|
It's a difficult one - it's clearly political, and that is against the lounge rules. If it breaks the site T&C (and I don't know which part it breaks, but I assume you mean "12. YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES") then it's clear cut: lose it or lose the account.
What is abuse? That's always going to be a difficult one, because it depends on your personal feelings on the matter: for a Palestinian, it's not abuse. For an Israeli, it probably is.
I'd say in this case that it's inappropriate outside the soapbox, and he should remove it (though my personal feelings would be to side with the Palestinians rather than the Israelis on this one)
But it's not that simple. What about links in sigs in general? Most are innocuous, some are charitable, some are advertising. Should those be banned as well? Or even just ban sigs completely?
My feeling is that banning sigs would be the better way to go: that way the content of the message is all you can be judged on, rather than matters which may be incidental to the purpose of the post.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: That's always going to be a difficult one, because it depends on your personal feelings on the matter
I think of it differently. It's not about the parties involved. It's about the intent of the person posting, and the intent is to go against the posting guidelines. It's abusing the site and the community. I'm not sure I'd consider the sig per se actually offensive. Inflammatory, divisive, reactionary, and totally without context, absolutely. This is the internet, after all. Implicitly, though, it's directed at a single country and religion, and posting that on CodeProject is offensive.
That's not the community I work for.
OriginalGriff wrote: What about links in sigs in general?
Yeah, right? The can of worms opens. I've said I'm happy for someone to have a link back to their company or product. They should be proud. They just can't blatantly advertise it. This is the second issue I have with the given signature: it's a direct call to action; an advertisement. Not cool.
OriginalGriff wrote: My feeling is that banning sigs would be the better way to go
Interesting throught. I'm not willing to block everyone's sig, though. I'd rather simply have it be a benefit we remove for individuals if abused.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: intent is to go against the posting guidelines. It's abusing the site and the community
You are wrong Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
You might want to expound on that. Just telling someone they are wrong is not an argument and does not move someone from their position.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that clearly Chris is wrong when he thinks my intent is to go against posting rules. My intent is to advertise the a petition that seeks to uphold international law since if enforced there is a far greater chance of peace in the ME and hence the world.
|
|
|
|
|
I condemn your reaction that you are not even ready to listen to Admins. I think you are the first to ignore the advise from them and have such an attitude. So called 'freedom of speech' has nothing to do with this discussion or the issue we are discussing on. What do you mean by your current signature?
All i want to say is, you should be ready to face the consequences in form of account cancellation.
|
|
|
|
|
Rohan Leuva wrote: I condemn your reaction
Oh do you now. Who made you the judge and jury?
You are just like many other people in the world, you cant abide difference. Well you are wrong in so many ways I am not even gong to bother pointing them out to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I am not even gong to bother pointing them out to you
I don't care.
Munchies_Matt wrote: Who made you the judge and jury
Don't you see label on the post which says Rohan Leuva 5hrs 19mins ago? It clearly means that whatever i posted was my opinion. Everyone is free to express their views. If i was the judge and the jury, you would have got kicks before this discussion. Thank Chris that he still expects community to have discussion on this.
After reading all your messages, i don't think you are mature enough to have some fruitful discussion(even arguments) in here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: The whole point of this discussion is censoring me from expressing a view
Because you didn't follow rules. Views should be expressed within limits. It should not break the rules. You did because your generation believes in crossing boundaries,right?
|
|
|
|
|
As others have pointed out it was the content rather than the fact it was political that caused a stir. Many posts of a political nature have been made in the lounge before without upsetting anyone.
The only limits we abide by, in the UK, are those set down by racism, hate speech laws. Many other countries don't have such rules and speech is truly free. SO tell me, what rules does your country have regarding freedom of speech?
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: The whole point of this discussion is censoring me from expressing a view
Time to stop playing the victim, Matt.
The whole point isn't censoring. There is no censoring. The point is: we have rules we ask our members to abide by in regards to posting the appropriate content in the appropriate forum and you think you're above those rules.
You are showing absolutely no desire to get this sorted out, reach an agreement, or even acknowledge that we have the right to have Terms of Service on our privately owned website.
It's not about censorship. It's not about politics or religion. It's about you wanting to be right, and posting false statements to support your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The point is: we have rules we ask our members to abide by
And as others have pointed out many political posts go by unnoticed in the lounge and it is more the content of my sig that raised objection.
Chris Maunder wrote: and you think you're above those rules
No I don't.
Chris Maunder wrote: You are showing absolutely no desire to get this sorted out
I have already changed my sig even though the 'community' in the main didn't object to.
Chris Maunder wrote: It's not about censorship. It's not about politics
It is about both actually. as others have suggested.
Chris Maunder wrote: It's about you wanting to be right
I dont have to want to be right Chris, because I know I am right. 
|
|
|
|
|
I repeat: Don't you think that now would be a good time to quit winding people up for a while?
Your nose won't be happy, no matter how good a reason you think you have for cutting it off.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, what was that you were saying?
|
|
|
|
|
Just a link to another anti-Israel hate site. It is only the Jews - so who cares indeed.
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, you just gave yourself away.
|
|
|
|
|
Always obliged
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
My opinion:
His statement is just a link to support something he believes in. I've seen much worse insults and attacks on cultures, beliefs, and opinions here in the lounge, directly and indirectly. In some cases, they flat out refuse to "agree to disagree" or move on. As long as it is not an active attack on someone, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? No political debate, no joke, or anything non-IT could be discussed here since it is "attacking" someone else's belief.
If we're to ban his sig, I request the following words be banned from this site: shiite, Lesbanese, BFE (Egypt), and philistine. Note the trend. Someone in the recent past tried using the term Syrian(ac) in a derogatory way as well.  
Shrug and move on.
We need a shrug emoticon.
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: everyone's entitled to their opinion
Absolutely.
The issue, which seems to always get pushed to the back, is that the lounge isn't for political or religious discussions. We have the soapbox for that. I know, however, that the Soapbox doesn't get the attention some people want it to have. They want more exposure for their time on the soapbox and so bring the discussions into the Lounge.
It's like asking someone to respect a house and remove their shoes when they come in, yet a few keep tromping through in their muddy boots.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: If we're to ban his sig,
Again, the point isn't his sig. It's where he's using it. Further, it's not words that get banned, it's the context in which they are used.
I do, however, appreciated the concept of a slippery slope. Nobody wants that.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, his signature isn't abusive. The topic however is a hot one and people will always think it's abusive if it doesn't automatically support their opinion.
Setting different rules for each forum is the right choise. You either have to start having separate sigs for each forum, delete them entirely, or accept that if they're allowed in any one (Soapbox), they should be accepted for all. If his sig was in the Soapbox as a message, it would be a hot topic and marked as spam incorrectly. If his post or signature was actively condemning someone, then I agree it should be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
^This hits the nail on the head.
Is having a link to a political article or petition in a sig the same thing as creating a post on a political topic? I don't think it's the same thing: unlike a post that will get read along with the rest of the thread, a link in a sig says nothing unless you click on it.
Also, if it's OK to have the sig in the soapbox but not other forums, is there some kind of mechanism to allow the sig in one forum but not the others? Does there need to be? Is the fact that the sig is going to show up outside of the soapbox enough to ask for the sig to be removed entirely?
If he was posting political statements in the wrong forums I'd see that as a clear-cut violation, but it's a bit different with sigs. Does he really need to have that in his sig? No, but does anyone need a sig anyway? If it's getting this messy, maybe they should just be done away with.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I've asked him to remove the signature
What was the response?
On this site, your word is law. If you ask someone to remove or change their signature for any reason, the user must comply. If they don't like your reasons, they're free to go elsewhere.
If they refuse to cooperate and follow your rules, even after you've had a word with them, then I don't see how they can continue to be a part of the site.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I'll let you hunt for the non-response yourself. And yes, I can ban someone, but while I own the hardware and software, I don't own you guys. This is your community too. You're all clever, you all have great insights that I may have missed, and I want to hear as many differing views as possible. I also want you all to understand why we make certain decisions when we do, so talking it through first is never a bad idea.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
