Thread: New Rules: Final Opportunity for comment before going into effect on Feb 21st

Originally Posted by claymore

I say we just go with the "No nipples rule" Body paint is cool as long as you cant see the vulva....... Its good to go.

I'm offended by your use of the "N" word...

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I'll weigh in once on sigs/avvy's. I don't care. I really don't care. There are many things in life I feel passionate about, and that ain't one of them. I just want a clear Rule out of this to make it easier to enforce it evenhandedly. That part, clarity, I do care about, because I don't want to end up wasting my time in the future quibbling with a member over whether this, that, or the other picture violated the Rules and has to go or must be allowed to stay.

Which is one reason why a "positive only" rule wouldn't work. Who's to say if a message is positive or negative.

One more thing on that front.....

It's been said that there are those who might be offended and therefore choose not to join based on current avys and sigs.

If someone is "offended" by political content for one reason or another, why is it assumed that if the message can only be positive, that it won't have a similar effect?

However, as I've already said, the board is growing under current policy. To make this decision based on what MIGHT happen would be the wrong reason to make policy.

I hesitate to post this because I'm not in the religion forum, but it's a good example.

I'm a Christian. As such I have strong beliefs about the holiness of God and His place in my life. I also believe that degrading God or His Son is sinful and it's very offensive to me.

Now....say someone who's an athiest or a druid or some such thing decides to have a signature that says Jesus is a child molester or something of the kind. They don't do it to make me angry, they just honestly believe He's not any big deal and decide to express it in that way.

I would be extremely offended by that. It goes to the core of who I am and what I believe. And seeing that posted every day would be something that may cause me to lash out at them or else just leave the forum so I wouldn't have to deal with it.

As I think of that I can see why some of our Avatars or signatures could cause problems even though we don't mean for them to do so. It goes beyond someone just being offended and can easily get into a name calling argument or worse. I just don't think it's worth it for me to "express" myself if it's at the expense of someone else. As NTL said, I can express all of that in some way in the proper forum without allowing it to bleed over to the whole board.

Just my 2 cents and probably not worth even that.

Originally Posted by broncos_mtnman

Which is one reason why a "positive only" rule wouldn't work. Who's to say if a message is positive or negative.

One more thing on that front.....

It's been said that there are those who might be offended and therefore choose not to join based on current avys and sigs.

If someone is "offended" by political content for one reason or another, why is it assumed that if the message can only be positive, that it won't have a similar effect?

However, as I've already said, the board is growing under current policy. To make this decision based on what MIGHT happen would be the wrong reason to make policy.

We dont want no Mormons here thats for sure.

Originally Posted by deacon

I hesitate to post this because I'm not in the religion forum, but it's a good example.

I'm a Christian. As such I have strong beliefs about the holiness of God and His place in my life. I also believe that degrading God or His Son is sinful and it's very offensive to me.

Now....say someone who's an athiest or a druid or some such thing decides to have a signature that says Jesus is a child molester or something of the kind. They don't do it to make me angry, they just honestly believe He's not any big deal and decide to express it in that way.

I would be extremely offended by that. It goes to the core of who I am and what I believe. And seeing that posted every day would be something that may cause me to lash out at them or else just leave the forum so I wouldn't have to deal with it.

As I think of that I can see why some of our Avatars or signatures could cause problems even though we don't mean for them to do so. It goes beyond someone just being offended and can easily get into a name calling argument or worse. I just don't think it's worth it for me to "express" myself if it's at the expense of someone else. As NTL said, I can express all of that in some way in the proper forum without allowing it to bleed over to the whole board.

Just my 2 cents and probably not worth even that.

Actually, its an excellent point.

I used to have a quote from a guitarist from Morbid Angel in my sig. It basically stated that rather than use violence to make a point he would challenge them intellectually on the subject matter.

Now, only one person made a complaint about it. And it came after this type of discussion came up. I was never forced to remove it but did so anyway because it wasnt that big of a deal to me to keep it up if it upset someone.

At the end of the day if keeping a particular picture or tagline is more important than anything else on the board there is a serious problem there. To me, this isnt a big deal for people to get worked up about. Especially considering all that is being asked is to keep it positive and clean. The uproar over this is pretty silly.

I think to post anywhere you need to have thick skin. I have no problem with people blasting my posts. as long as they can recieve it.

Or maybe the mods need to come up with a ability to have certain posters not see each others posts. hahaha

Originally Posted by broncosinindy

Or maybe the mods need to come up with a ability to have certain posters not see each others posts. hahaha

Actually, they do as ive found myself actually putting that tool to use. Sad but if i want to avoid people i find to be worthless its the best thing ever. I hate to use the ignore feature but ive found that it ive had to use it anyway.

Originally Posted by broncosinindy

I think to post anywhere you need to have thick skin. I have no problem with people blasting my posts. as long as they can recieve it.

Or maybe the mods need to come up with a ability to have certain posters not see each others posts. hahaha

Believe me, life would be nice if we could pull that trick off.

Originally Posted by Tned

Believe me, life would be nice if we could pull that trick off.

oooooh Jedi Moderators! T, why don't you have those???

Originally Posted by girler

oooooh Jedi Moderators! T, why don't you have those???

because LT already works for the man over at mania. . . .

Originally Posted by dogfish

because LT already works for the man over at mania. . . .

But is he the only one? You'd think if there was one, there'd be more...

Originally Posted by girler

But is he the only one? You'd think if there was one, there'd be more...

There can only be one master and one apprentice.

(LT never did convince me he was on the light side of the force. )

While I'm hesitant to post when I just became the subject... ( )


36 members have posted in this thread (if you don't separate Tned from his mobile) out of just over 360 'active' members...

I don't know what decides who is 'active'.... but this is a good example of why these discussions and polls have to be taken with a grain of salt and considered as only a sampling....

Originally Posted by LordTrychon

While I'm hesitant to post when I just became the subject... ( )


36 members have posted in this thread (if you don't separate Tned from his mobile) out of just over 360 'active' members...

I don't know what decides who is 'active'.... but this is a good example of why these discussions and polls have to be taken with a grain of salt and considered as only a sampling....

Same with the last poll on political sigs/avvies (back in August or so, I think), where we had 30 people or so that responded.

While this set of rules has very minor changes (outside of the political sigs issue), and is more of a rearranging and clarifying of the rules we have had since the beginning, there are a few modifications taken from feedback in multiple Town Hall discussions on rules, but also from PM feedback from members and experience gleamd by the mods actually dealing with problems on a day-to-day basis.

Basically, we have 200+ members login in every day. Another 400-800 people lurk or visit and don't login every day. Yet, we typically have 30-60 people (not always the same ones) that participate.

Now, I don't think that means that we should eliminate the discussions, because everyone doesn't participate, but it has to be considered when I am making the final decision.

I'll refer to my previous posts and again reiterate that as far as I'm concerned, the main factors surrounf those that are regular contributors. If we have a member that checks in every 3 months, I could personally care less if he's offended by something that the 40 or so regular contributors are okay with.

it's a tough call to make, but I have to wonder if all the times I was asked to remove something, if it was actually ever complained about and if so...how many complaints and ho complained. I think a value has to be placed on the complaint and that's where mods and their knowledge of the people here come in to play.

If 5 regular contributors complain about something, it means more to me than the complaint of 1 irregular contributor...or even 1 regular member.