Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Important: No Political or Religious Sigs, Avvies or User Titles are allowed -- View instructions for adding secondary P&R sigs or to learn how to Opt-in to view them

  1. #16

    Default

    Good decision to go with the compromise Tned.

    I hope you found a good workable easy to implement solution, I was certain something could be done but did not look any more after you gave the impression you didn't want to go that route.

    While this may be a little more hassel at upgrade it should be less hassel for modding, so have to give some take some.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    897

    Default

    When you attempt to make everyone happy you make no one happy.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused!" Unknown

  3. The Following 3 Users High Fived deacon For This Post:


  4. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon View Post
    When you attempt to make everyone happy you make no one happy.
    What could you possibly be unhappy about? Everyone's precious sigs are allowed, and those of you that wish to display political and religious themes still can.

    I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with the new policy.

  5. The Following User High Fived Slick For This Post:


  6. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Adopted Bronco:
    Josey Jewell
    Posts
    30,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick View Post
    What could you possibly be unhappy about? Everyone's precious sigs are allowed, and those of you that wish to display political and religious themes still can.

    I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with the new policy.
    I believe Deacon was posting a generic comment, a wise one, at that.

    It should not be interpreted as his being personally unhappy.

    -----
    Though He slay me, I will trust in Him . . . (Job 13:15)


  7. The Following 2 Users High Fived topscribe For This Post:


  8. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by topscribe View Post
    I believe Deacon was posting a generic comment, a wise one, at that.

    It should not be interpreted as his being personally unhappy.

    -----
    Fair enough, although posting that comment in this thread in particular leaves the interpretation wide open.

    Unfortunately I think this topic turned from a mustard burp into a steaming pile.

    Those that want to talk politics and religion can still do that, those that want to display their sigs and avys can still do that too. The only difference is those who don't want to view them, don't have to.


    I'm beginning to think that some are unhappy that the rest of us don't have to view them, and frankly I don't see why.

  9. The Following 3 Users High Fived Slick For This Post:


  10. #21

    Default

    Exactly.

    Those that come here to only see and discuss football can.

    Those that come to discuss religion can.

    Those that come to discuss politics can.

    Those that want to display religious sigs can.

    Those that want to display political sigs can.

    Those that don't want to see either of the above or see the topics don't have to.

    Seems pretty cool and compromising to me.

    Oh, guess there is one flaw. Those that want to display sigs everywhere for the sole purpose of drawing out heated arguments and pushing thier beliefs/thoughts out on EVERYONE that comes to the forums...can't.

  11. The Following 4 Users High Fived Rick For This Post:


  12. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick View Post
    What could you possibly be unhappy about? Everyone's precious sigs are allowed, and those of you that wish to display political and religious themes still can.

    I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with the new policy.

    Because if you not allowed to shove it in someone's face there is nothing to brag about. When you take all the high school drama out of it no one likes it anymore.

  13. The Following 2 Users High Fived Northman For This Post:


  14. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick View Post
    What could you possibly be unhappy about? Everyone's precious sigs are allowed, and those of you that wish to display political and religious themes still can.

    I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with the new policy.
    Whether I'm unhappy or not is not the issue. I was simply making an observation about what I believe is happening.

    And your term "precious sigs" isn't missed.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused!" Unknown

  15. The Following User High Fived deacon For This Post:


  16. #24

    Default

    Nothing gets by you, deacon.

  17. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
    Because if you not allowed to shove it in someone's face there is nothing to brag about. When you take all the high school drama out of it no one likes it anymore.
    Shoot. you busted me.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused!" Unknown

  18. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    897

    Default

    If you notice, I have neither a religious/political signature nor a religious/political avvy. This isn't because of the rule but because I happen to think it's not appropriate on my own personal level.

    However, I do oppose the idea that the solution arrived at wasn't even part of the poll. I believe it is an attempt to make everyone happy which doesn't work.

    I would have much preferred a decision made based on the three options given in the poll. I wouldn't have complained about any of the three. As it is I believe the poll was simply a "feel good" way to make folks feel they were a part of the decision when, in fact, they weren't.

    However, this is T's board and he can do whatever he wants. My options are to go along with it or leave. At this point I ain't goin' nowhere.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused!" Unknown

  19. The Following User High Fived deacon For This Post:


  20. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Adopted Bronco:
    Randy Gradishar
    Posts
    4,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon View Post
    If you notice, I have neither a religious/political signature nor a religious/political avvy. This isn't because of the rule but because I happen to think it's not appropriate on my own personal level.

    However, I do oppose the idea that the solution arrived at wasn't even part of the poll. I believe it is an attempt to make everyone happy which doesn't work.

    I would have much preferred a decision made based on the three options given in the poll. I wouldn't have complained about any of the three. As it is I believe the poll was simply a "feel good" way to make folks feel they were a part of the decision when, in fact, they weren't.

    However, this is T's board and he can do whatever he wants. My options are to go along with it or leave. At this point I ain't goin' nowhere.
    If the solution that was finally arrived at had been included in the poll, I truly do believe it would have won by a landslide... it seems the fairest way of trying to accommodate everyone's wishes... and as T said, it's on a trial basis for 90 days and if the board community doesn't like it after that time expires, it can be changed. Seems like a win/win situation to me...

  21. The Following 2 Users High Fived Midnight Blue For This Post:


  22. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon View Post
    If you notice, I have neither a religious/political signature nor a religious/political avvy. This isn't because of the rule but because I happen to think it's not appropriate on my own personal level.

    However, I do oppose the idea that the solution arrived at wasn't even part of the poll. I believe it is an attempt to make everyone happy which doesn't work.

    I would have much preferred a decision made based on the three options given in the poll. I wouldn't have complained about any of the three. As it is I believe the poll was simply a "feel good" way to make folks feel they were a part of the decision when, in fact, they weren't.

    However, this is T's board and he can do whatever he wants. My options are to go along with it or leave. At this point I ain't goin' nowhere.
    Deacon,

    I suppose you can believe what you want, but you are 100% wrong. Wednesday and Thursday I started researching this alternative solution, because it became obvious that there was a segment of the message board that were quite frankly going to be total asses when it came to a 'positive' only sig rule. Based on the poll results (two polls) and discussions (three + discussions) on the topic, it was clear that most people wanted a no-political/religious rule OR a positive only rule.

    However, it was also very clear that the handful of people that caused the problem with their sigs/avvies were going to play games with a 'positive' only rule.

    So, when that became apparent, I started researching an "opt in" alternative to sigs. I researched options Wed and Thurs and then spent about twelve hours programming/configuring the solution on Friday.

    I'm sorry you believe it was some master plan to 'deceive' people into feeling a sense of participation in the process that doesn't realy exist. Frankly, I'm pretty irritated by the accusation you have made several times now, but that's your RIGHT to believe it.

    I have, and will, run this message board based on feedback from the members. I will always do my best to listen to feedback/input and then come up with solutions that accommodate as many people as possible.

    That's all I can do. I can stay true to me word, but I can't 'convince' people that I am not attempting to perpetrate some grand conspiracy's via Town Hall threads.

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


  24. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
    Deacon,

    I suppose you can believe what you want, but you are 100% wrong. Wednesday and Thursday I started researching this alternative solution, because it became obvious that there was a segment of the message board that were quite frankly going to be total asses when it came to a 'positive' only sig rule. Based on the poll results (two polls) and discussions (three + discussions) on the topic, it was clear that most people wanted a no-political/religious rule OR a positive only rule.

    However, it was also very clear that the handful of people that caused the problem with their sigs/avvies were going to play games with a 'positive' only rule.

    So, when that became apparent, I started researching an "opt in" alternative to sigs. I researched options Wed and Thurs and then spent about twelve hours programming/configuring the solution on Friday.

    I'm sorry you believe it was some master plan to 'deceive' people into feeling a sense of participation in the process that doesn't realy exist. Frankly, I'm pretty irritated by the accusation you have made several times now, but that's your RIGHT to believe it.

    I have, and will, run this message board based on feedback from the members. I will always do my best to listen to feedback/input and then come up with solutions that accommodate as many people as possible.

    That's all I can do. I can stay true to me word, but I can't 'convince' people that I am not attempting to perpetrate some grand conspiracy's via Town Hall threads.
    You can feel what you want about my "accusation". The fact remains that you asked for people to decide on one of three options relating to the avs and sigs. You then decided on a fourth option that no one was asked about. That, to me at least, is telling everyone thier input didn't count.

    Incidently, I had always leaned somewhere between the positive only and no side with my preference being that probably no avs/sigs was best because of exactly the point you made.

    As I said, it's your board and you can do whatever you want with it. My disagreement is that if you are going to do something you didn't even ask about, why ask at all?

    I, if I understand the opt-in decision, believe you're just setting up the P&R forums to be discontinued by creating potential problems later. I believe some people will take your decision to mean anything goes in P&R which will cause trouble.

    But...it's your decision. As I said earlier, I will live within your parameters without much trouble.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused!" Unknown

  25. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon View Post
    You can feel what you want about my "accusation". The fact remains that you asked for people to decide on one of three options relating to the avs and sigs. You then decided on a fourth option that no one was asked about. That, to me at least, is telling everyone thier input didn't count.

    Incidently, I had always leaned somewhere between the positive only and no side with my preference being that probably no avs/sigs was best because of exactly the point you made.

    As I said, it's your board and you can do whatever you want with it. My disagreement is that if you are going to do something you didn't even ask about, why ask at all?

    I, if I understand the opt-in decision, believe you're just setting up the P&R forums to be discontinued by creating potential problems later. I believe some people will take your decision to mean anything goes in P&R which will cause trouble.

    But...it's your decision. As I said earlier, I will live within your parameters without much trouble.
    I stated on multiple occasions that the poll was not an up/down vote, and have gone through in detail why I will not use a poll on its own to make a decision. Out of respect for those that were claiming that the vast majority of posters wanted things left along and 'complaining' that there was no poll to 'prove' it, I put up a poll to gauge our members wishes.

    There were not 3 options, there were 9 poll options meant to gauge, along with the input in the various threads, the feeling of the members of this board.

    As to 'setting up' P&R to be shut down. Just the opposite. This trial is an attempt to keep the forums alive.

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


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. 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
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-18-2009, 01:34 PM
  3. 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