View Poll Results: Should people be able to have religious images and statements in their avatars/User Titles/Sig

Voters
37. This poll is closed
  • No -- Religious images and statements should only be allowed in the new Opt In Sigs

    19 51.35%
  • Yes -- Religious images and statements should be allowed in avatars/titles/sigs

    18 48.65%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 61 to 69 of 69

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Idaho
    Adopted Bronco:
    Brandon Stokley
    Posts
    3,063

    Default

    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?


    Asked at what point would it be in the best interest of the team to trade Cutler, McDaniels answered: "Never." Nice to see your a man of your word Josh

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,708

    Default

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

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fcspikeit View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
    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.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    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.

  5. The Following 2 Users High Fived Tned For This Post:


  6. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Shelby Harris
    Posts
    10,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post

    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?

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atwater27 View Post
    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.

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Elpaso TX
    Adopted Bronco:
    Josh McDaniels Sucks
    Posts
    31,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
    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...
    Thanks MO for the wicked Sig.

  9. The Following User High Fived claymore For This Post:


  10. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Taysom Hill
    Posts
    40,845

    Default

    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.

  11. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Elpaso TX
    Adopted Bronco:
    Josh McDaniels Sucks
    Posts
    31,226

    Default

    Ban Hippies.
    Thanks MO for the wicked Sig.

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-24-2009, 02:21 AM
  2. Should political or religious sigs and avatars be allowed?
    By Tned in forum Town Hall Discussion
    Replies: 182
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 07:44 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 08:31 PM
  4. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-18-2009, 01:34 PM
  5. Should Political Sigs and Avvies be allowed?
    By Tned in forum Town Hall Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group