic will be removed. Thanks in advance for keeping it on the topic of political and religious content in sigs and avvies.

T

[BroncoJoe]

I have sigs turned off for a couple of reasons:

1. Some of them are just too big
2. I don't like reading/seeing some of the BS statements

Just my $.02

[Kapaibro]

As P&R is now an Opt-In section, then perhaps the issue should extend to the sigs and avatars.

Those people who do not want to be involved in politics or religion still have to see political/religious statements/pictures in sigs/avatars.

[Slick]

I love the fact that P and R is opt-in. It has made the forums much more enjoyable for me personally.

The sigs and avatars don't bother me. I say let it stand the way it is. Some freedom of expression at least.

[schnooks1]

Anything that you can turn off should be allowed. If I don't have to see it, then it won't bother my freedoms either!!

[frauschieze]

As a personal preference, I'd rather not see them. HOWEVER, as long as they are within current site guidelines, I think they should be allowed.

[atwater27]

Let us keep them. If it violates COC, don't.

[Tned]

Great input guys, let's keep that feedback coming :2thumbs:

[OB]

As long as its not a personal attack against a member (unless its clay or MO :D ) i say its all good - if you dont like it do what joe does and turn sigs off - i love sigs and avys - they are reflections of the person, IMO

[haroldthebarrel]

I have sigs turned off for a couple of reasons:

1. Some of them are just too big
2. I don't like reading/seeing some of the BS statements

Just my $.02

i turn off both avatars and sigs....... stupid things that make the site slow and even if I agree they get boring in the end.

[haroldthebarrel]

As long as its not a personal attack against a member (unless its clay or MO :D ) i say its all good - if you dont like it do what joe does and turn sigs off - i love sigs and avys - they are reflections of the person, IMO

I think statements and arguments define a person much more than a single signature line.
People in my opinion are too set in their first impression of a person than they should, and a sig gives only a slight impression.

[NightTrainLayne]

They don't really bother me. As it's been noted we have the option to turn them off.

However, in my anally-retentive mind, if we set P&R to be opt-in to allow some members who don't want to be bothered with P&R to avoid even seeing a P&R thread listed in the "new posts" list, then the same courtesy should be given regarding Avvy's and sig's.

In other words, if just seeing a thread title might keep someone away or bother someone, then how much more if it's in every sig and avatard?

If I remember right, I voted against the P&R opt-in but stated that it really didn't matter either way.

I feel about the same here. It doesn't make a difference personally either way, but I think it would be consistent with the opt-in to keep them out of sigs/avatards.

Just an opinion of someone who's never had a politcal/religious statement in a sig or avy.

[Day1BroncoFan]

I don't have a personal preference however, I think it should be allowed as long as it isn't negative or it should be denied across the board. I do not think negativity should be allowed.

[underrated29]

allow it.


I know its a football forum but come on. If you arent strong enough in your religion or religous stance that someones sig gets you all upset. I think the problem lies somewhere else. Same with politics.

People should be able to express themselves and i like to see varying poeples opinions on P and R.

However, serious attacks and any CoC violations of course should not stand.

[BroncoJoe]

i turn off both avatars and sigs....... stupid things that make the site slow and even if I agree they get boring in the end.

I leave avy's on, because it is an easy way to quickly identify who is posting.

[KCL]

I leave avy's on, because it is an easy way to quickly identify who is posting.

Does changing an avy mess you up as far as being able to idenify who is
posting? ;)

Sigs and avys do not bother me no matter what it is in them.

[OB]

If people leave a site over a sig or avy we are better off without them (obviously as long as it wasnt directed at them personally)

[BroncoJoe]

Does changing an avy mess you up as far as being able to idenify who is
posting? ;)

Sigs and avys do not bother me no matter what it is in them.

Yes! It took me a while to get used to your new one, but I love it!

[KCL]

Yes! It took me a while to get used to your new one, but I love it!

Thank You! I love yours too. :usa2:

[Watchthemiddle]

I have my sigs turned off so say what you want it wont bother me. That said i would hate to see once again someone who is afraid of religion get there way and have the Rights of a religious person taken away because they whinned the loudest. Much like our Society today.

[haroldthebarrel]

I have my sigs turned off so say what you want it wont bother me. That said i would hate to see once again someone who is afraid of religion get there way and have the Rights of a religious person taken away because they whinned the loudest. Much like our Society today.

That goes both ways. I guess some people here would be greatly offended if somebody quoted Nietzsche "God is dead". Though would they whine loudly about I dont know...... I guess that has to do with how vocal each individual chooses to be.

[Retired_Member_001]

Freedom of speech at the end of the day. If you don't like what's in the avatar/sig, then turn them off or ignore the poster. It's pretty simple.

[KCL]

Freedom of speech at the end of the day. If you don't like what's in the avatar/sig, then turn them off or ignore the poster. It's pretty simple.

Freedom of speech...does that really apply here? :confused:

[Retired_Member_001]

Freedom of speech...does that really apply here? :confused:

Not really. Well, it depends on whether what you're saying "offends" a mod or not.

Still, it's always cool to start a sentence with freedom of speech, because it sounds like it's going to be dramatic. ;)

[Skinny]

I have no problem with religious or political pictures or quotes at all. (Avy/Sigs are on for viewing pleasure)

[Midnight Blue]

Unless a sig/avy graphic breaks the forum rules, I think they should be allowed. In the event that another poster is offended by said graphic, then they have other options (like turning off all avys/sigs or temporarily placing the poster with that graphic on ignore).

It's been my experience that a thick skin and tolerance for other viewpoints make any messageboard more enjoyable....

[Chica_Ang]

I lean towards the more modest end. There are some avys I'd rather not see, like I mentioned about 8 months ago or so when the discussion first came up about what should be tolerated. I want to come and talk about my Broncos and get a break from seeing t & a, male or female. Since I just learned reading this thread that I can turn off sig/avys, I will since I'd also rather not see political or religious sigs. Then we can all get along since I can jump to conclusions about people, and what fun is that? :D

And also, our blessed freedom of speech doesn't just go one direction. :beer:

[NameUsedBefore]

Don't really care either way. I just like putting my favorite phrases up and sometimes they happen to be P&R related.

[Buff]

I think we ought to allow both.

I personally can't stand signatures of any kind, so I turned them off. Pretty simple solution really.

[BroncoJoe]

I think we ought to allow both.

I personally can't stand signatures of any kind, so I turned them off. Pretty simple solution really.

Ditto.

[56crash]

I don't have a personal preference however, I think it should be allowed as long as it isn't negative or it should be denied across the board. I do not think negativity should be allowed.


negative that is politics in a nut shell piss on politics I come here for Broncos football I put people on iggy the second they start political sig/avvies

[BroncoTech]

I really have to agree with you that I'm here for one thing. It's not that these sigs are offending it's they are annoying to the point it compels you to seek another news source. It's like getting spammed on a site you visit daily, eventually you'll get tired of the spam. This unsolicited opinion could easily be ignored if it was a couple lines of text. It's when you allocate 500px x 500px of signature space of unrelated content I would never partake on my own do I truly feel spammed.

[BroncoJoe]

That's the main reason I have sigs disabled.

[slim]

The political stuff doesn't bother me...the crap I hate is when someone has twenty two pictures in their sig and it takes you five minutes to scroll through to the next post.

That is why I have sigs turned off.

[BroncoJoe]

I really have to agree with you that I'm here for one thing. It's not that these sigs are offending it's they are annoying to the point it compels you to seek another news source. It's like getting spammed on a site you visit daily, eventually you'll get tired of the spam. This unsolicited opinion could easily be ignored if it was a couple lines of text. It's when you allocate 500px x 500px of signature space of unrelated content I would never partake on my own do I truly feel spammed.


That's the main reason I have sigs disabled.


The political stuff doesn't bother me...the crap I hate is when someone has twenty two pictures in their sig and it takes you five minutes to scroll through to the next post.

That is why I have sigs turned off.

That too. Probably more so.

[LordTrychon]

Because I'm lazy and don't know offhand... are there limits to sig size here?

[Tned]

Because I'm lazy and don't know offhand... are there limits to sig size here?

No. It's something we have talked about on and off and I think need to be implemented. I would think somewhere between the Mane and Mania regs would be good (Mane is tiny, Mania quite a bit larger).

We should really have a limit on total space taken up, and also total Kb of the images combined, since some people put up high quality images that take too long to download.

[CoachChaz]

No. It's something we have talked about on and off and I think need to be implemented. I would think somewhere between the Mane and Mania regs would be good (Mane is tiny, Mania quite a bit larger).

We should really have a limit on total space taken up, and also total Kb of the images combined, since some people put up high quality images that take too long to download.

I completely agree. A smill sig line along the lines of what I use is one thing, but when you have wall posters of your man crushes, it gets a little ridiculous. Some people have photo timelines.

[Tned]

I completely agree. A smill sig line along the lines of what I use is one thing, but when you have wall posters of your man crushes, it gets a little ridiculous. Some people have photo timelines.

I'll work on coming up with a sig guideline and post that in a seperate thread. Possibly even getting input from people on say three different size signature areas (can graphically show the sizes) so the policy will be easier to understand.