Rule 17- Clarification

[Jenee]

Please read the whole post, before responding. Thank you


After much discussion, we have decided that Rule 17 is necessary and will stay in place, as it is written:

17. No inappropriate Signatures, Avatars, or messages within signatures Signatures or Avatars intentionally designed to cause direct or indirect offense towards the either the subject matter or to other members are not allowed.


That being said, we need to clarify one point: When the rule was first introduced, it was said that "all anti-banners" are now banned - in keeping with the spirit and letter of the rule, we are allowing anti-banners as long as they are not created to intentionally cause offense. If there are banners out there that offend someone, we ask members contact a mod or admin, and we will make a decision as to whether the banner/avatar/text falls under that elusive heading of "offensive".  There are enough diverse opinions on the mod/admin staff that we hope we are as objective as possible in any necessary evaluations.


We recognize that everyone should have a right to voice their opinion, be them positive or negative and we hope that all members will recognize each others' right to disagree with that opinion in a civil and mature manner.

Here is my rudimentary attempted at an anti-Kate banner that would be removed, if used by a member:



Here is an example of an acceptable anti-Kate banner:



Here is an example of a banner that would have to be reviewed if there were any complaints:

[wannable]

So I can use Chelsy in her bathing suit pics.

[Objective]

They are good example, Jenee. Thanks. :)

wannabe: I would say a resounding YES. :)

[Monika]

Jenee, IMO this is a rather complicated can of worms.   :)

IF negative banners are allowed, then they should be allowed.  Period.  And naturally that is up to the mods.  Once you get into how many complaints you get, etc, it really isn't a fair rule. 

Take for example all the anti Kate banners that were out there for so long.  I never complained about them to a mod although I did find some to be rather distasteful and immature.  Yet when I opted to use pictures of Chelsy (and not doctored mind you...all pics we've seen before) for a period of 24 hours, I got more than one comment online about it not being a nice sig. 

Personally I would think a ''yes or no'' rule would be much easier for the mods to deal with than one that's in the gray area. 

PS... I'd like to add a question if I may.  What anti banner isn't created to cause offense at SOME level?  I really don't understand that part of it.  :(   

[Objective]

Yes, I see your point Monika. It will become too open-ended, and cries of preferential treatment will surface etc. It will create more arguments than resolve anything.

[Lucy]

Please read the whole post, before responding. Thank you




Here is my rudimentary attempted at an anti-Kate banner that would be removed, if used by a member:

Go figure, that's the only one I would care to tolerate of the three.
It's so patently a Joke whilst the other two take swipes at her.

[Objective]

Apropos, Lucy. :)

I think the second one could be offensive, but not blatantly so. I think Kate knows better, and has enough of us to defend her. ;)

The third one is indeed offensive, IMO.

[agentblueberry]

Monika- The rule is set to allow the expression of both points of view. The reason that this rule was established was to set a limit to the tone of the
sigs. Thus eliminating any confusion and hopefully eliminating the amount of complaints seeing as there would be a set rule to refer to. Jenee provided excellent examples, and those should be the perimeters that everyone should stick to.

[Monika]

Oh, I understand the intended purpose of it.  I just think it's very subjective.  What is offensive to one person may not be to another.

[Jenee]

Obviously everyone will not be happy no matter what the decision is. But this is the decision so, case closed.