Religious Signatures

[The Vorpal Tribble]

In light of the approaching holiday I temporarily changed my signature.

I've been mailed however and told that I'm not supposed to be quoting religious material.

Is it literally a rule somewhere I've missed that I cannot use a biblical quote in my signature? Especially one relating to Christmas?

[Adghar]

Inappropriate Topics
The following topics are always off-limits on these forums, no matter what (hence, Inappropriate Topics). Any posts including these topics will be edited, and any threads started to discuss these topics will be locked.

* Real-world religions (including religious reactions to Gaming)
* Real-world politics
* Graphic violence
* Illegal drugs
* Criminal activity
* Explicit sexuality (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=news;action=display;num=1133174775)

[Rawhide]

*snip*

Re: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Religious parodies are OK for discrete linkage, just not discussion. A thread talking about HOW the CoFSM pokes fun at religion will get locked. A link to it in a signature will not. You can link discretely to the website of the Vatican or some other religious group in your signature, too, as long as your link is clearly marked and not labeled, say, "Check out my new prestige class". Ultimately, if your link is properly labelled, it's the problem of the person who clicks on it if they don't like the content, not us.

Likewise, a signature quote by someone who happens to be a religious figure (i.e. Mother Theresa) is fine, as long as that quote is not actual scripture or exhortation to convert/accept a specific religion. A thread discussing a scriptural quote will be locked.Quote from The Giant (emphasis mine).

[Wukei]

Thank you! I was looking for that and knew there was something about quoting scripture itself. I just couldn't find it. You're so good, Rawhide.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

So though I'm not trying to convert anyone, using a single biblical name, and its a week from Christmas...

Oh well, I'm not directly quoting anyway so it should be alright. Maybe i'll make it smaller so I don't 'offend' anyone with delicate sensibilities.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Comrade Gorby: As the specific quote from Rich clearly states, quotes of religious scripture are not allowed. Your current sig is a quote of Isaiah 9:6, though with a few words omitted (you should have an ellipse in there), and thus violates that rule. Please change your sig post haste, and expect a PM shortly.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

http://boards1.wizards.com/images/smilies/dozey.gif

For what its worth my opinion of these forums have gone down a notch or three.

Changed.

Happy Ramahanukwanzmas everyone!

[Wukei]

The whole thing about religion has been on these forums since practically day one. I don't know why you would have thought that would change...

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I didn't think it would change or anything. However, you yourself couldn't find the exact rule about signatures and I myself never saw it at all.

[Wukei]

Well I knew it was there, and tried to tell you so. You completely ignoring me was not my fault.

But rules are rules. I don't argue against them. Rich has done everyone a favour by allowing a forum, at all. And all of the moderators are voluntarily here. So give 'em a break. They need it.

[SilverElf4]

I was the one who asked the original question that Rawhide quoted the answer to Trib. Despite what Wukei says, its a new ruling. Incidentally Wukei, congrats on the Vigilante Moderating - I think that's against the rules too isn't it? ::)

Anyway, I didn't have a problem with the answer, mainly because it leaves you lots of room to do this:

Isaiah 9:6 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Isaiah+9%3A6)

That's perfectly legit, according to the rules. You can name the link anything, so long as, according to Mr. Burlew, its not misleading - ie, don't put "Look Here for Free Candy" or some such... :P

ETA:
Rich has done everyone a favour by allowing a forum, at all.

Actually I seem to recall that the forum allowed Rich to post his comic as a favor originally, not the other way around, according to a recent post by RawBear that I now cannot find...but that is neither here nor there...

[Zherog]

Despite what Wukei says, its a new ruling.

You would, of course, be incorrect. What Rich gave you recently was a clarification of a rule that has been around here from the start.


Actually I seem to recall that the forum allowed Rich to post his comic as a favor originally

Considering Rich owns everything here, I guess you could say he did himself a favor? ::)

[RawBearNYC]

Actually I seem to recall that the forum allowed Rich to post his comic as a favor originally, not the other way around, according to a recent post by RawBear that I now cannot find...but that is neither here nor there...
The comic wasn't part of Rich's original vision for the site. His original plan was to optimize on his successes in the WOTC setting design contest (one of the runners up - or runner ups). But it was his site, so there was no favor involved.

[SilverElf4]

You would, of course, be incorrect. What Rich gave you recently was a clarification of a rule that has been around here from the start.


I disagree, based on the simple fact that if that were true, then, as in my example, all of the FSM signatures would have been disallowed from the start for violating the original rule. The fact that they were not though indicated that they did not fall under the old rule, and a new ruling was in order. Just my 2 cents...

Thanks for the clarification RawBear.

[Zherog]

Funny that the quote from Rich in this thread says FSM is OK. You know, that could be why nobody had problems with it before.

The no real relgiion rule has been around at least as long as I have.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Comrade Gorby: The primary concern here was not so much the scriptural signature, but the decision to ignore or attempt to circumvent the rules about such signatures.

If you want to try something and are unsure whether or not it violates the rules, please PM a mod or ask a question in the New Rules Questions (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=news;action=display;num=1133180011;s tart=0) thread. However, once relevant rules have been pointed out, ignoring them is in and of itself a problem - in fact, it may very well be considered a "mea culpa" offense, which nets two warnings.

As for Vigilante Modding, I suggest that everyone take a very close look at the rules on that:

Vigilante Modding
If you’re not a moderator, don’t act like one. Rich has selected a few people he trusts to keep an eye on conversations here. Please refrain from chastising other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things. The proper response when you see someone breaking these rules is a PM to the local moderator. At most, you may courteously link to this thread. But whatever you do, do not tell other posters what to do, what rules they have broken, that they are "spamming", etc. Posters who do so excessively will be issued a warning for their actions.
To be perfectly clear, the correct response to something you think may be against the rules is to either a) politely link to the rules thread (as Adghar and Rawhide did) or b) contact a moderator. I would strongly suggest taking option B.

Also, if you're not a moderator, it is not your place to assess how problematic a specific rules violation is - that's up to the mods. In other words, you do not get to decide if a rule violation is bad enough to get someone in trouble over; the mods are the ones who decide what the appropriate response to a specific violation should be. Look, we aren't going out of our way to issue official warnings here; if we issue one, then the offense was bad enough to warrant it, no matter what your take on it was.

I hope that gets people on the same page. And I stress this final point: read the rules completely and carefully. Ignorance of a rule is not a viable defense for violating one. Again, if you think something might be a problem, ask a mod first. We won't warn you for asking.

(Though, if you ask and ignore what a mod said, or say "I may be violating the rules, but I'm going to do this anyways," you're going to earn at least two warnings - one for violating the rule, and one for either ignoring a mod or a mea culpa offense.)

[The Vorpal Tribble]

And I stress this final point: read the rules completely and carefully. Ignorance of a rule is not a viable defense for violating one.
I did read them completely and carefully and never saw it. I personally find it an extraordinarily senseless rule that you cannot put a sentence from the Bible related to Christmas a week from said holiday with it referencing no names, preaching nothing, and not forcing views upon anyone and getting a Warning because of it.

Rules should be taken into consideration with the circumstances.

I did not know how serious it was, and had misread it that you can't put a full quote and I was just using two parts of one.


(Though, if you ask and ignore what a mod said, or say "I may be violating the rules, but I'm going to do this anyways," you're going to earn at least two warnings - one for violating the rule, and one for either ignoring a mod or a mea culpa offense.)
I was, in fact, waiting for a ruling by a certified mod before I took any actions. I didn't know any who had answered me were mods. Certainly nothing to let me know by just looking at them.

Yet now I have two official warnings for the price of one because I was skeptical, as I have never ever had a problem with this before. Even on the Wizards forum where anything even approaching religion or politics is quickly shut down, still allows you to put such things as a simple scripture in a signature.

Your reactions to this is confusing and rather extreme when all you could have said was say 'Yes, its official, now change it' and be done with it. Nor do I care for words being put in my mouth and being blown all out of proportion. But now I got two warnings under my belt for something most folks probably don't know about, and even those that have been here for years have difficulty finding it.

Scripture in a signature doesn't even approach, say, racist remarks or 'hatespeech' yet it is under the same category.

I meant nothing by my signature, nor did I mean to circumvent anything despite your claims to the contrary.

There, I'm finished. I was just going to drop it till I read the accusations being made.

[Zherog]

I don't know if you want advice or not, VT, but I'm going to give you some anybody. Take this as being from somebody who has spent an inordinate amount of time on D&D themed message boards over the past 4 years.

You might very well have a valid point that you don't really deserve two warnings over this incident. You might not. In either case, though, I'd advise you to take it up with the mods in private. If you keep things private, and keep them civil, you'll find most of the time moderators are willing to at the minimum listen to you, and offer you further explanations. You might not convince them to reverse their decision; heck, you might not even get an answer you find satisfactory. But I can tell you there's a far better chance of either of those two happening in private.

In private, a moderator can say things that can't be said in public. The other problem you have is that by doing things in public, you've drawn a proverbial line in the proverbial sand. Those sort of things never go well.

So there's a little bit of advice. You don't have to listen to it, of course. But I thought I'd toss it out there, in the off chance it could help you out a bit. :)

[RawBearNYC]

I don't know if you want advice or not, VT, but I'm going to give you some anybody. Take this as being from somebody who has spent an inordinate amount of time on D&D themed message boards over the past 4 years.

You might very well have a valid point that you don't really deserve two warnings over this incident. You might not. In either case, though, I'd advise you to take it up with the mods in private. If you keep things private, and keep them civil, you'll find most of the time moderators are willing to at the minimum listen to you, and offer you further explanations. You might not convince them to reverse their decision; heck, you might not even get an answer you find satisfactory. But I can tell you there's a far better chance of either of those two happening in private.

In private, a moderator can say things that can't be said in public. The other problem you have is that by doing things in public, you've drawn a proverbial line in the proverbial sand. Those sort of things never go well.

So there's a little bit of advice. You don't have to listen to it, of course. But I thought I'd toss it out there, in the off chance it could help you out a bit. :)
Advice like that might, also, be better delivered through PM, rather than on a thread. Of course, i debated sending this advice that way, because I would like people to consider participating in more drama-filled discussions out of the eye of the general public, so this falls more into the realm of "general request to take advantage of PM's for such discussions."

[Zherog]

I certainly pondered delivering the advice through PM. In the end, though, I decided others may benefit from it by making it in public. *shrug*

[fryer1]

It's interesting for me reading the whole thread for the first time, seeing what people have put. I think that if a mod says something about anything you have done, or what anyone else has for that matter, you should just accept it, no fuss at all. The mods, as i'm sure many people have already said, are here voluntarily and all that, and they are just trying to keep the boards acceptable and clean for the enjoyment of everyone else.

[SilverElf4]

Wow...well while we're here and on the topic, I'll follow the Mod's advice regarding your signature, fryer1:


Circumventing the Board filters
If a poster attempts to circumvent the board's language filter in order to post profane or obscene content, their post will be modified and they will be issued a warning. This includes masking (using non-letter characters in place of letters). (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=news;action=display;num=1133174775)


Funny that the quote from Rich in this thread says FSM is OK. You know, that could be why nobody had problems with it before.

If posts include sigs, and it should be clear even from this thread alone that they do, then FSM clearly violates the above rule in two capacities:
The following topics are always off-limits on these forums, ...
Real-world religions (including religious reactions to Gaming)

Real-world politics


However, nothing was ever done about them. Hence a question on my part. Result: Such inappropriate topics can be a part of the signature so long as they are only a link to the material, and not the actual material itself. I can see how it could understand as a clarification of the Innappropriate Topics rule, but I think it stands apart enough to be considered a seperate rule, particularly since it states, for the first time when and how such topics are allowed in posts.

[theKOT]

I don't understand. I saw a user with a signature that went something like, "Thog: he's smarter than our current president!" yet the person was never warned or anything. Why is that acceptable? Isn't that real world politics?

[Ego Slayer]

Well, if this poster was a forum lurker than probably not too many people/mods saw it.

[Samiam303]

I don't understand. I saw a user with a signature that went something like, "Thog: he's smarter than our current president!" yet the person was never warned or anything. Why is that acceptable? Isn't that real world politics?
Yeah, I can say with confidence that I never saw that siganture. Just becuase you saw it doesn't mean that action wasn't takin since.

[Samiam303]

Allright, well anyway that's the sort of thing you should report to a mod. They can't be expected to be reading every post at once, and although I'm sure they will find it eventually, reporting it privately speeds things up and makes it easier for them.

[RawBearNYC]

I don't understand. I saw a user with a signature that went something like, "Thog: he's smarter than our current president!" yet the person was never warned or anything. Why is that acceptable? Isn't that real world politics?
Gorbash caught this and asked the poster to change their sig.

In the future, if you see something like this, if you read the rules of posting, we state that we PREFER that you message one of us mods directly rather than posting about it.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

What RawBear said, only doubly so :P I caught it entirely by accident yesterday, but if a mod had been PMed about it, it could have been taken care of then.

We're only human, and there's a lot of traffic on these boards - if you see something you think may be in violation of the rules, please PLEASE PM a mod.

[theKOT]

Actually, I had been wondering, since the signature was still there, if it was for some reason allowable. Next time I will PM a mod right away. Sorry.

[Tzor]

We can't quote scripture in our sigs? :o
...
Oh you meant "Sacred Scripture." ;D
...
My quote of the BoVD (aka the Gospel of Monte) remains safe. :P

Alternate definition of scripture, "a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative." So technically the SRD is scripture even though it's not "sacred."