Apology

[Skratchen]

Skratchen, I'm not trying to put a message out there.

I simply have a signature that represents me.

That's all.

If you're not trying to put a message out, I'm sure you'll have no problem with removing that "non-message" in your sig.  

We're all guests in this forum, this community.  This isn't our own personal space to do exactly as we wish.  We should respect the community and stick to the purpose of this message board.  Simply put, you crossed the line, now own up to it and be a man by removing the picture in your sig.

[JillieMT]

/sigh

By you having the picture, you are making a political statement: I am a beastlord for George Bush.

That is indeed a statement. As you have even said: it's a statement reflecting who you are.

And again, I am proud not to be tolerant of just any old thing that just anybody wants to spew here. So being called "non-tolerant" is hardly offensive.

[Atropine_BB]

If you're not trying to put a message out, I'm sure you'll have no problem with removing that "non-message" in your sig.

It was removed.

[Atropine_BB]

/sigh

By you having the picture, you are making a political statement: I am a beastlord for George Bush.

That is indeed a statement. As you have even said: it's a statement reflecting who you are.

And again, I am proud not to be tolerant of just any old thing that just anybody wants to spew here. So being called "non-tolerant" is hardly offensive.

So why then if it is a statement reflecting who I am, in game and in real life, should I remove it from my signature?

Perhaps because of intolerance of my personal or political views?  

intolerance

\In*tol"er*ance\, n. [L. intolerantia impatience, unendurableness: cf. F. intol['e]rance.] 1. Want of capacity to endure; as, intolerance of light.

2. The quality of being intolerant; refusal to allow to others the enjoyment of their opinions, chosen modes of worship, and the like; want of patience and forbearance; illiberality; bigotry; as, intolerance shown toward a religious sect.

This is a private message board.

Rhaynne clearly told me in her PM that I could choose to keep my signature.  Her tolerance is obviously not shared by all the moderators.

If there is going to be censorship of signatures, it should be a rule, and not something forced upon one person.  And as someone else pointed out, there are other signatures out there that are not beastlord related, and I think those showing IP addresses are just as offensive as a small political picture.

However, no one is doing anything about those signatures are they?

Therefore, intolerance is a factor here in twisting my arm to remove the signature.

[Liga]

Ban me for all I care, but this has to be said...

Youre being a bunny.

EDIT: No personal attacks on members please. If this thread degenerates any further, it will be removed and the offender(s) will be attended to. Jillie :)

[Atropine_BB]

Thanks Liga, real mature.

I've been nothing but respectful all the way up to the end when I was forced to remove the signature.

Then I simply spoke my mind about intolerance.

How is being respectful and having an honest debate being a Jackass?

Real nice of you to say.

[Atropine_BB]

Simply put, you crossed the line, now own up to it and be a man by removing the picture in your sig.

Nice edit Skratchen.

Great for you to put that in, like you had anything to do with me removing my signature, after it was already removed.

I did not cross the line.  The line was clearly drawn in the proverbial sand in the rules and regulations.  I did not cross it.  However, intolerance and outspoken members moved that line.

[Skratchen]

Simply put, you crossed the line, now own up to it and be a man by removing the picture in your sig.

Nice edit Skratchen.

Great for you to put that in, like you had anything to do with me removing my signature, after it was already removed.

I did not cross the line.  The line was clearly drawn in the proverbial sand in the rules and regulations.  I did not cross it.  However, intolerance and outspoken members moved that line.

www.beastlords.org isn't our personal forum to constantly put out personal details about the person behind MMORPG character that represents you.  Your sig is in every post you make.  If you want to come out and say that you're pro-this or pro-that, find the forum and then say it.  But don't tack it on in every single post all over the place in this community.  No one else is doing it here regardless of what their political affiliation may be.  

You crossed the line when the community said that it wasn't welcome, regardless how want to flaunt the rules.  The rules in a private forum can change if the moderators deem that someone is abusing the latitude that we're given here.

Oh, and my edit was done in the middle of a flurry of replies.  I edited that post before I even saw your sig pic was gone.  I can't take credit for something I didn't do.  Nice try though.

[Atropine_BB]

Skratchen, you can't say the community said no, because there are still people that agree with me.

It wasn't one unified voice that said no political pictures in your signature.

It was a few outspoken members who wanted it gone.

This wasn't an act of a community, rather an act of a few outspoken members.  

As I said before I have gotten PM's with people supporting my 100% (in one case the guy said 110%).  There are people in this thread and the other that supported me as well.

So please don't try to say that this was a community thing, because people were split both ways.

You are seeing things through your rose colored glasses Skratchen.

[Oneiromancer]

Okay, here's another analogy.  As a graduate student in Physics, I have attended many seminars and colloquiums where talks/presentations are given by distinguished people in the field.  Many of these people choose to have each and every slide depict their affiliation, whether it be a university or national lab, what have you.  And this is perfectly reasonable.

Now, what if each slide had their political affiliation on it?  20 slides which proclaimed who they wanted for president in 2004.  The speaker doesn't ever bring it up...but there it is, plain as day, on every single slide the speaker shows.  How could the audience be anything but flabbergasted...for what possible reason would someone need to advertise their opinions like that?

Now imagine a conference...say the APS March Meeting where there are thousands of people giving presentations.  Can you imagine every single person having their political affiliation on all of their slides?  Even though it isn't rational, some people would then judge other's results based on their political party.  And that's not right at all...every presentation should be judged on its own merits, not something completely unrelated.

Hell, the analogy is so close it's starting to frighten me.  In both cases we have a very diverse group of people coming together to share ideas and information, with the subject matter clearly defined beforehand.  Some people dismiss posts on forums just because someone has bad grammar or spelling, while people can dismiss results during a meeting because the presenter speaks English poorly.

I see where you're coming from, Atropine, even though I disagree with you.  I hope that you can see where I'm coming from, even though you disagree with me.

Game on,

[Atropine_BB]

I see your point Oneiromancer, and the analogy is a good one.

However, you are missing one key point.

How many people on this website would actually choose to:

Go out and find a suitable political picture that fits within the signature guidelines.

Either host the picture themselves, or hope that the website that is hosting it keeps it up.

Post it in their signature for all to see.

I have serious doubts that there are many people, if any at all that are willing to subject something quite personal on a public messageboard for fear of something happening like what happened to me.

People coming out and clearly attacking my decision to use such a picture in my signature.  I just don't think many people would, even if it were to be allowed in a precedent set by someone else.

To suggest that simply because I am doing it that everyone else would is a leap in logic that just doesn't make sense in this case.

[Jaeren]

Ok, here's how i see this:

Because after the election there will be no more campaign. I am not advertising anything, I am simply putting up a picture that has quite a bit of meaning to me.

That means you ARE advertising just for this purpose. You have made multiple views and contradicted yourself for your reasons & your actions that you have or have not done.

In my opinion, you are simply trying to stir up trouble and doing a pretty fine job.  In general, we have pretty lax rules on posts, links, etc. However, this IS a beastlords site. If you could come across as being rational, I could have done many things including a political forum and said go post whatever you want there, jsut don't let it spread. As it is, you are trying- to find every loophole just to stick your ad for Bush up there (ie: photoshopping in something to do with beastlords just so you can still put it in your sig).

You are trying to force me to make a stand and see what I do, no matter which side I go on, I piss off people. That leaves me with this:

I have no choice but to make the signature rules much more strict so that this incident doesn't lead to further and worse signatures. Congrats on forcing me to come off as being a hardass and censoring stuff just to try and NOT let this forum degrade into being like other class forums.

[Atropine_BB]

Interesting choice Jaeren.

Especially the choice in blaming me for creating stricter rules, AFTER the offending picture was already removed.

Let's all be clear that the political picture was removed over an hour ago, and now Jaeren is trying to place the blame squarely on my shoulders for his choice to now make the rules "stricter."

Treating this as if you put in a new rule about not allowing politics in signatures, would be this drastic measure you are making it out to be.

I don't appreciate you trying to place the blame on me now that I have already removed the offending picture over an hour ago.

Nice administrative move there Jaeren.

It is your choice, and your choice alone to make or break the rules.  

Please if you are going to make an accusation that I have had multiple views and contradicted myself, prove it.  

I have read, and re-read all of my statements, and they are quite clear.  They all tie into a central theme of principled non-censorship, no matter what the case is, as long as it does not violate posted rules.

Your accusations are not appreciated when they are not valid.

I apologize for causing so much trouble with a few of the more outspoken members, but I have been honest, respectful and true to myself.

It is sad that now you choose to blame your choice in changing what will probably be a simple change in signature rules on me... after I have already removed the offending picture.

[VoS Jamond]

:?:

[JillieMT]

Atropine: I for one applaud and thank you for taking care of your signature.

This is an extremely heated topic, and it's been quite difficult to manage, hehe. There are some strong convictions on all sides of this. We never want to censor anyone, honestly. We have the BEST class community around, and the only way we got that way was by being decent and considerate to each other. Having strong convictions is always a virtue... but we shouldn't have them at the expense of our friends in the community.

I propose a group hug.   :D