Important Town Hall Poll: Should Religious sigs/avvies be allowed -- the focus was on politics, so we need seperate feedback on religious only

[Tned]

Ok, up to this point religious and political content has been linked in the discussions, however most people have been voicing their opinion (on whichever side they fell) about the political sigs.

So, we now have an ability for these 'secondary' sigs that people can choose to opt in to view, or choose not to view.

Should religious images and statements be limited to these "opt in" signatures, or should people still be allowed to have religious images and statements in their avatar, user title and standard signature?

Please vote and comment.

[Northman]

No, they should only be allowed by opt-in.

Because what will happen is someone will post a what they deem to be a positive Av or sig only to have someone else take offense to it in some shape or form. Just leave it as a option if someone wants to view them at all.

[broncogirl7]

Leave it opt-in, just like you have the political stuff. People can still express themselves in the appropriate threads, but not the entire football forum which is a great compromise you have brought to the situation.

[atwater27]

I think anything that could be remotely offensive even to a deaf dumb and blind person should be eliminated as an option for avs or sigs. I have gotten several complaints from Han Solo and his friends that my avy is hurtful and should be changed. I myself am allergic to poodles as well as sweaters, and merely looking at TNED's avy makes me break out into hives. I don't know what we should do.

[topscribe]

You've already made your decision.

Just leave it now. See what happens.

-----

[Tned]

You've already made your decision.

Just leave it now. See what happens.

-----

I don't just assume I know everything and am never wrong, therefore I see no problem in confirming that a decision is in lines with what the community at large wants.

I think the political/religious discussions were too dominated by the political issue, so therefore a poll/discussion just focused on the religious sigs/avvies, especially with people knowing that there is an 'opt in' route for these sigs, is appropriate.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I voted yes - but, will add with some restrictions. I see nothing wrong with someone noting the words only John 3:16 in their signature, with the option that someone may click on it to read the verse. Or noting a link to a religious website. Guess what I am trying to say is yes, but keep it very simple. In fact, I really can not remember where a religious avatar or signature has ever caused problems on here, or if they have, I do not remember the situation.

[atwater27]

I disagree. Religion is offensive. Why should I have to read John 3 16? It's not fair. I am an optimist. I want to see positive things all the time that reinforce my life and my soul. That's why I want to outlaw STOP signs. They are everywhere! And it is not a positive sign. Not enabling. Instead of happy, encouraging "go" or "yes you can!" images and signs, we have to have these oppressive and scary red signs telling us to STOP!, no you can't! Do what the government tells you signs. I agree with what is going on here. Do not allow ANYTHING that could possibly offend someone, or discourage them from living their life free of encountering anything they do not agree with.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I disagree. Religion is offensive. Why should I have to read John 3 16? It's not fair. I am an optimist. I want to see positive things all the time that reinforce my life and my soul. That's why I want to outlaw STOP signs. They are everywhere! And it is not a positive sign. Not enabling. Instead of happy, encouraging "go" or "yes you can!" images and signs, we have to have these oppressive and scary red signs telling us to STOP!, no you can't! Do what the government tells you signs. I agree with what is going on here. Do not allow ANYTHING that could possibly offend someone, or discourage them from living their life free of encountering anything they do not agree with.

I did not mean for someone to post the Bible verse - just the words John 3:16, with a link, IN CASE someone wanted to read it, which I used as an example only.

[Tned]

Need more people providing comments and voting in the poll.

Thx

T

[Slick]

I though they fell under the same umbrella, but I voted opt-in on this as well.

[BroncoJoe]

I though they fell under the same umbrella, but I voted opt-in on this as well.

I agree. Ban one (opt-in only) ban both.

[Tned]

I though they fell under the same umbrella, but I voted opt-in on this as well.

Well they have been under the same umbrella in several of the discussions, but for many it seems a religious phrase isn't as 'controversial' as a political image or statement.

Anyway, that's what this one is to figure out. Should religious sigs also go the opt-in route, like political?

[BroncoJoe]

Well they have been under the same umbrella in several of the discussions, but for many it seems a religious phrase isn't as 'controversial' as a political image or statement.

Anyway, that's what this one is to figure out. Should religious sigs also go the opt-in route, like political?

IMO, yes. Only because those that are upset about the Political rule will probably do stupid sigs/avatars with religious themes because they can't politically.

[BroncoJoe]

P.S. Tned, many of us appreciate you giving us a voice in how you run this board. I personally couldn't do it - too much "dictator" in me I guess, but the time and effort you put into the community here is appreciated.

Those that want to express themselves, be it religious or political, can still do that. Those that choose not to, don't have to.

[KCL]

I voted yes

[Midnight Blue]

It's simpler if the rules are the same for religion and politics, I think. So if the political sigs are opt-in, then religious ones should be, too.

[Bronco Bible]

I like KCL voted Yes should my screen name be banned because someone thinks it might have to do with Religion?

[haroldthebarrel]

lets see how many of those who are for religious avys start to give me neg reps if I put on
"Der Gott ist tot, er hat sich erschossen"

I really have no opinion on it one way or another, but I suspect as usual the ones who wants them are the ones who gets offended by something that run counter to their beliefs.

[LordTrychon]

http://www.jedichurch.org/

[haroldthebarrel]

http://www.jedichurch.org/

lol..... bet "the Star Wars kid" is the president.

[slim]

lets see how many of those who are for religious avys start to give me neg reps if I put on
"Der Gott ist tot, er hat sich erschossen"

I really have no opinion on it one way or another, but I suspect as usual the ones who wants them are the ones who gets offended by something that run counter to their beliefs.

Why do you always have to be so passive-aggressive?

[haroldthebarrel]

Why do you always have to be so passive-aggressive?

That's funny. That is the first time somebody ever called me that.
Usually it is that I am too confronting or pedantic.

[deacon]

I'm not sure I see the reasoning for this. Your last poll gave the options to either have all of them, only positive ones, or none. Then you hybridized it into they should only be an opt-in. I think your mind is already made up and I don't think you're going to make me feel any better asking for my opinion when you're not going to listen.

Do what you want

[haroldthebarrel]

I am laughing my ass off right now. Hahahaha

Slim just popped in to call me out why I am so passive aggressive and the instant later he leaves the site.

Best example of irony I have experienced in months.

[Slick]

I am laughing my ass off right now. Hahahaha

Slim just popped in to call me out why I am so passive aggressive and the instant later he leaves the site.

Best example of irony I have experienced in months.

His wife probably brought home a bucket of chicken.

[haroldthebarrel]

His wife probably brought home a bucket of chicken.

reason enough i suppose. Still, that was hilarious.

[slim]

I am laughing my ass off right now. Hahahaha

Slim just popped in to call me out why I am so passive aggressive and the instant later he leaves the site.

Best example of irony I have experienced in months.

I did?

Wow....thanks for clearing that up. As usual, you don't know WTF you are talking about.

[haroldthebarrel]

I did?

Wow....thanks for clearing that up. As usual, you don't know WTF you are talking about.

well you did. No matter if you were latent on this board or not. You called me out, and then I heard nothing from you for over an hour.

Tell me then some examples of where I dont know what I am talking about then?
You wanna call me out as passive aggressive lets this be as aggressive as you want!

[claymore]

I said no, opt in only. Only because some jackass will show some wicken or satanic BS.

[haroldthebarrel]

I said no, opt in only. Only because some jackass will show some wicken or satanic BS.

exactly. and that was my point though i did try to stare it up a little.
You wanna have them, in my opinion you have to allow even the ones that you goes counter to your beliefs.

[slim]

well you did. No matter if you were latent on this board or not. You called me out, and then I heard nothing from you for over an hour.

Tell me then some examples of where I dont know what I am talking about then?
You wanna call me out as passive aggressive lets this be as aggressive as you want!

My apologies. I will start checking in with you every half hour.

BTW, I don't have a problem with being aggressive. What I do have a problem with is people that think the world revolves around them.

P.S. if you don't hear back from me within the hour it is not because I left the site, it is because I have better things to do.

[haroldthebarrel]

My apologies. I will start checking in with you every half hour.

BTW, I don't have a problem with being aggressive. What I do have a problem with is people that think the world revolves around them.

P.S. if you don't hear back from me within the hour it is not because I left the site, it is because I have better things to do.

why cant you answer the question.
Give me examples either where I was overtly passive aggressive or where I dont know what I am talking about.

The first and final part has nothing to do with what you called me at all.



Edit... you called me out as saying the I think the world revolves around me. Which is true to some extent, but Id like you to tell me where I do that more than others.
Looks like the mods dont like this. Please pmail me about this. Which i think you should since you are so damn interested in calling me out the first time I write on this site in a while.

[Dreadnought]

I said no, opt in only. Only because some jackass will show some wicken or satanic BS.

I voted Yes, but thats a real concern, I agree. We would then be bound to allow that too.

I've always liked Top's sig of the Lion with the Lamb. It expresses a belief without being "in your face" or preachy. I'm not sure we could require such sigs to conform to that kind of respect and understatement. So now I'm torn.

[Dreadnought]

Folks - lets keep this on the topic of religious sigs - no other single poster is the subject here.

[Tned]

I'm not sure I see the reasoning for this. Your last poll gave the options to either have all of them, only positive ones, or none. Then you hybridized it into they should only be an opt-in. I think your mind is already made up and I don't think you're going to make me feel any better asking for my opinion when you're not going to listen.

Do what you want

To be honest, my goal isn't to "make you feel better" it is to attempt, as much as is possible, to setup rules that are in line with what most people on here want.

As I indicated, while religion was part of the original discussion the primary focus was politics. There was barely a comment made about religion, so I am getting separate feedback on it.

I'm sorry you don't like the 'hybridized' approach as you call it, but it was made clear by several of those that didn't agree with a 'positive' only rule that they would be asses about it and make the mod's live's miserable trying to police it.

Therefore, we are going with the Opt-In approach for the next 90 days to see how it goes. However, since the focus was on politics and not religion, I thought the subject warranted re-visiting.

[Tned]

I like KCL voted Yes should my screen name be banned because someone thinks it might have to do with Religion?

I think your name's safe.

[KCL]

exactly. and that was my point though i did try to stare it up a little.
You wanna have them, in my opinion you have to allow even the ones that you goes counter to your beliefs.

I voted yes and I have never stated anything religious on this board.I am not sure if you are trying to lump the people who voted yes in a group or what.I also voted yes for political sigs as well.

It doesn't really matter to me as I have always displayed fooball sigs and usually football avys.I voted yes because I feel like people should be able to have them if they choose.

[topscribe]

I said no, opt in only. Only because some jackass will show some wicken or satanic BS.

Yes, I could see that happening now. Only thing is, no one likely would have
ever thought about it until this silly issue came up. :tsk:

-----

[MOtorboat]

Opt in = Opt in.

Shouldn't even be a discussion.

I don't want you forcing your political beliefs on me, and I sure as hell don't want you pushing your religious beliefs on me, unless I agree for either to happen. If I enter P&R fine, but neither should be allowed on this board outside of there, and there really shouldn't be a discussion about it, frankly.

[MOtorboat]

Yes, I could see that happening now. Only thing is, no one likely would have
ever thought about it until this silly issue came up. :tsk:

-----

Some of us don't want to see religious stuff, either, including myself. I find it quite hypocritical that Christians look down on other religions, while trumpeting that they are the only "right" people. That said, again, I don't want to hear it, or see it, and shouldn't have to.

[topscribe]

Some of us don't want to see religious stuff, either, including myself. I find it quite hypocritical that Christians look down on other religions, while trumpeting that they are the only "right" people. That said, again, I don't want to hear it, or see it, and shouldn't have to.

Then I suggest you lock yourself in a bomb shelter the rest of your life. It's all
around you. The rest of your post I don't understand, unless that means
you're stereotyping me into mainstream Christianity when you don't know the
first thing about me.

As you can see, my sig is gone. Do remember, however, that me and my sig
were already here when you joined this board. In fact, me and my sig were
already here when everybody else joined this board, except Tned.

But all that doesn't matter now. My sig is gone, per the rules.

-----

[MOtorboat]

Then I suggest you lock yourself in a bomb shelter the rest of your life. It's all
around you. The rest of your post I don't understand, unless that means
you're stereotyping me into mainstream Christianity when you don't know the
first thing about me.

As you can see, my sig is gone. Do remember, however, that me and my sig
were already here when you joined this board. In fact, me and my sig were
already here when everybody else joined this board, except Tned.

But all that doesn't matter now. My sig is gone, per the rules.

-----

You really are offended by people who don't claim Christianity, aren't you? You've tried hard enough to push your values on enough people, including myself on this message board to warrant the response I'm giving.

I really don't give one crap if your sig was here before me or not, if religion is considered opt-in, then it's opt-in. I am not going to look politely on the "I'm older than you and know better than you" argument any longer. Sorry. It just makes you look stubborn, and quite frankly stupid.

[topscribe]

You really are offended by people who don't claim Christianity, aren't you?

No I am not. I never have been, and I never will be. As I implied, you do not
even know me, so stop making ridiculous assumptions about me.


I really don't give one crap if your sig was here before me or not, if religion is considered opt-in, then it's opt-in. I am not going to look politely on the "I'm older than you and know better than you" argument any longer. Sorry. It just makes you look stubborn, and quite frankly stupid.

No, you look stupid by allowing this to fly way over your head because you
decided to twist what I said instead of reading it . . . either that, or you
failed to comprehend (even though I wrote it on a relatively elementary level).

I never said anything about "I'm older than you and know better than you."
So don't even go there. Try to be honest. At least try.

-----

[atwater27]

Then I suggest you lock yourself in a bomb shelter the rest of your life. It's all
around you. The rest of your post I don't understand, unless that means
you're stereotyping me into mainstream Christianity when you don't know the
first thing about me.

As you can see, my sig is gone. Do remember, however, that me and my sig
were already here when you joined this board. In fact, me and my sig were
already here when everybody else joined this board, except Tned.

But all that doesn't matter now. My sig is gone, per the rules.

-----

Drop some knowledge will ya!

[atwater27]

As I implied, you do not
even know me, so stop making ridiculous assumptions about me.



No, you look stupid by allowing this to fly way over your head because you
decided to twist what I said instead of reading it . . . either that, or you
failed to comprehend (even though I wrote it on a relatively elementary level).



-----

2 things Missouri Bronc is good at. and you nailed them both.

[Slick]

But all that doesn't matter now. My sig is gone, per the rules.

-----

Why not just leave your sig up, and opt-in Top?

[topscribe]

Why not just leave your sig up, and opt-in Top?

Thank you, Slick. I know your post is with the best of intentions. However, I'm
not interested in making a "religious statement," and that was not the purpose
of my signature. Those who followed the link in it understand that, I'm sure.

I removed it under protest . . . a private protest because I do not want to
disrupt the board . . . but I did remove it because, disagree or not, the rules
are the rules, and I do not believe in existing above or outside the rules.

-----

[KCL]

what if I put in my sig that I pray the Chiefs do better this season? Is that
okay? :laugh:

[topscribe]

what if I put in my sig that I pray the Chiefs do better this season? Is that
okay? :laugh:

I think it would be a tragedy to take away the only hope you have. :D

-----

[KCL]

I think it would be a tragedy to take away the only hope you have. :D

-----

Thank you top...that shall become my opt in sig soon...:lol:

[GEM]

Could we possibly get back to discussing the topic of the thread instead of discussing each other and verbally beating the crap out of each other.

:yardog:

[Dr Velcro]

Here's the deal.

If you have your belief system tight & in place, then somebody else's sig shouldn't bother you. It's when people come into a thread and bash you for what you think & believe.

I'm all about the freedom to sport your religion...no matter what it is/ isn't.

If somebody gets offended, that's their problem. What offends them? The fact that their belief might be shaken?

IMO- People who complain should be told to keep it to themselves. Nobody should be harassed for displaying what they feel & how they believe. Have respect for everyone....even if you think they are wrong, that person has a right to express what they choose.

If you want to sport it, go for it....just don't allow your postings to shove what you believe down another's throat.

Allow it. Freedom is a beautiful thing. If people can't deal then they can opt to turn off images. There are far greater things to get offended with in the world, for Pet's sake.

I had a steak omlett today for lunch. it had bones in it. I was slightly offended, but damn that was a good omlett.

Just sharin.

[Northman]

IMO- People who complain should be told to keep it to themselves. Nobody should be harassed for displaying what they feel & how they believe. Have respect for everyone....even if you think they are wrong, that person has a right to express what they choose.




So, if i want to display a pair of boobies as my god i can do it? I mean, if someone gets offended thats on them right? See where the problem is?

[bcbronc]

I said no, opt in only. Only because some jackass will show some wicken or satanic BS.

there is nothing BS about wiccan. it's as good a religion as any other out there. when's the last time you hear of wiccan's starting a holy war? they must be doing something right.

so yeah, opt-in.

[Dr Velcro]

So, if i want to display a pair of boobies as my god i can do it? I mean, if someone gets offended thats on them right? See where the problem is?

Sure! If breasts are your God then you should have them in your sig....

As long as the boobies have the nipples covered...and don't go against the COC with nude images (a policy that had already been established & one that is used widely in most forums anyways).

[smith49]

i have absolutely no problems with religion or politics in peoples sigs as long as they are not offensive or darogatory (sp?). by offensive i dont mean that everyone needs to agree, just that it should be somewhat tastefull and it should take into account that there are people of many differnt opinions on these boards.

[Northman]

Sure! If breasts are your God then you should have them in your sig....

As long as the boobies have the nipples covered...and don't go against the COC with nude images (a policy that had already been established & one that is used widely in most forums anyways).

Ah, unfortuantely due to my interpretation of all things great you and this forum cannot deny me my right to worship my god. Rules dont apply if that is my religious belief. :D

[rcsodak]

lets see how many of those who are for religious avys start to give me neg reps if I put on
"Der Gott ist tot, er hat sich erschossen"

I really have no opinion on it one way or another, but I suspect as usual the ones who wants them are the ones who gets offended by something that run counter to their beliefs.

Honestly, unless a person deems it necessary to instigate a fight, which in your case, would be 'baiting', why would they put something like that up there? Or some satanic crap!

Unless it's positive, no.

But since I know there are people on the board that would like nothing more than to incite, I guess I'll go with the 'no'.

I haven't paid much attention, so I don't even know what this 'opt-in' thingy is, so I'll just shut up now..... :D

[Tned]

I haven't paid much attention, so I don't even know what this 'opt-in' thingy is, so I'll just shut up now..... :D

Basically, the "opt-in" thingy means you have to remove the political stuff from your signature.

[fcspikeit]

I voted to allow them, I have never been offended by a sig that had anything to do with Politics or Religion.

When you say opt in, does that mean they will be shown everywhere to those who have opt in to see them or they will only be seen in the opt in forums?

[Northman]

I believe it means they will be seen anywhere on the board.

[Tned]

I voted to allow them, I have never been offended by a sig that had anything to do with Politics or Religion.

When you say opt in, does that mean they will be shown everywhere to those who have opt in to see them or they will only be seen in the opt in forums?


I believe it means they will be seen anywhere on the board.

Correct. For those that have 'opted in' to view these sigs, you would see them everywhere.

[Tned]

Ok, with 10% of precincts reporting, seems to be a dead heat. That, combined with the fact that the vast majority of problems and complaints have come from political sigs/avvies, we are going to allow 'positive' religious sigs/avvies/user titles over the next 90 days.

At the end of 90 days, we will revisit this, see how things have gone with political sigs being "opt in" and "potivie" relgious sigs/avvies being allowed.

To be clear, anyone that gets 'cute' by trying to make a political statement or 'prove' a point with a BS "positive" religious sig/avatar will risk losing the right to have any sig/avatar.

[atwater27]

To be clear, anyone that gets 'cute' by trying to make a political statement or 'prove' a point with a BS "positive" religious sig/avatar will risk losing the right to have any sig/avatar.

So does that mean we all have to declare our political views and affiliations before posting said avatar so you can be the judge on whether it is poz or neg?

[Tned]

So does that mean we all have to declare our political views and affiliations before posting said avatar so you can be the judge on whether it is poz or neg?

No. For the political sigs you can create via "user cp", "edit options", it isn't a positive only rule. You can put 'almost' anything up there. I say almost, because if an image is bad enough, a person might be asked to take it down, but by and large the "opt in" signatures will not be closely monitored.

However, the main signatures/avatars/user titles cannot contain ANY political images/statements. They can contain 'positive' religious statements. This is where the 'cute' aspect comes in. If someone tries to play games with posting something they claim is a "positive" religious sig, but is clearly made to make a political statement or protest the forums sig rules, that poster will risk losing their sig privileges without warning.

This is not going to be an 'accident', what I am talking about is a few posters that like to push the rules and will try and get by with "yea, but it's a positive religious statement because Mitt Romney is a Mormon and I like Mormons so....." There will be zero tolerance for people playing games in this regard.

[claymore]

No. For the political sigs you can create via "user cp", "edit options", it isn't a positive only rule. You can put 'almost' anything up there. I say almost, because if an image is bad enough, a person might be asked to take it down, but by and large the "opt in" signatures will not be closely monitored.

However, the main signatures/avatars/user titles cannot contain ANY political images/statements. They can contain 'positive' religious statements. This is where the 'cute' aspect comes in. If someone tries to play games with posting something they claim is a "positive" religious sig, but is clearly made to make a political statement or protest the forums sig rules, that poster will risk losing their sig privileges without warning.

This is not going to be an 'accident', what I am talking about is a few posters that like to push the rules and will try and get by with "yea, but it's a positive religious statement because Mitt Romney is a Mormon and I like Mormons so....." There will be zero tolerance for people playing games in this regard.

Nobody likes mormons Tned...

[Buff]

I don't like signatures and I don't like religion... But I'm not self-centered enough to vote to ban them because I personally don't like them.

So I vote to allow.

[claymore]

Ban Hippies.