# My Sig Removed?



## Hardhead (Mar 23, 2004)

I noticed today that my sig picture was gone.  At first I thought my bandwidth had been exceeded, which it had, so I uploaded it to another server I have an account on and I was about to add it again, when I noticed that the  thing was no longer in my sig at all, and it occured to me that an admin might have removed it or something.  However, I would think that I would have gotten a PM or an email if this was the case.  But I didn't (unless my spam filter caught it).  Anyway, what's the dealio?  To refresh your memory, it was:

[img]http://www.zachshuford.com/rummyfinal.jpg

(Note that I'm just posting it here as an example, I haven't added it back to my sig yet).


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2004)

I dunno if they did remove it, but I wouldn't be surprised.  I think that sig counts as politics, which are not an accepted topic hereabouts.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 23, 2004)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> However, I would think that I would have gotten a PM or an email if this was the case.  But I didn't (unless my spam filter caught it).




Hardhead - you can't receive PMs unless you're a Community Supporter, but Piratecat tried emailing you at the address in your profile, and it bounced.  He also dropped you a message in another thread asking you to contact him, but it must have slipped past as well.

The mods agreed that the sig was inappropriate for EN World's policy on politics.

If you would like to discuss the matter privately, feel free to email Piratecat about it.  (The address in _his_ profile works  )

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Hardhead (Mar 23, 2004)

Wow.  I didn't realize the email in my profile was so ancient.  I haven't used that one in years.  I've got it updated now.  Future tries to contact with me should be met with more sucess.  

Anyway, I personally don't think it counts as politics because the "message" isn't political.  I don't think there really is a message, now that I think about it.   I mean, if it'd been a picture of someone apolitical like (for example) Tiger Woods that had his hands in a position that lended to photoshoping, with some funny-out-of-context quote it wouldn't have been off-limits.  Yet, I submit that such a sig would not have been any more political.  A picture of Clinton playing the saxophone or George Washington crossing the Deleware are not political images, they are merely images of politicians.

I would also like to point out that the occasional "uplifiting religious quote" sig is generally not baned on account of the "no religion" rule.

But, my piece being said, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.  While I am argumentative at heart, I don't think arguing my case will do any good, and even if it did, it probably wouldn't be worth the time.  I generally end up making new sig files every so often anyway, and though I hadn't tired of my beautiful Rummy casting Fireball, I'm sure I can come up with something else.

I'm thinking, Dick Cheney stabbing Mohammad to death.

Just kidding!


----------



## Darkness (Mar 23, 2004)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> Anyway, I personally don't think it counts as politics because the "message" isn't political.



 I think the '666' signs floating around Rummy didn't exactly help.


----------



## Hardhead (Mar 23, 2004)

> I think the '666' signs floating around Rummy didn't exactly help.




Hmmmmm.  Good point.  In my defense, the numbers were already there.  Do a google images search for "fireball spell," and you'll find the original source pretty quick.  Admitedly, they're 99s there, but when I rotates the picture, they turned into 66s.  Editing them out was more troube than it was worth, so I added an extra 6 because 666 is funnier than 66.  I also then completly forgot about that part.    But yeah, point taken.  

However, I doubt the image would be OK if I took the numbers out (mods, correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll be happy to do the extra work and edit them out).


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2004)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> However, I doubt the image would be OK if I took the numbers out...




I doubt it too, for a number of reasons.

First off, you say you're trying to be funny.  But political figure + comedy = political statement.  Like it or not. 

Second, even without the numbers, it's a picture of a guy who is involved in a notable and politically divisive war.  Even if you take out the numbers, he's still sending forth a ball of fire and giving some flim-flam comments (remember that quotes out of context do not lose all meaning to the reader, and when connected with Rummy, such words are note entirely out of context, are they?).  All together, under current conditions, it is hard to believe that you are not trying to say something political.  If you really didnt want to, you would have used Tiger, rather than Rummy, hm?  Rummy is funnier _because_ he's political, no?

And, even if you personally had no policial message in mind, that's insufficient.  Your intent is half, the other half is how people are likely to read it.  One diehard conservative on these boards has a bad day and sees that sig, and what do you expect is going to happen?  Tea and crumpets?  

The "no politics and no religion" rules are there to keep the peace.  That's a big honkin' pic, and it's likely to cheese someone off.  As for religous quotes in other sigs - gotta take care of the beam in your own eye before dealing with the splinter in another's hm?


----------



## Hardhead (Mar 23, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I doubt it too, for a number of reasons.
> 
> First off, you say you're trying to be funny.  But political figure + comedy = political statement.  Like it or not.




I disagree, but I see where you're coming from.



> Second, even without the numbers, it's a picture of a guy who is involved in a notable and politically divisive war.  Even if you take out the numbers, he's still sending forth a ball of fire and giving some flim-flam comments (remember that quotes out of context do not lose all meaning to the reader, and when connected with Rummy, such words are note entirely out of context, are they?).  All together, under current conditions, it is hard to believe that you are not trying to say something political.  If you really didnt want to, you would have used Tiger, rather than Rummy, hm?  Rummy is funnier _because_ he's political, no?




Mainly, it's because Rummy is an animated guy when he talks.  His hands are all over the place.  (There's a funny page out there called "Rumsfeld Fighting Techniques" that highlights this).  He just has poses that lend to photoshoping.



> And, even if you personally had no policial message in mind, that's insufficient.  Your intent is half, the other half is how people are likely to read it.  One diehard conservative on these boards has a bad day and sees that sig, and what do you expect is going to happen?  Tea and crumpets?




I'll concede that statement is a good point

Anyway, I have a new, non-political sig which I like almost as much.  So I guess all's well that ends well.


----------



## the Jester (Mar 23, 2004)

Hardhead- I really liked your old sig.  Also, Rummie's face- his eyes look like they're rolling back in his head, and he's in an eldritch trance or something.  Hilarious.  However, on reflection, I have to agree with Umbran's points.  

I sometimes think that people are a bit too thin-skinned here, but then I remind myself that the quality of the community is as high as it is in part because we all avoid poking each other in tender areas.  I have often found myself reading over a post that I've written (but not yet actually posted) and editing out bits that I discover go too close to the line for me.  I try to be a model ENWorld citizen, but there have been two incidents when I feel, in retrospect, that I was out of line (the first time I encouraged a troll thread and I think some people really got offended, and for the other time I apologize again to mythusmage).  I try hard not to step over the line; I don't want to offend the members of this community.  I _love_ this community.  I think it's worth being extra careful not to offend (when it comes to areas like religion and politics).


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 23, 2004)

We love you anyways, Hardhead.  

I tried a couple of times to get your attention, but I suppose no real harm done. I'm just sorry that it caught you by surprise.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 23, 2004)

if it makes you feel any better i lost part of my sig a little over a year ago too.   

something about it being too political. 


edit: you can find it here: http://www.enworld.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6647&stc=1&thumb=1


----------



## Gez (Mar 23, 2004)

I noticed a "Mormonism: the Gathering" sig disappearing too. I don't remember who had it, but I saw it once, and found it quite funny -- but also totally out-of-place on ENW.

This kind of little incidents is quite frequent. Usually, it's nothing actually bad, but still misplaced -- and if they were allowed to run rampant, it would change ENW's ambiance dramatically, allowing for people to go always a little bit farther in controversial topics, until you reach the level where really offensive sigs/posts are made. 

When you notice this kind of things, you understand better the load of work put on moderators' shoulders.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 23, 2004)

I recently removed an avatar that was an animated gif from a porn movie, too -- along with a bouncing booby sig pic. It happens, but it's not usually a big deal. Trying to be deliberately peverse and "beat" the system results in a lot more moderator annoyance than an innocent mistake or misunderstanding now and again.

Diaglo, we asked you to get rid of the peace flag? Huh, I'm surprised by that. I know that there were lots of other political flags and messages at the time that we were cracking down on, though, and it might have gotten caught in the crossfire.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 23, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Diaglo, we asked you to get rid of the peace flag? Huh, I'm surprised by that. I know that there were lots of other political flags and messages at the time that we were cracking down on, though, and it might have gotten caught in the crossfire.




yeah, i found it ironic at the time, since You sized it for me.


----------



## Darkness (Mar 23, 2004)

I distinctly remember a 'a simple flag is okay' policy.

We even let Tiefling keep his Iraqi flag, in fact.

Hm. That was for avatars, but I don't see why our standards for sigs should have been much different.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Mar 23, 2004)

Does that mean I cant have a sig saying "Vote for me in 2032?" :-D


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 24, 2004)

Can we have religious flame wars if we're just arguing over who's cooler: Shar or Mystra?


----------



## Ashwyn (Mar 24, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Can we have religious flame wars if we're just arguing over who's cooler: Shar or Mystra?



God I hope not.


----------



## Gez (Mar 24, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Can we have religious flame wars if we're just arguing over who's cooler: Shar or Mystra?




Auril, of course.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Mar 25, 2004)

Gez - I _love_ your custom title.   

So what is the policy on flags?  I'd like to put 2 in my sig (both small about 40X28).  Is that OK?


----------



## Douane (Mar 25, 2004)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> So what is the policy on flags?  I'd like to put 2 in my sig (both small about 40X28).  Is that OK?





Interested in this as well. Could I use my family's (non-political) flag?


Folkert


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2004)

Generally, a simple flag is OK - as long is has no political message attached.


----------



## Douane (Mar 25, 2004)

Thanks, Morrus!

Once I get a good scan of ours, I'll put it up for checking.


Folkert


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 25, 2004)

Personally I don't like it when people include big graphic sigs (or any graphic sigs). I don't want to turn .sigs off because I like to see the majority of them (which are text and funny/informative). I know that I can turn off all images but I'm loath to do that just because some people have images in their sigs.

Just ranting a little bit, nobody take any mind.  

Cheers!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Personally I don't like it when people include big graphic sigs (or any graphic sigs). I don't want to turn .sigs off because I like to see the majority of them (which are text and funny/informative). I know that I can turn off all images but I'm loath to do that just because some people have images in their sigs.
> 
> Just ranting a little bit, nobody take any mind.
> 
> Cheers!



I agree with you entirely.


----------



## Darkness (Mar 25, 2004)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> Gez - I _love_ your custom title.



 That's okay, as long as you don't forget to love mine.


----------

