Could There Be Some Clarification With Regard to Quoting Another Member in Signature?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You sound like one of those activist judges, making exception to the rules in certain situations.

The question is whether it is an offense that warrants a suspension and if so, then any signature that is political in nature could be construed as a form of baiting and therefore also subject to suspension. Just how far do we want to go with this nannyfication of anything that can be taken as baiting?

Just say ten Hail Mary's and make a sincere Act of Contrition. I am sure you will feel better afterwards.

[^_^ 5,021]

I have seen many times over the years, members quoting another member and using that as part of their signature ...

As have I. SMOKE once had, in his signature, something I wrote. I believe it was "SMOKE is right". I didn't think it was offensive or humiliating. I thought it was funny. I don't see which clause in TOS something like that would violate.

Now, I've also seen quotes in signatures by other members which were intended to demean and/or humiliate another member. Those are clearly against TOS.

[Jenn! 918]

Yup, as with most things here, there is no hard and fast rule as far as I know. It comes down to judgment by the admins.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Jenn!

[The_Dude 1,142]

I think it's quite simple, ask the person. I asked Peejay if I could use something he said in a thread in my signature, and he said it was OK. The problem with some quotes is that they lack context, and if you juxtapose several quotes, without the entire quote, or any context, it can be easily misconstrued.

[Pooky 3,347]

I think it's quite simple, ask the person. I asked Peejay if I could use something he said in a thread in my signature, and he said it was OK. The problem with some quotes is that they lack context, and if you juxtapose several quotes, without the entire quote, or any context, it can be easily misconstrued.

This sounds the fairest suggestion yet.

[Captain Ewok 1,857]

Quoting a person in your signature to mock them or cause issues is the problem. If the member you are quoting does not care or you are just copying factual info then have fun. We are not trying to police every tiny thing. I think in general when people quote other folks in their signature it "is" to cause issues or annoy them -- like a personal billboard that appears anywhere. In this case most of the time it ends up that this is not allowed.

Anyhow, I think I made sense but if not let me know.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Quoting a person in your signature to mock them or cause issues is the problem. If the member you are quoting does not care or you are just copying factual info then have fun. We are not trying to police every tiny thing. I think in general when people quote other folks in their signature it "is" to cause issues or annoy them -- like a personal billboard that appears anywhere. In this case most of the time it ends up that this is not allowed.

Anyhow, I think I made sense but if not let me know.

That generally makes, but the gray area, which I know is not easy to always set clear guidelines, is what constitutes as deliberate mocking or baiting in a larger context of what someone has on their signature? If a member states their position on something, is it not factual to quote them? For example, if I said I don't like cheese, can someone not quote me on that without it being construed as mocking or baiting me?

Also, shouldn't most of the siggies that contain politically charged, derogatory pictures or text also fall under mocking or baiting?

IMO, short of anything that is outrageously disruptive to the general enjoyment of this site, what people put on their siggies should be permissible, especially with the fact that members have the option to individually block particular images or turn off signatures altogether. It just seems odd, that after years of seeing posts quoted (mine as well as others) in another member's siggie (quite often, in fact), that it has now become not only a violation of TOS, but warrants a suspension.

[^_^ 5,021]

... shouldn't most of the siggies that contain politically charged, derogatory pictures or text also fall under mocking or baiting?

I believe TOS prohibits mocking or baiting individual posters and posting demeaning content about groups like white people or gay people or women. Unless Ewok comes in and says political ideologies are also protected, I don't see how those siggies violate TOS. If Ewok says Democrats and Republicans and Greens and Socialists are also protected categories, then P&R will become a very interesting place.

P&R Today

Poster A: The Gulf of Mexico is covered by oil!

Poster B: Bush hates black people. In fact, all Republicans do.

Poster C: Katrina was last year, you stupid ####.

The new P&R

Poster A: The Gulf of Mexico is covered by oil!

Poster B: The Republican "southern strategy", borne under President Nixon, has come home to roost.

Poster C: With all due respect to my good friend Poster B, Katrina was last year.

I much prefer the style of P&R Today, don't you?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I believe TOS prohibits mocking or baiting individual posters and posting demeaning content about groups like white people or gay people or women. Unless Ewok comes in and says political ideologies are also protected, I don't see how those siggies violate TOS. If Ewok says Democrats and Republicans and Greens and Socialists are also protected categories, then P&R will become a very interesting place.

P&R Today

Poster A: The Gulf of Mexico is covered by oil!

Poster B: Bush hates black people. In fact, all Republicans do.

Poster C: Katrina was last year, you stupid ####.

The new P&R

Poster A: The Gulf of Mexico is covered by oil!

Poster B: The Republican "southern strategy", borne under President Nixon, has come home to roost.

Poster C: With all due respect to my good friend Poster B, Katrina was last year.

I much prefer the style of P&R Today, don't you?

I like your new proposal better. That would force folks to actually think about what they are saying, before they post. Oh, the novelty! More land mines please.

[TBoneTX 43,043]

force folks to actually think about what they are saying, before they post.

This would discriminate against ready-fire-aim posters (a protected group) who hate people, animals, and things (another protected group).

[^_^ 5,021]

This would discriminate against ready-fire-aim posters (a protected group) who hate people, animals, and things (another protected group).

Don't forget, we also hate wedgies (unless administered in Canandaigua, then it's ok, si man).

Edited January 6, 2011 by \

[Dan and Judy 614]

Don't forget, we also hate wedgies (unless administered in Canandaigua, then it's ok, si man).

Is that north or south of Candidiasis??

[TBoneTX 43,043]

Don't forget, we also hate wedgies (unless administered in Canandaigua, then it's ok, si man).

I believe that we have just been privvied to the Cliff's Notes version of T-Bone, gracias man.

Is that north or south of Candidiasis??

Candidly speaking, I don't know, but there is an actual disease called Camelpox. Edited January 7, 2011 by TBoneTX

[scandal 951]

We are not trying to police every tiny thing.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Darnell 8,478]

Is there a reason to quote another member in your signature, other than to bait, or humiliate that member?

Maybe -

for example -

to show some reverence for that other Member.

I've been quoted a few times these last 4 quarters, but you prolly not see it, was in upper level areas, on specific Immigration Issue and Topic.