Sign In
Register
Help
This topic is locked
I'm proposing a new rule that should be added to Cspace's post in Announcements. This rule would apply to the content in people's sigs that could be considered as an insult or could offend someone. This would be under the section for "Flaming" and could possibly be a one week ban if it directly targets a member.
Examples could include anything said against a race, religion, or a special interest group. Though the person who puts it in their sig may not think it offends someone, it still shouldn't be there if it does. As long as people know what not to put in there, people won't be offended because of a signature.
New Rule
MultiQuote
#2
Killerconvic 
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 26 August 2004 - 11:14 PM
An addition to this rule could be lying. If you blindly assume that someone is trying to insult or offend a member, and you are wrong (like in the ever so rare case of going on past experiences), that you be banned for a week.
Sam's gay
#3
serpharimon
- "And I beg for forgiveness..."
-
- Group: Moderator
- Posts: 2,346
- Joined: 27-June 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 26 August 2004 - 11:41 PM
Then you can have that person (Who isn't intentionally trying to hurt someone) take it out of their sig.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
#4
Killerconvic
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 26 August 2004 - 11:42 PM
I disagree. How will censoring someone's signature solve anything? I mean, you're the one who's so obsessed with being able to express yourself, so explain that to me.
Sam's gay
#5
serpharimon
- "And I beg for forgiveness..."
-
- Group: Moderator
- Posts: 2,346
- Joined: 27-June 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 26 August 2004 - 11:46 PM
You can express yourself, but you must be responsible with it.
Section 8 of the Bill of Rights: Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
So if you abuse it, you get punished. Frankly, that sig is abusing the right of freedom of speech.
Section 8 of the Bill of Rights: Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
So if you abuse it, you get punished. Frankly, that sig is abusing the right of freedom of speech.
#6
Killerconvic
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 26 August 2004 - 11:47 PM
This is a matter of differing opinions with NO POSSIBLE END, so I will refrain from commenting on your opinion.
Sam's gay
#7
Star Jedi
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Community Admin
- Posts: 5,684
- Joined: 01-May 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 27 August 2004 - 12:14 AM
QUOTE(Killerconvic @ Aug 26 2004, 07:14 PM)
An addition to this rule could be lying. If you blindly assume that someone is trying to insult or offend a member, and you are wrong (like in the ever so rare case of going on past experiences), that you be banned for a week.
Eh, I think that may be a bit harsh..Sorry
I do agree with Base's rule, but as Serphy said, I would ask them to take it out first. Well, unless it is extremely offensive, that is a different story.
#8
Baseballl
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Moderator
- Posts: 5,469
- Joined: 20-December 02
Posted 27 August 2004 - 12:45 AM
I can accept being insulted in a topic where I posted an idea, but I believe this rule would help things out. Obviously you can't just flame people and shouldn't flame them for posting an idea even if it relates to them...
Thanks for the feedback, Star
Thanks for the feedback, Star
Alex
#9
Final F8
- Do you remember...
-
- Group: Super Moderator
- Posts: 4,033
- Joined: 02-February 04
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 27 August 2004 - 01:36 AM
I thought there already was a rule like this... or maybe it's just common sense 
Well, if it's not an official rule, it certainly should be.
Just wondering, was this suggested because there was someone who recently had something offensive in their sig?
Well, if it's not an official rule, it certainly should be.
Just wondering, was this suggested because there was someone who recently had something offensive in their sig?
Runescape:
Final F8 - Member of 'Dark Slayers'(inactive)
WoW:
Thrall Server (US) Alliance (sometimes-active)
Luu - 90 Warlock
Lion - 85 Druid
Crikey - 85 Hunter
Deathknut - 88 Death Knight
Mindbullets - 85 Priest
Final F8 - Member of 'Dark Slayers'(inactive)
WoW:
Thrall Server (US) Alliance (sometimes-active)
Luu - 90 Warlock
Lion - 85 Druid
Crikey - 85 Hunter
Deathknut - 88 Death Knight
Mindbullets - 85 Priest
#10
Killerconvic
- Senior Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 4,350
- Joined: 06-November 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 27 August 2004 - 01:40 AM
Base complained about Crescens and I having a quote in our sigs.
Sam's gay
#11
Goto
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Global Moderator
- Posts: 9,500
- Joined: 30-August 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 27 August 2004 - 07:48 AM
Hmm.. I was under the impression sigs would just count by default, it's no different to flaming in a post. People certainly shouldn't be allowed to insult others in sigs, but if at all possible in a situation it's much better to convince somebody to calm down than to issue bans. Banning should only ever be a last resort.
As far as getting banned if you took what someone else said the wrong way, that doesn't make much sense
. I'm not trying to insult your idea, but most of the time those people are just trying to defend themselves. It's far more effective to try and get things solved between the two parties, to explain it wasn't aimed at anyone.
As far as getting banned if you took what someone else said the wrong way, that doesn't make much sense
. I'm not trying to insult your idea, but most of the time those people are just trying to defend themselves. It's far more effective to try and get things solved between the two parties, to explain it wasn't aimed at anyone.
#12
Dragonman
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Super Moderator
- Posts: 6,890
- Joined: 11-November 02
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 27 August 2004 - 10:40 AM
Yeah, that does seem pretty harsh. 
Just warning would do, and if they just constantly keep doing it after warnings then a one day ban or somethin'. Remember, always warn with PMs. 
Good suggestion Base, that definitely belons on the list.
Just warning would do, and if they just constantly keep doing it after warnings then a one day ban or somethin'. Remember, always warn with PMs. Good suggestion Base, that definitely belons on the list.
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
--K
#14
Dragonman
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Super Moderator
- Posts: 6,890
- Joined: 11-November 02
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 27 August 2004 - 11:43 AM
QUOTE
Also insulting other peoples grammer/spelling skills.
Already on there.
QUOTE
Also, if the person being 'targeted' doesn't find it offensive, there's no need to remove it 
Yep
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
--K
#15
Goto
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Global Moderator
- Posts: 9,500
- Joined: 30-August 03
- Location:Miami, Florida
Posted 27 August 2004 - 11:46 AM
Yeah, often an inside-joke between two people can seem offensive to a third party.
An example would be when Bigbro sigged LeeT Souljah insulting me and BR2, neither of us found it offensive, despite the fact it was pretty directly flaming us
.
An example would be when Bigbro sigged LeeT Souljah insulting me and BR2, neither of us found it offensive, despite the fact it was pretty directly flaming us
.