Thread: Town Hall Discussion: Signatures and Avatars -- What is Acceptable

Originally Posted by topscribe

I don't know why that would be hypocritical.

True religion has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

-----

Because saying that politics should remain in the political forum then allowing religion out, even though they are both opt-in forums because of their potentially volatile nature is making arbitrary judgments based on feelings instead of logic.

Religious sigs are usually only offensive when politics are brought into it. That being said, I think Frau has a solid point.

Can we just vote on this?

Originally Posted by frauschieze

Because saying that politics should remain in the political forum then allowing religion out, even though they are both opt-in forums because of their potentially volatile nature is making arbitrary judgments based on feelings instead of logic.

Well Frau, we originally separated the two because they are separate . . .

-----

Originally Posted by Midnight Blue

If "x" poster's avy or sig ever truly offends me, hey, I'll just temporarily place said poster on ignore. Problem solved.

Truly, that seems to me the best solution.

-----

Originally Posted by topscribe

Well Frau, we originally separated the two because they are separate . . .

-----

I can show you quite a few people that don't feel that way. But I have to you for that.

Originally Posted by topscribe

Well Frau, we originally separated the two because they are separate . . .

-----

I'm not claiming otherwise. What I AM saying is that Religion is an opt in forum. Period. It is opt in because some people don't want to see that stuff and because it does not belong in the main forums.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not religion has anything to do with politics.

Originally Posted by Thnikkaman

I can show you quite a few people that don't feel that way. But I have to you for that.

I assure you, God is not running for office, nor has He endorsed a candidate.

Notice I said TRUE religion. There is nothing political, for instance, to my sig.

-----

Originally Posted by frauschieze

I'm not claiming otherwise. What I AM saying is that Religion is an opt in forum. Period. It is opt in because some people don't want to see that stuff and because it does not belong in the main forums.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not religion has anything to do with politics.

I know why it is opt-in, my friend. I was in on the decision to make it so, in
addition to most of all the other original decisions you see on this board.

What I am afraid of is opening a can of worms through adding further
regulations, especially those involving personal expression. This is a very
subjective matter, and the rule itself could end up offending more people
than did the original sigs and avatars.

I'm just cautioning everyone to be circumspect in this. This board grew to
what it is, as we see it today. If we start fixing things, we need to be sure
it is broken, or we might just break it ourselves. Let us be extremely careful
not to deviate from what made this board successful. I have seen too many
such endeavors implode over trying to fix things that are not broken.

-----

Originally Posted by topscribe

I know why it is opt-in, my friend. I was in on the decision to make it so, in
addition to most of all the other original decisions you see on this board.

What I am afraid of is opening a can of worms through adding further
regulations, especially those involving personal expression. This is a very
subjective matter, and the rule itself could end up offending more people
than did the original sigs and avatars.

I'm just cautioning everyone to be circumspect in this. This board grew to
what it is, as we see it today. If we start fixing things, we need to be sure
it is broken, or we might just break it ourselves. Let us be extremely careful
not to deviate from what made this board successful. I have seen too many
such endeavors implode over trying to fix things that are not broken.

-----

I just don't see how it could ever be a can of worms. Something is either religious or political, or it's not.

I am behind getting rid of the political sigs and avatars 100%.

The religious ones I am more inclined to let stay. I don't think anyone could reasonably find yours offensive.

But everyone here knows that people are still using avatars and sigs of political icons to flame and bait people.

Originally Posted by King87

I just don't see how it could ever be a can of worms. Something is either religious or political, or it's not.

I am behind getting rid of the political sigs and avatars 100%.

The religious ones I am more inclined to let stay. I don't think anyone could reasonably find yours offensive.

But everyone here knows that people are still using avatars and sigs of political icons to flame and bait people.

You don't know how what could be a can of worms?

I didn't mention anything specific. I just said be careful.

-----

Originally Posted by topscribe

You don't know how what could be a can of worms?

I didn't mention anything specific. I just said be careful.

-----

What I am afraid of is opening a can of worms through adding further
regulations, especially those involving personal expression

That was what I was referring too.

Originally Posted by King87

That was what I was referring too.

Right. Regulations take away freedoms, create loopholes, foster controversy.
A good rule of thumb is no more regulations than absolutely necessary.

Not that a truly needed regulation is bad, but just make certain it is truly needed.

A good question to ask is, how were we doing before the idea of the regulation
came along? If the answer is that we were successful so far, then how
necessary is the regulation?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it . . .

-----

Originally Posted by topscribe

Right. Regulations take away freedoms, create loopholes, foster controversy.
A good rule of thumb is no more regulations than absolutely necessary.

Not that a truly needed regulation is bad, but just make certain it is truly needed.

A good question to ask is, how were we doing before the idea of the regulation
came along? If the answer is that we were successful so far, then how
necessary is the regulation?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it . . .

-----

I suppose we just have differing opinions.

Originally Posted by King87

I suppose we just have differing opinions.

I don't understand the "opinion" bit. I wasn't telling anybody what to do.

I was saying be careful. You disagree with that?

I was saying if you are going to implement a regulation, be sure it is needed. You disagree with that?

If so, you have a lot to learn between "opinion" and "wisdom."

-----