My Sig Removed?

[Hardhead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.