Signatures and the TOS

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I reported the gist, not the words - just as you reported - incorrectly - the gist of a conversation you had with the moderators. I was correcting your misinformation.

[Chris_Жанна 11]

Doesn't that violate:

Post any information obtained or originally transmitted in confidence or with the implied belief that the message was to be kept in confidence without the express permission of the original author of the communication. Additionally any direct communication (with the exception of publicly viewable Posts on the discussion forums) between administrators or moderators and a member are strictly prohibited from being Posted to the discussion forums or retransmitted in any way. ???

How do you report a moderator lol?

Uhm..... It's getting hot in here

[john & jean 37]

I. B. S.

IN BEFORE SUSPENSIONS

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Sure okay, looks almost verbatum to me but whatever, I'm just a member. Anyway can you help give some clear guidelines on what violates TOS in a sig and doesn't because as long as its objectionable to a "group" like a religous group/ ethinic group etc, it seems like it is a TOS violation.

...and lol there aren't going to be any suspensions we are all friends here, i've really nothing against Kathyrn or Tay.

Edited October 11, 2009 by lancer1655

[Kathryn41 3,205]

No, there aren't going to be any suspensions. While the way the issue was brought up may not have been the best, the question is valid.

It is hard to define when something offensive steps over the border to become a TOS violation. Here on VJ we have a wide variety of backgrounds differing in countries of origin, religions, ethnic and cultural variations, political perspectives and age. It is almost impossible for someone to make a statement in reference to sensitive areas - especially religion and politics - without offending someone. The intent of a message is part of the consideration - some statements in signatures are meant to shock, to incite a strong reaction and its inclusion is there for that express purpose. Sometimes, the signature, comment or image is there as a personal statement or profession of a belief. It is always a balancing act to decide when one steps over the boundary of what is acceptable and what is offensive because we all have different standards of what we are willing to accept - and those standards vary from very conservative to very 'liberal' even in the same individual depending upon what area is in question - ie. religion, politics, etc. What is often used as a yardstick is what response does it invoke from a variety of different individuals? If there are a number of people who find the image or comment offensive then that can become the yardstick that is used to ask someone to change that image. If it appears abusive or for the purpose of shocking or creating angst or animosity, then the intent is not as a personal statement but as an instrument of instigation - that becomes a violation of TOS. You just have to keep in mind that some images that are offensive to some people will be seen as icons by others. There is no 'one size fits all'.

So, yes, there is a fair degree of subjectivity involved in deciding where that dividing line between acceptable and TOS violation is - and often it comes when the whole is looked at in context of intent, location and statement.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Kathryn41

[Jenn! 918]

as long as its objectionable to a "group" like a religous group/ ethinic group etc, it seems like it is a TOS violation.

The entire OT forum would need to be shut down due to TOS violation overload. The guidelines you pulled from the TOS are just that, guidelines, subject to personal judgment on a case-by-case basis by the moderating team (selected by the admin).

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Can you answer my question? edited because above comments were removed.

Edited October 11, 2009 by lancer1655

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The question was answered above (moderators get infinity time to edit lol.)

[Christi and Ian 24]

For what it's worth, I'm siding with the 1st Amendment...

And I constantly remind myself that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says anyone has a right to not be offended...

And it is the internet...everyone gets to mask themselves behind a virtual identity, which makes most everyone much bolder.

Now me? I'm just as loud and annoying in person...

I'm just sayin...

[SuperDuper! 230]

So then its 3 things?

1. Reference to a user

2. Pornography

3. Profanity

Anything else?

Suggestions or images of suicidal behavior. Not nice, and downright heartbreaking and offensive to the family survivors of a suicide completer. It is a selfish act, and nothing cool or sexy about it. Thanks.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So then its 3 things?

1. Reference to a user

2. Pornography

3. Profanity

Anything else?

Suggestions or images of suicidal behavior. Not nice, and downright heartbreaking and offensive to the family survivors of a suicide completer. It is a selfish act, and nothing cool or sexy about it. Thanks.

All I can say is play Persona 3, you'll find it a lot of fun

[rebeccajo 14]

So then its 3 things?

1. Reference to a user

2. Pornography

3. Profanity

Anything else?

Suggestions or images of suicidal behavior. Not nice, and downright heartbreaking and offensive to the family survivors of a suicide completer. It is a selfish act, and nothing cool or sexy about it. Thanks.

All I can say is play Persona 3, you'll find it a lot of fun

That's probably the most gratuitous comment I've ever seen on this site.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Is it? I think actions speak louder then words and as you can see I DID change my avatar immediately after his comment. Enough said I think.