Thread: Should political or religious sigs and avatars be allowed?

Originally Posted by Tned

Plus, for those that choose not to discuss 'abortion' or other religious/political issues (depending on where you think that falls), by having it in sigs you are focing it down the throats of those people that choose not to opt in to to P&R and don't want to debate abortion.

Just because it's in a sig don't mean they have to debate or respond to it..

Plus this would fall under not being able to have a sig that is either pro life or pro choice/death, regardless if it was positive or negative.

Originally Posted by Buff

Do we really want moderators being the positive police?



I think the people who are always so offended should just go on being offended. Life isn't fair.

:LOUD WHISTLE:

Alright there mister, lets turn that frown upside down. And please stop saying negative things. Don't make me use my happy tazer.

Originally Posted by Buff

I think the people who are always so offended should just go on being offended. Life isn't fair.

we'll see if you still feel that way after beef holds you down and has his way with you. . . .



T, you should have allowed multiple options-- i voted for no political sigs or avy's, but if possible i would have also voted for allowing positive religious sig/avs. . .

Originally Posted by dogfish

we'll see if you still feel that way after beef holds you down and has his way with you. . . .



T, you should have allowed multiple options-- i voted for no political sigs or avy's, but if possible i would have also voted for allowing positive religious sig/avs. . .

The "allow positive religous sigs" would have covered your need. I'll make a note of your position.

I didn't allow multiples, because to be honest we have some 'funny' guys that would have just clicked all of them.

Originally Posted by fcspikeit

So in your opinion that would be seen as negative? It's not like it was attacking those who are pro life..

Also, right now as far as I know, people can put just about what ever they want in their sigs. Therefore, those people aren't breaking the rules. If this is a problem it's because of those who are claiming to be offended by said sigs..

Is there anyway we could have an opt-in sig? If the members with the so called offensive sigs could click on a button to have an opt-in sig. Then anyone who don't want to see them, could click on something that turned those sigs off.. That might be to much trouble, I don't know? But that way everyone could be happy..

Unfortuantely there is no control over certain sigs. You either have them on or have them off. If 95% of the board has adequate sigs that are within the guidelines than why should they turn them off for the 5% who cant stay within the guidelines? As for your initial question. Its not that the your line is so much negative regarding abortion. Its just that its a topic that draws controversey and would indirectly create a stir and problems outside of P&R which is what the board in general is trying to avoid. I mean, you are correct, just about anyone can put what they want in their avs and sigs. But its no surprise that the ones who often have to change them are the same ones who have problems staying within the guidelines to begin with. There's really no reason that the 5% who create the biggest hassle on the board should ruin it for the 95% who have no problems staying within the guidelines. I dont know man, sounds to me like it would be much easier if the few made some personal changes instead of trying to force the majority to change for the select few. That kind of logic just doesnt make sense to me.

only pi should be allowed.

Originally Posted by Thnikkaman

only pi should be allowed.

Originally Posted by MasterShake

:LOUD WHISTLE:

Alright there mister, lets turn that frown upside down. And please stop saying negative things. Don't make me use my happy tazer.

Is that similar to a giggle button?

Originally Posted by frauschieze

Mmmmmmm pie.

Originally Posted by frauschieze

Mmmmmmm pi

Originally Posted by gnomeflinger

Is that similar to a giggle button?

If by 'giggle' you mean 'involuntary loss of bowel control due to tazer' then yes. Yes it is.

Originally Posted by MasterShake

If by 'giggle' you mean 'involuntary loss of bowel and urinary tract control due to tazer' then yes. Yes it is.

edited for greater accuracy.. all the mods have so been equipped ..

Originally Posted by Cicero

Yes, they should be allowed. If people are offended by religious or political signatures, they have the option to ignore that person (likely, they have a problem with them anyways, or so it seems from the people complaining on it and how they treat each other) -- and if that doesn't work, they can turn the signatures and avatars off in general. When personal options and remedies already exist, policy changes shouldn't have to take place.

Let us have them.

I agree... I've usually no problem with sigs

It's material unrelated and therefore spam. Who wants to be spammed by lame Rush and whatever people put in their sigs/avas. Grow up people. Keep the forums low bandwidth and sports related. It's that simple.

So.... Tned..... Whats it looking like?