Important: No Political or Religious Sigs, Avvies or User Titles are allowed -- View instructions for adding secondary P&R sigs or to learn how to Opt-in to view them

[Tned]

Effective immediately.

No political or religious statements or images are allowed in avatars.
No political or religious statements or images are allowed in your primary signature.
No political or religious statements will be allowed in your user titles.

All decisions on what is 'political' or 'religious' will be made by the moderators and admin. If there is ANY doubt about an image or statement being considered political or religious, request to have it reviewed BEFORE using it.

Members that get cute, play games or ignore this rule will lose their right to have signatures, avatars and custom user titles.

Setting Up Secondary Political or Religious Signatures:

There is now a dedicated area to create a religious and/or political signature. As this is not a 'built in' feature of vBulletin, it is a different method than setting up your normal signature.

To create a secondary signature, click on "User CP" and then click "Edit Options".

On the Edit Options page, you will find five fields for setting up your Political Signature and five fields for setting up your Religious signature.

These two fields allow you to put text above your political image:
Political Signature Prefix Line 1
Political Signature Prefix Line 2

In this field put the link or URL to your political image, DO NOT INCLUDE IMG image tags around the link.
Political Signature Image:

These two fields allow you to put text below your political image:
Political Signature Suffix Line 1
Political Signature Suffix Line 2

Follow the same guidelines above with the Religious signature fields to setup a secondary religious signature.

Opting In to View Religious and/or Political Signatures:

By default, posters will not see any secondary (religious or political) signatures. If you want to view these signatures, you can "Opt In" by clicking on "User CP" and then click "Edit Options".

In the Political and Religious Signatures section, you can enable political and/or religious signatures by checking the box next to:

Enable Political Signatures
Enable Religious Signatures

[atwater27]

Though I have officially given up on the issue and made an ass of myself in the process, reading that new law gave me a sinking feeling in my stomach, kind of like the feeling I got when Obama was elected. You know, like a loss of freedom/big government kind of sinking feeling. Can't help it, just how I feel.

[topscribe]

Here is the official rule:


No political images or statements are allowed in avatars, user titles or the primary signature-- final determination as to whether a signature or avatar is 'political' will be made by the moderators and admins.

Does that mean we are going to have a double standard here?

-----

[Tned]

Here is the official rule:



Does that mean we are going to have a double standard here?

-----

Your question isn't very clear. What exactly are you concerned about becoming a double standard?

[topscribe]

Your question isn't very clear. What exactly are you concerned about becoming a double standard?

I don't want to disrupt things. I'll take it to PM, as I should have with the question in the first place.

-----

[broncogirl7]

Well done, Tned. Noone can complain about this new direction because they are still able to express themselves, just not in every section of the football forum. They will be able to express themselves, just in the correct area of the forum.

[atwater27]

Well done, Tned. Noone can complain about this new direction because they are still able to express themselves, just not in every section of the football forum. They will be able to express themselves, just in the correct area of the forum.

I hope Godzilla comes down from his hiding place and stomps the cute little deer in your avy into a jelly like substance. Other than that, I agree with you.

[broncogirl7]

I hope Godzilla comes down from his hiding place and stomps the cute little deer in your avy into a jelly like substance. Other than that, I agree with you.

:laugh: That's totally funny because just the other day, during a major snow storm...some guy smashed into my sister's cute little deer. Suffice to say, he was gently layed to rest. :laugh:

[Slick]

So if we're not opted in to the P and R sections, then we just leave our CP options as they were?

Another cool feature I must say, and I don't see how anyone would have a problem with it unless a posters sole purpose is to cram their beliefs down the throats of people who don't come here to discuss either topic.

War Tned!

[Tned]

So if we're not opted in to the P and R sections, then we just leave our CP options as they were?


Correct. The "Opt In" to the P&R sigs is different than the "Opt In" to the P&R forums, but other than that, you are 100% correct.

If you do nothing, you will not see the P&R sigs. You have to take a positive step to "Opt In" to view the P&R sigs.

[turftoad]

Though I have officially given up on the issue and made an ass of myself in the process, reading that new law gave me a sinking feeling in my stomach, kind of like the feeling I got when Obama was elected. You know, like a loss of freedom/big government kind of sinking feeling. Can't help it, just how I feel.

I understand how you feel and that you've had a problem with this whole thing.

However, this is a football board. A sports board. Feel FREE to express your opinion on anything sports minded here.

Broncos/Football are the main course here, P&R and everything else is a side dish.

I, myself, come here for the main course, mostly.

If some want P&R to be the main course, there are plenty of P&R sites on the internet.

JMO :D

[atwater27]

Totally understandable opinions of me about this issue. I have just been comfortable with the way things already were for years both at the freak and the forums. Now it is changing and I don't like it. Judge me as you will, I could care less.

[Slick]

Totally understandable opinions of me about this issue. I have just been comfortable with the way things already were for years both at the freak and the forums. Now it is changing and I don't like it. Judge me as you will, I could care less.

You're a passionate poster atwater, something I like and respect about you. I will not judge you, and my earlier post wasn't meant to be a shot at you so much as a shot at some who seem to be upset that we won't have to view their political cartoons etc...

Personally, I think keeping all of this separate will generally upgrade the health and fun of the forums for all sides involved. No rights have been taken away, we've just been given the option.

The new unicorn sig is quite beastly. :golfclap:

[slim]

Tned, as always, you have gone above and beyond.

I just hope these numbnuts understand and appreciate the work you put into this thing.

:salute:

[BroncoJoe]

. . .

The new unicorn sig is quite beastly. :golfclap:

As is the new avatar.

:yardog:

[Rick]

Good decision to go with the compromise Tned.

I hope you found a good workable easy to implement solution, I was certain something could be done but did not look any more after you gave the impression you didn't want to go that route.

While this may be a little more hassel at upgrade it should be less hassel for modding, so have to give some take some.

[deacon]

When you attempt to make everyone happy you make no one happy.

[Slick]

When you attempt to make everyone happy you make no one happy.

What could you possibly be unhappy about? Everyone's precious sigs are allowed, and those of you that wish to display political and religious themes still can.

I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with the new policy.

[topscribe]

What could you possibly be unhappy about? Everyone's precious sigs are allowed, and those of you that wish to display political and religious themes still can.

I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with the new policy.

I believe Deacon was posting a generic comment, a wise one, at that.

It should not be interpreted as his being personally unhappy.

-----

[Slick]

I believe Deacon was posting a generic comment, a wise one, at that.

It should not be interpreted as his being personally unhappy.

-----

Fair enough, although posting that comment in this thread in particular leaves the interpretation wide open.

Unfortunately I think this topic turned from a mustard burp into a steaming pile.

Those that want to talk politics and religion can still do that, those that want to display their sigs and avys can still do that too. The only difference is those who don't want to view them, don't have to.


I'm beginning to think that some are unhappy that the rest of us don't have to view them, and frankly I don't see why.

[Rick]

Exactly.

Those that come here to only see and discuss football can.

Those that come to discuss religion can.

Those that come to discuss politics can.

Those that want to display religious sigs can.

Those that want to display political sigs can.

Those that don't want to see either of the above or see the topics don't have to.

Seems pretty cool and compromising to me.

Oh, guess there is one flaw. Those that want to display sigs everywhere for the sole purpose of drawing out heated arguments and pushing thier beliefs/thoughts out on EVERYONE that comes to the forums...can't.

[Northman]

What could you possibly be unhappy about? Everyone's precious sigs are allowed, and those of you that wish to display political and religious themes still can.

I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with the new policy.


Because if you not allowed to shove it in someone's face there is nothing to brag about. When you take all the high school drama out of it no one likes it anymore. :lol:

[deacon]

What could you possibly be unhappy about? Everyone's precious sigs are allowed, and those of you that wish to display political and religious themes still can.

I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with the new policy.

Whether I'm unhappy or not is not the issue. I was simply making an observation about what I believe is happening.

And your term "precious sigs" isn't missed.

[DallasChief]

Nothing gets by you, deacon.

[deacon]

Because if you not allowed to shove it in someone's face there is nothing to brag about. When you take all the high school drama out of it no one likes it anymore. :lol:

Shoot. you busted me.

[deacon]

If you notice, I have neither a religious/political signature nor a religious/political avvy. This isn't because of the rule but because I happen to think it's not appropriate on my own personal level.

However, I do oppose the idea that the solution arrived at wasn't even part of the poll. I believe it is an attempt to make everyone happy which doesn't work.

I would have much preferred a decision made based on the three options given in the poll. I wouldn't have complained about any of the three. As it is I believe the poll was simply a "feel good" way to make folks feel they were a part of the decision when, in fact, they weren't.

However, this is T's board and he can do whatever he wants. My options are to go along with it or leave. At this point I ain't goin' nowhere. :)

[Midnight Blue]

If you notice, I have neither a religious/political signature nor a religious/political avvy. This isn't because of the rule but because I happen to think it's not appropriate on my own personal level.

However, I do oppose the idea that the solution arrived at wasn't even part of the poll. I believe it is an attempt to make everyone happy which doesn't work.

I would have much preferred a decision made based on the three options given in the poll. I wouldn't have complained about any of the three. As it is I believe the poll was simply a "feel good" way to make folks feel they were a part of the decision when, in fact, they weren't.

However, this is T's board and he can do whatever he wants. My options are to go along with it or leave. At this point I ain't goin' nowhere. :)

If the solution that was finally arrived at had been included in the poll, I truly do believe it would have won by a landslide... it seems the fairest way of trying to accommodate everyone's wishes... and as T said, it's on a trial basis for 90 days and if the board community doesn't like it after that time expires, it can be changed. Seems like a win/win situation to me... :confused:

[Tned]

If you notice, I have neither a religious/political signature nor a religious/political avvy. This isn't because of the rule but because I happen to think it's not appropriate on my own personal level.

However, I do oppose the idea that the solution arrived at wasn't even part of the poll. I believe it is an attempt to make everyone happy which doesn't work.

I would have much preferred a decision made based on the three options given in the poll. I wouldn't have complained about any of the three. As it is I believe the poll was simply a "feel good" way to make folks feel they were a part of the decision when, in fact, they weren't.

However, this is T's board and he can do whatever he wants. My options are to go along with it or leave. At this point I ain't goin' nowhere. :)

Deacon,

I suppose you can believe what you want, but you are 100% wrong. Wednesday and Thursday I started researching this alternative solution, because it became obvious that there was a segment of the message board that were quite frankly going to be total asses when it came to a 'positive' only sig rule. Based on the poll results (two polls) and discussions (three + discussions) on the topic, it was clear that most people wanted a no-political/religious rule OR a positive only rule.

However, it was also very clear that the handful of people that caused the problem with their sigs/avvies were going to play games with a 'positive' only rule.

So, when that became apparent, I started researching an "opt in" alternative to sigs. I researched options Wed and Thurs and then spent about twelve hours programming/configuring the solution on Friday.

I'm sorry you believe it was some master plan to 'deceive' people into feeling a sense of participation in the process that doesn't realy exist. Frankly, I'm pretty irritated by the accusation you have made several times now, but that's your RIGHT to believe it.

I have, and will, run this message board based on feedback from the members. I will always do my best to listen to feedback/input and then come up with solutions that accommodate as many people as possible.

That's all I can do. I can stay true to me word, but I can't 'convince' people that I am not attempting to perpetrate some grand conspiracy's via Town Hall threads.

[deacon]

Deacon,

I suppose you can believe what you want, but you are 100% wrong. Wednesday and Thursday I started researching this alternative solution, because it became obvious that there was a segment of the message board that were quite frankly going to be total asses when it came to a 'positive' only sig rule. Based on the poll results (two polls) and discussions (three + discussions) on the topic, it was clear that most people wanted a no-political/religious rule OR a positive only rule.

However, it was also very clear that the handful of people that caused the problem with their sigs/avvies were going to play games with a 'positive' only rule.

So, when that became apparent, I started researching an "opt in" alternative to sigs. I researched options Wed and Thurs and then spent about twelve hours programming/configuring the solution on Friday.

I'm sorry you believe it was some master plan to 'deceive' people into feeling a sense of participation in the process that doesn't realy exist. Frankly, I'm pretty irritated by the accusation you have made several times now, but that's your RIGHT to believe it.

I have, and will, run this message board based on feedback from the members. I will always do my best to listen to feedback/input and then come up with solutions that accommodate as many people as possible.

That's all I can do. I can stay true to me word, but I can't 'convince' people that I am not attempting to perpetrate some grand conspiracy's via Town Hall threads.

You can feel what you want about my "accusation". The fact remains that you asked for people to decide on one of three options relating to the avs and sigs. You then decided on a fourth option that no one was asked about. That, to me at least, is telling everyone thier input didn't count.

Incidently, I had always leaned somewhere between the positive only and no side with my preference being that probably no avs/sigs was best because of exactly the point you made.

As I said, it's your board and you can do whatever you want with it. My disagreement is that if you are going to do something you didn't even ask about, why ask at all?

I, if I understand the opt-in decision, believe you're just setting up the P&R forums to be discontinued by creating potential problems later. I believe some people will take your decision to mean anything goes in P&R which will cause trouble.

But...it's your decision. As I said earlier, I will live within your parameters without much trouble.

[Tned]

You can feel what you want about my "accusation". The fact remains that you asked for people to decide on one of three options relating to the avs and sigs. You then decided on a fourth option that no one was asked about. That, to me at least, is telling everyone thier input didn't count.

Incidently, I had always leaned somewhere between the positive only and no side with my preference being that probably no avs/sigs was best because of exactly the point you made.

As I said, it's your board and you can do whatever you want with it. My disagreement is that if you are going to do something you didn't even ask about, why ask at all?

I, if I understand the opt-in decision, believe you're just setting up the P&R forums to be discontinued by creating potential problems later. I believe some people will take your decision to mean anything goes in P&R which will cause trouble.

But...it's your decision. As I said earlier, I will live within your parameters without much trouble.

I stated on multiple occasions that the poll was not an up/down vote, and have gone through in detail why I will not use a poll on its own to make a decision. Out of respect for those that were claiming that the vast majority of posters wanted things left along and 'complaining' that there was no poll to 'prove' it, I put up a poll to gauge our members wishes.

There were not 3 options, there were 9 poll options meant to gauge, along with the input in the various threads, the feeling of the members of this board.

As to 'setting up' P&R to be shut down. Just the opposite. This trial is an attempt to keep the forums alive.

[GEM]

Hey zeus H. Crimeny.

No matter what you do, you can't please everyone. This was a very fair and well thought out conclusion that should please the masses rather than please a few and totally piss of the others.

Let's crucify the guy who is putting in HOURS of work to keep this a place that we all want to come to. I don't know about anyone else, but if it were me, I would have said eff it a long time ago.

It was said a VERY long time before any voting that the voting is just an opinion and would NEVER be the end all, be all. We're lucky to have an admin that is willing to do things to try to make everyone happy.

:yardog:

[Rick]

Deacon as far as I know there was no thought to doing it the way he did when he made the poll in the first place.

As fas as I can see there was always the intention of doing one of the options he placed in there from the start and it was up to the board to give opinions on which direction.

Hopefully it doesn't sound like I am trying to put myself up high or anything but as far as I know this was not ever even though of untill I suggested it days after the poll was created in a post, and originally Tned was against the idea.

What ever changed his mind for good to review the idea again I don't know but I would think this is a much better alternative than saying no political/religious sigs period.

[Tned]

What happened was what was made clear by certain posters. They would make the lives hell trying to enforce a "positive only" political rule, because they were pissed either:
1. Because they would no longer be able to shove their political views down everyone's throats and inflame others as much as possible.
or
2. Because they were standing on some free speech principle and were going to protest with "reverse positive" threads.

Add to that the fact that multiple polls and discussions had made it clear that the majority of posters were sick of the negative P&R content cascading out via the inflammatory sigs.

If in 90 days, everyone decides that this makes things too 'boring' then we can always go back.

[deacon]

I stated on multiple occasions that the poll was not an up/down vote, and have gone through in detail why I will not use a poll on its own to make a decision. Out of respect for those that were claiming that the vast majority of posters wanted things left along and 'complaining' that there was no poll to 'prove' it, I put up a poll to gauge our members wishes.

There were not 3 options, there were 9 poll options meant to gauge, along with the input in the various threads, the feeling of the members of this board.

As to 'setting up' P&R to be shut down. Just the opposite. This trial is an attempt to keep the forums alive.

Fair enough. You won't hear any more from me about it. I DO understand the position you're in and I won't complain any longer.

[Tned]

Fair enough. You won't hear any more from me about it. I DO understand the position you're in and I won't complain any longer.

You are FULLY in your rights to voice your opinion. I admit I got defensive at the multiple insinuations by you that the Town Hall discussions are some kind of farces or other "feel good" thing with no bearing on my decisions.

I got defensive because trying to manage this site by eliciting so much feedback and then trying to wade through the inevitable heated debates that occur is MUCH harder than just making decisions like virtually every other owner/admin on the Net does. However, I truly believe that as a 'community' we should discuss things and that I need to take the input and try and come up with the best solution based on that input.

Again, it would be much easier to do the dictator admin thing that most employ.

Having said that, I apologize for getting defensive, because no matter what my reasons for doing so, it doesn't justify the action.

Everyone is free to, and encouraged to, voice their opinions and I shouldn't be getting defensive when I don't like them.

So, sorry for that.