Ofensive Signature Lines

[Radtech1]

I used to have a number in my signature line.

If I had that number today, it would be 3988. I had the number linked to the following page:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Which list the names of those who have perished in Iraq.

There was no commentary with the number, and the CNN page takes no stance - simply honors those who have died. YET, I was told that I had to remove this from my signature line as being political commentary.

I was told that the Rules of this forum make it clear that this is not the place for political and religious agendas. (Again, keep in mind - I added no commentary - just the number.)

That being said, I have noticed Sig lines with very "in your face" religious agendas, and I am wondering why this is permitted to go on. I am not going to name names, post links, or quote the offensive sigs because my purpose with this is not to ridicule a particular person or theology, but to ask for clarification. Are the rules being relaxed to the point where our sig lines are now permitted to reflect our religious or political schema?

Rad

[StewartR]

Hmmm. All the forum rules (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/rules.php) have to say on the subject is:3.6 Political discussions and promotion of political agendas or ideas in posts, signatures, images or avatars is prohibited.
3.8 Signature must not contain large fonts or distractive elements.So is the posting of that number the promotion of a political agenda? It could be. It seems to be a sign that you care deeply about the subject, though by itself it doesn't say what you think. You might think it's a tragic waste of 3988 lives, or you might be honouring 3988 heroes who have given their lives to uphold western democratic values. (Or other possibilities, I guess.) Is it possible to promote a political agenda without saying what that agenda is? Discuss.

Personally though, I think there's too much crap in signatures anyway. I think the Mods should be much tougher on long irrelevant signatures.

PS What does the ╬ symbol in your signature mean?

[Pete]

I (for one) respect the moderators decision here. Having that counter up there is a political statement (especially given then international membership we so much enjoy here).

I'm sure that any Iraqi members here would take offense if they had seen that. I'm also sure that you would take offense if they had included a counter to indicate how many Iraqi people had died since the start of the conflict.

Same can be said about Iranians/Palestinians.

The forum guidelines are pretty steadfast about no politics, no religion.

If you see sig lines/posts that appear to have a political/religious agenda, then use the "report" button and leave the decision up to the moderators.

That being said, I don't see any problem in people expressing their faith in a consise manner, just as long as it can't be seen as being provocative in nature.

[Radtech1]

Hmmm. All the forum rules (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/rules.php) have to say on the subject is:

3.6 Political discussions and promotion of political agendas or ideas in posts, signatures, images or avatars is prohibited.
3.8 Signature must not contain large fonts or distractive elements.



That's it?

I could have sworn that the forum had a prohabition against relgion as well.

just as long as it can't be seen as being provocative in nature.

And if it provokes? I mean, obviously it did or I would not have bothered to type this up.

[tommykjensen]

If you see sig lines/posts that appear to have a political/religious agenda, then use the "report" button and leave the decision up to the moderators.

Yes because we cannot in any way check 100.000+ signatures.

[tommykjensen]

That's it?

I could have sworn that the forum had a prohabition against relgion as well.



It does.

[Pete]

It does.

Not in the posted copy of the forum rules it doesn't (explicitly anyway - a text search for "relig" turns up nothing).

However, in the description for the "General" section, it states:-


An area for subjects not appropriate for the other forums. Keep it related in some way to photography even if only in the abstract. Political and religious discussions are absolutely prohibited.

Maybe the rules document needs updating?

[Radtech1]

I think the Mods should be much tougher on long irrelevant signatures.

PS What does the ╬ symbol in your signature mean?

It has no meaning at all and is purely decorative. In typography, it is called a "Tailpiece". *

tailpiece:
A decoration printed in the blank space at the end of a chapter or other division of a book, usually a printer's ornament or a small illustration done by a professional illustrator . In medieval manuscripts, a tailpiece sometimes included a colophon that might be rubricated. Also spelled tail-piece. Synonymous with tail ornament. Compare with headpiece. See also: frontispiece.

Source: http://lu.com/odlis/odlis_t.cfm

Rad

*Just about as irrelevent as it gets!

[DAMphyne]

Are you sure it's not a religous symbol like the Proctor & Gamble moon and stars?

[MDJAK]

what's a signature line?

[Radtech1]

For example:

Mark III; 15mm Fisheye, 85 f1.2L, 135 f2.0L, 300 f2.8L IS; 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L, 100-400 F4.5-5.6L; 1.4tc; Canon 25mm II tube; 580EX; Hensel Monolights; Sekonic 358; Gitzo CF tripod and monopod; RRS B55 ballhead; Epson 4800 Pro Stylus , Colorbyte RIP; MacBook Pro 17 x2"

[bauerman]

Personally though, I think there's too much crap in signatures anyway. I think the Mods should be much tougher on long irrelevant signatures.


Could not agree with this statement more. There are some mods however that have signatures that you could probably put into the category mentioned above. ;)

[Radtech1]

Could not agree with this statement more. There are some mods however that have signatures that you could probably put into the category mentioned above. ;)

Yes, and there is a thread on that topic - "Verbose Sigs".

With this thread, I am hoping for some clarification on political/religious agendas promoted in sig lines. As Stewart points out, only politics is specifically prohibited. As Tommy points out, there is a more global prohibition on religious content on the forum in general.

Some have taken the lack of a specific prohibition to mean that the general prohibition does not apply. I think it does. Further, there are some sig lines and even usernames I find offensive on a religious basis.

My question is are we allowing this, and if not, what next?

Rad

[tommykjensen]

Rad send me (or another mod) a PM with the links to users with a signature you think is questionable. Then we will discuss them in the mod team. As I mentioned with 100.000+ members we cannot in anyway check all signatures so we rely on members telling us if some signatures is out of line.

[danpass]

I got a virus in mine.


What can I do?











;)


.

[Lord_Malone]

I used to have a number in my signature line.

If I had that number today, it would be 3988. I had the number linked to the following page:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Which list the names of those who have perished in Iraq.

There was no commentary with the number, and the CNN page takes no stance - simply honors those who have died. YET, I was told that I had to remove this from my signature line as being political commentary.

I was told that the Rules of this forum make it clear that this is not the place for political and religious agendas. (Again, keep in mind - I added no commentary - just the number.)

That being said, I have noticed Sig lines with very "in your face" religious agendas, and I am wondering why this is permitted to go on. I am not going to name names, post links, or quote the offensive sigs because my purpose with this is not to ridicule a particular person or theology, but to ask for clarification. Are the rules being relaxed to the point where our sig lines are now permitted to reflect our religious or political schema?

Rad


While I respect your intentions behind the number/link signature, rules are rules, man. If the mods let that slide then eventually someone with some really wierd and misguided agendas will eventually start cropping up, and where do we draw the line? I'm for nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand. For example, most commentary on my Iraq war photos that have political undertones have been removed right away. I personally come here to share my enthusiam for photography with like minded individuals and partake in arguments about lenses, not politics. ;) And although I'm confident you most likely don't have any underlying political agenda, it's how it may be potentially perceived by certain individuals that matters to the mods. And for the record, I like you, man. ;)

[narlus]

what's a signature line?


it's what should be used to contain a link to your post in this thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=138747

:D

[ssim]

I tend to agree with the context of the original post here. Not so much in the validity of what he had in his signature but generally how signature lines are used. This whole subject of signature lines seem to raise its head every so often. I guess its time has come due again.

I have noticed some of the signature lines with the religious overtones and there are a few of them that struck me as odd to have them here. It's not rocket science to come to the realization that the mods have the time to check signature lines. Quite honestly, I don't pay that much attention to signature lines unless they are large and obtrusive which there seem to be a fair amount of.

If the mods really care to deal with this then those that are offended should forward it to them. Case closed.

[MDJAK]

it's what should be used to contain a link to your post in this thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=138747

:D


Dude, you're talking way over my head. I'm just a simpleton.

me

[MDJAK]

the real offensive thing here is nobody changed the title of the post to spell offensive correctly.

me

[Radtech1]

the real offensive thing here is nobody changed the title of the post to spell offensive correctly.

me

I DID!!!

See on the original post it says:

"Last edited by Radtech1 : 1 Day Ago at 08:16 AM. Reason: spelling "

But the correction did not save! So it was not for a lack of trying!

Rad

[Radtech1]

And for the record, I like you, man. ;)

Thank you.

That comes at the right time. Last weekend I went to my 30th high school reunion. There is something ego bruising when someone is approaching you with a look of excitement and expectation on their face, then they get close enough to read your name badge, and then, quickly looking away, they say "Oh, never mind...I thought you were someone." and off they go to someone else! :cry:

Rad

[bauerman]

Thank you.

That comes at the right time. Last weekend I went to my 30th high school reunion. There is something ego bruising when someone is approaching you with a look of excitement and expectation on their face, then they get close enough to read your name badge, and then, quickly looking away, they say "Oh, never mind...I thought you were someone." and off they go to someone else! :cry:

Rad

That is both hilarious and sad at the same time.......:)

[Picture North Carolina]

I DID!!!

See on the original post it says:

"Last edited by Radtech1 : 1 Day Ago at 08:16 AM. Reason: spelling "

But the correction did not save! So it was not for a lack of trying!

Rad

I thought I had read once in this forum that the OP has only 5 minutes after pressing the button to change the title line.

[3Honu]

I understand Rad's frustration. He had a signature line removed because of how it might be perceived by some. He posted something that was totally non-committal. In this particular case the decision to remove the sig line was totally subjective because the sigline did not espouse a viewpoint of any sort. I don't think this situation will get any worse but it does make people (me) wonder what might be subjectively decided as offensive. Maybe I need to change my avatar. There are a lot of people who don't like the police afterall. Especially the LAPD. Aren't they a bunch of thugs that beat and kill innocent people? :D I hope my sig line doesn't get removed because some might see it as an advocacy of war. :D

[Matatazela]

Regarding Radtech's signature - the symbol is a Peter Cross, or Cross of St Peter. Peter refused to be crucified in the same manner as Christ, and was therefore crucified hanging upside down. The meaning of the symbol has been changed in more modern times to represent satanism or anti-Christian sentiment, just as the rainbow (the symbol to Noah from God) referred to the free-loving hippies of the 60's.

The irony is huge, in that in a way, Peter was a master of his own fate. He was not, however, the captain of his own soul...

The link to how many Americans have died in Iraq is not offensive to me. If an Iraqi posted a link to how many Iraqis have died, it too would not be offensive. It is just a fact, like a list of equipment, or a quote from the Bible for that matter.

[deadpass]

that "cross" of rad's looks pretty even, typically st. peter's cross is very obviously upside down. and actually st. peter was crucified upside down because he didn't feel he was worthy enough to be crucified the same way as jesus. as for being satanic (which it's not) or anti christian (which it's also not, the pope spoke infront of a large st. peter's cross even) it's just not true. Satanists, if anything satanists us an inverted pentagram or the goat's head pentagram (aka baphomet)

anyway, the subjectivity of what is or is not offensive on this site ebbs and flows like the tide, it's about the only thing that bothers me about this forum. however, this site is a monarchy, not a democracy, we can either accept the rullings of those that run it, or go somewhere else causee complaining rarely does any good.

[tommykjensen]

Rad send me (or another mod) a PM with the links to users with a signature you think is questionable. Then we will discuss them in the mod team. As I mentioned with 100.000+ members we cannot in anyway check all signatures so we rely on members telling us if some signatures is out of line.

anyway, the subjectivity of what is or is not offensive on this site ebbs and flows like the tide, it's about the only thing that bothers me about this forum. however, this site is a monarchy, not a democracy, we can either accept the rullings of those that run it, or go somewhere else causee complaining rarely does any good.

As I said we cannot check 100.000+ signatures or every single post every day so when members see signatures or posts that are questionable then use the report post function to get moderators to look at it.

If Rad refuse to tell us which signatures he thinks is out of line we cannot do anything about it and honestly I think he has no right to complain about it. We cannot go search 100.000+ signatures for some that Rad think is questionable.

[Picture North Carolina]

If Rad refuse to tell us which signatures he thinks is out of line we cannot do anything about it and honestly I think he has no right to complain about it.

Unfortunately, by saying this publically as opposed to in a PM, you have restricted rad from doing just that. Now if the signitures of those individuals change, whether or not as a result of a complaint from rad, it is he who will be see as the snitch.

[tommykjensen]

Unfortunately, by saying this publically as opposed to in a PM, you have restricted rad from doing just that. Now if the signitures of those individuals change, whether or not as a result of a complaint from rad, it is he who will be see as the snitch.

Well Rad choose a thread to air his complain. He could just as easily just PM any moderator to begin with.

But my point is that unless moderators are told about things like this it is unlikely that we will uncover it ourself because of the vast number of members and posts.

[NickSimcheck]

I like small signatures, can you tell?