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

Let's have a poll.

Originally Posted by Midnight Blue

Could be... but then, it's getting about time for a new avy anyway...

Keep it between us, but make sure they next one shows a little more leg.

Originally Posted by Tned

Keep it between us, but make sure they next one shows a little more leg.

That could happen.

So:

1. No political sigs/avvies
2. Only positive political sigs/avvies

Less hassle: no political/religious sigs or avvies outside the P & R, opt-in forum.
It's simple and easy.

Positive religious sigs/avvies
Positive political sigs/avvies

Originally Posted by broncogirl7

Less hassle: no political/religious sigs or avvies outside the P & R, opt-in forum.
It's simple and easy.

It's not simple and easy, as sigs/avvies are seen throughout the entire forum. No member should be expected to change their sig/avatar, depending upon where they are posting.

So... if we want to bait someone, we should hurry and do it now before Feb 21?

Originally Posted by Denver Native (Carol)

It's not simple and easy, as sigs/avvies are seen throughout the entire forum. No member should be expected to change their sig/avatar, depending upon where they are posting.

My thoughts are that offensive sigs/avvies shouldn't be allowed. If they want to post said offensive pics, they should be in the P & R only, since it's opt-in and no visitors would have to see them. Personally, I'd rather not see them at all.

Eh, the signature deal is just bleh in my mind. Who cares? I don't think anyone is personally trying to offend anyone. That's just how they feel. I don't agree with Mtn_man and Atwater's stances on a lot of stuff, but their signatures should really be the worst of our worries, unless they're blantantly violating something -- in which they really aren't.

I had to change my signature because someone obviously got offended by wordplay, but come on. They're signatures. If they bother you, TURN THEM OFF. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Eh, the signature deal is just bleh in my mind. Who cares? I don't think anyone is personally trying to offend anyone. That's just how they feel. I don't agree with Mtn_man and Atwater's stances on a lot of stuff, but their signatures should really be the worst of our worries, unless they're blantantly violating something -- in which they really aren't.

I had to change my signature because someone obviously got offended by wordplay, but come on. They're signatures. If they bother you, TURN THEM OFF. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.

Newcomers don't have the option to turn them off, that's where the problem lies.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Eh, the signature deal is just bleh in my mind. Who cares? I don't think anyone is personally trying to offend anyone. That's just how they feel. I don't agree with Mtn_man and Atwater's stances on a lot of stuff, but their signatures should really be the worst of our worries, unless they're blantantly violating something -- in which they really aren't.

I had to change my signature because someone obviously got offended by wordplay, but come on. They're signatures. If they bother you, TURN THEM OFF. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.

There are plenty of opt-in areas where a poster can display and/or write about their opinions or beliefs. They don't have to be in their sigs or avvys.

JMO

Express yourself.......

JMO, this is a BRONCOS forum, a FOOTBALL forum.

If people want political sigs they should have them...at the political forum that they visit...not the football forum they visit.

That of course could be said about ANY non football related sig but really most sigs will not offend anyone but religious/political sigs can and do.

Originally Posted by Rick

JMO, this is a BRONCOS forum, a FOOTBALL forum.

If people want political sigs they should have them...at the political forum that they visit...not the football forum they visit.

That of course could be said about ANY non football related sig but really most sigs will not offend anyone but religious/political sigs can and do.

Well, I can understand what you mean about political sigs (but not about
most religious ones).

On the other hand, to offend someone, the other party has to make the
choice to become offended. Or, as a preacher friend of mine once said, "If you
offend someone, you are often wrong. If you become offended, you are
always wrong."

Yes, I have seen sigs and avvies I have considered unnecessary, which I
would rather not see, both political and sexually graphic. But first, I am a big
boy now, and I figure that I have not been wounded by any of them yet. And
second, if we feel we have to keep harping about how this is a football forum,
then maybe we should just do away with P&R, and the Lounge, for that
matter, and let a huge portion of our members then leave, and then the
handful who are left can merrily discuss football.

I just believe that too many regulations have a diverse effect in any
community . . . that has been proven.

-----