[Discussion] "Contentious" Signatures

[Yukonastan]

In a similar vein to the contentious flags thread, but my question is, why did the flags get banned but not the signatures, that contained the exact same message, if not more direct? Why did the flags get taken down for flamebaiting, but not the sigs?

[Mekhet]

Example: memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=445334

[Yukonastan]

Example: memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=445334

Yep, great example of what got flags deleted, yet what nothing is being done about in regards to signatures.

---

I personally believe that this signature is acceptable, as it isn't flamebaiting anyone at all. It isn't asking an unspecified moderator to resign, yet it clearly gets my point across in protest.

[Nierr]

Because flags have always been held to a higher standard.

This isn't hard.

[Yukonastan]

Because flags have always been held to a higher standard.

This isn't hard.

Same issue. Someone gets flamebaited. Flags go, siggies stay. In my eyes, hypocritical.

[Pandeeria]

Because flags have always been held to a higher standard.

This isn't hard.

Why?

[Reploid Productions]

Typically, sigs are not held to the same level as flags and other customizable fields. Additionally, such remarks are usually aimed at the mods (or are the "Unjustly deleted") variety. As an unofficial rule, we tend to tolerate considerably more abuse hurled at us than if it were aimed at a non-mod player. Of course, "X is a <scathing flame>" in a sig would get somebody smacked, aimed at a mod or not, but the generally milder protests about this or that mod/mod action we typically let slide.

'Course, if you guys want the rules to be more strictly enforced on that topic, we could certainly ask the boss if we can go all "RAWR TYRANNY!" on those, too.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Mekhet]

Because flags have always been held to a higher standard.

This isn't hard.

"So, that means we have carte blanche to "flamebait" with our sigs right?" What makes something considered flamebaiting by MOD okay to use in sigs, despite "higher standards"?

[Shalona]

Reppy, would it be because sigs can be hidden at will?

[Torisakia]

Reppy, would it be because sigs can be hidden at will?

Reppy is so fast, it's already been done.

[Yukonastan]

Typically, sigs are not held to the same level as flags and other customizable fields. Additionally, such remarks are usually aimed at the mods (or are the "Unjustly deleted") variety. As an unofficial rule, we tend to tolerate considerably more abuse hurled at us than if it were aimed at a non-mod player. Of course, "X is a <scathing flame>" in a sig would get somebody smacked, aimed at a mod or not, but the generally milder protests about this or that mod/mod action we typically let slide.

'Course, if you guys want the rules to be more strictly enforced on that topic, we could certainly ask the boss if we can go all "RAWR TYRANNY!" on those, too.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Yet in regards to flags, a mod was being flamebaited, and while I understand they're held to higher standards, I don't see why the same unofficial rule applies to flags - or didn't appear to in this case. Is/was it because flags cannot link to a profile but sigs often do?

[Nierr]

Because flags have always been held to a higher standard.

This isn't hard.

"So, that means we have carte blanche to "flamebait" with our sigs right?"

No it doesn't. It means that stuff that might not be considered flamebaiting in forum posts or in sigs is flamebait in flags.

There is no carte blanche to do anything here.

[Torisakia]

Typically, sigs are not held to the same level as flags and other customizable fields. Additionally, such remarks are usually aimed at the mods (or are the "Unjustly deleted") variety. As an unofficial rule, we tend to tolerate considerably more abuse hurled at us than if it were aimed at a non-mod player. Of course, "X is a <scathing flame>" in a sig would get somebody smacked, aimed at a mod or not, but the generally milder protests about this or that mod/mod action we typically let slide.

'Course, if you guys want the rules to be more strictly enforced on that topic, we could certainly ask the boss if we can go all "RAWR TYRANNY!" on those, too.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

It's only a matter of time before someone has "MODS MUST DIE" in their sig.

[Shalona]

Reppy, would it be because sigs can be hidden at will?

Reppy is so fast, it's already been done.

I never actually noticed that before. So that's why--but wait--display avatars is on there as well?

[Reploid Productions]

Typically, sigs are not held to the same level as flags and other customizable fields. Additionally, such remarks are usually aimed at the mods (or are the "Unjustly deleted") variety. As an unofficial rule, we tend to tolerate considerably more abuse hurled at us than if it were aimed at a non-mod player. Of course, "X is a <scathing flame>" in a sig would get somebody smacked, aimed at a mod or not, but the generally milder protests about this or that mod/mod action we typically let slide.

'Course, if you guys want the rules to be more strictly enforced on that topic, we could certainly ask the boss if we can go all "RAWR TYRANNY!" on those, too.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

It's only a matter of time before someone has "MODS MUST DIE" in their sig.

Yeah, that goes right past that "meh" tolerance zone and square into near insta-deat grade threat stuffs.

[Dragoria]

It's only a matter of time before someone has "MODS MUST DIE" in their sig.

Their hair colors are boring. Mods must dye.

[Elke and Elba]

I do agree it has to be tougher.

For example, I've taken out (on my own accord some 12 hours later) that Mall must resign because as much as I hate Mall's actions, I don't have a right to have leeway in sig as compared to the 'customizable fields'.

Similarly, this probably will affect Mods too - I don't like at all Scolo calling this a "Stupid overblown controversy of the week". Now, that was flamebaity to the RPers. But we can't do anything.

[Dragoria]

I do agree it has to be tougher.

For example, I've taken out (on my own accord some 12 hours later) that Mall must resign because as much as I hate Mall's actions, I don't have a right to have leeway in sig as compared to the 'customizable fields'.

Similarly, this probably will affect Mods too - I don't like at all Scolo calling this a "Stupid overblown controversy of the week". Now, that was flamebaity to the RPers. But we can't do anything.

It's flamebaity to R/D players too. And pretty much everyone else who's in any way involved.

[Torisakia]

It's only a matter of time before someone has "MODS MUST DIE" in their sig.

Yeah, that goes right past that "meh" tolerance zone and square into near insta-deat grade threat stuffs.

Is the anti-mod group getting together and building a wooden effigy of Max Barry and burning it down to the ground while in a circle dance actionable as well?

So yeah, I never held signatures to the same levels as flags, since flags are seen more on gameside than sigs.

[The Haatschapen]

It's only a matter of time before someone has "MODS MUST DIE" in their sig.

Their hair colors are boring. Mods must dye.

Are you sure you want to see Blaat's wool to become black like mine?

[Dragoria]

Their hair colors are boring. Mods must dye.

Are you sure you want to see Blaat's wool to become black like mine?

According to my experiments in Minecraft, lavender is the best color for sheeps to be dyed.

[Yukonastan]

Elke and Elba wrote: *snip*
I doubt the mods will be forced to follow the same rules we have to.

As if. I'd imagine they'd be held to even higher standards, as they are role-models for everyone here.

[Nierr]

I do agree it has to be tougher.

For example, I've taken out (on my own accord some 12 hours later) that Mall must resign because as much as I hate Mall's actions, I don't have a right to have leeway in sig as compared to the 'customizable fields'.

Similarly, this probably will affect Mods too - I don't like at all Scolo calling this a "Stupid overblown controversy of the week". Now, that was flamebaity to the RPers. But we can't do anything.

It is the stupid overblown controversy of the week.

Liberate Haven could easily have been prevented from going to vote without all this sideshow nonsense.

[Torisakia]

Elke and Elba wrote: *snip*
I doubt the mods will be forced to follow the same rules we have to.

As if. I'd imagine they'd be held to even higher standards, as they are role-models for everyone here.

AFAIK, the Moderators follow the same rules as everyone. Nothing less and nothing more.

[Cata Larga]

I do agree it has to be tougher.

For example, I've taken out (on my own accord some 12 hours later) that Mall must resign because as much as I hate Mall's actions, I don't have a right to have leeway in sig as compared to the 'customizable fields'.

Similarly, this probably will affect Mods too - I don't like at all Scolo calling this a "Stupid overblown controversy of the week". Now, that was flamebaity to the RPers. But we can't do anything.

It is the stupid overblown controversy of the week.

Liberate Haven could easily have been prevented from going to vote without all this sideshow nonsense.

It isn't just about Liberate Haven anymore.

The whole movement has grown into a full fledged opposition to ensure some sort of protections are put in place for RP regions and the work they produce.