Who edited my signature?

[phinsfan4life1]

I would like to know who and why a MOD felt it necessary to go in and edit my signature.

 

[Jt0323]

they probably did it because 1 it violated the TOS or 2 it was too big...

 

[byroan]

What was in your signature?

 

[wpgfishfan]

Mine was also edited. It said something to the effect

Who is gonna do our highlights now that Nublar7 is gone.

We could have had a PM if this was offensive

 

[dlockz]

Mine was also edited. It said something to the effect

Who is gonna do our highlights now that Nublar7 is gone.

We could have had a PM if this was offensive

I really hope that was not considered offensive.

 

[Mindwarp]

The signatures in question violated our TOS, as they contributed to off topic conversations, and, as such, were removed by an Administrator. In many posts that had nothing to do with highlights by Nublar7, or anything on the front page, people would see the signatures and start talking about a person who is no longer a registered member of this site.

 

[dlockz]

The signatures in question violated our TOS, as they contributed to off topic conversations, and, as such, were removed by an Administrator. In many posts that had nothing to do with highlights by Nublar7, or anything on the front page, people would see the signatures and start talking about a person who is no longer a registered member of this site.

I think you are taking a rather broad interpretation of the TOS, when you argue a signature violates because people will talk about Nublar7. Nublar was very well liked by alot of people on this site and that will not change because you censor him from a signature. I think the off topic convo should be dealt with instead of editing the signature. I am not trying to be inflammatory, I just think your take on the TOS is incorrect.


Added: February 1, 2004 - Avatars and signatures should not have any type of nudity or be too risqué, nor are they to contain violence. Basically, nothing sexually explicit or violent. However we also ask that you refrain from using bathing suit-type photos altogether for the purpose of promoting on-topic conversation. We believe this is fair as avatars and signatures are in every forum. In some forums these pictures may or may not be allowed. Thus, there should be no pictures, as stated above, in one's avatar or signature. However, images such as stated in the above may be posted in The Ladies Lounge.

Added: January 15, 2005 - You are permitted one photo per signature. Please keep the dimensions within the 400x300 pixel range and below 40k in size. Exceptions can be made if a signature is wider than 400 pixels, but much shorter than 300 pixels in height (a banner for example). Not only does this make for a sleeker, less congested forum, but it also helps visitors who are limited to 56K dialup connections. Added: January 23, 2006 – The use of quotes from other members in your signature in a derogatory or inflammatory manner is not allowed. This creates bad feelings among fellow members, and is considered a personal attack. Added:14 February 2006 - Politically oriented Sig and Avatars are not permitted. This tends to distract from discussions, much as a sexually explicit one would.



There is nothing in the TOS that backs your train of thought. I understand your arguement but that does not make it against TOS because it is not politically oriented in the truest sense. If you feel I am wrong please show me in the TOS where I am.

 

[NaboCane]

I think you are taking a rather broad interpretation of the TOS, when you argue a signature violates because people will talk about Nublar7. Nublar was very well liked by alot of people on this site and that will not change because you censor him from a signature. I think the off topic convo should be dealt with instead of editing the signature. I am not trying to be inflammatory, I just think your take on the TOS is incorrect.


Added: February 1, 2004 - Avatars and signatures should not have any type of nudity or be too risqué, nor are they to contain violence. Basically, nothing sexually explicit or violent. However we also ask that you refrain from using bathing suit-type photos altogether for the purpose of promoting on-topic conversation. We believe this is fair as avatars and signatures are in every forum. In some forums these pictures may or may not be allowed. Thus, there should be no pictures, as stated above, in one's avatar or signature. However, images such as stated in the above may be posted in The Ladies Lounge.

Added: January 15, 2005 - You are permitted one photo per signature. Please keep the dimensions within the 400x300 pixel range and below 40k in size. Exceptions can be made if a signature is wider than 400 pixels, but much shorter than 300 pixels in height (a banner for example). Not only does this make for a sleeker, less congested forum, but it also helps visitors who are limited to 56K dialup connections. Added: January 23, 2006 – The use of quotes from other members in your signature in a derogatory or inflammatory manner is not allowed. This creates bad feelings among fellow members, and is considered a personal attack. Added:14 February 2006 - Politically oriented Sig and Avatars are not permitted. This tends to distract from discussions, much as a sexually explicit one would.



There is nothing in the TOS that backs your train of thought. I understand your arguement but that does not make it against TOS because it is not politically oriented in the truest sense. If you feel I am wrong please show me in the TOS where I am.

On the contrary, the highlighted part indicates the intent of the restriction on sigs that promote off-topic discussion and disrupt thread subjects.

If the intent is to curtail off-topic discussion from one source, why would it logically be any different for any other source?

 

[byroan]

The next rule in the TOS clearly covers the Off Topic violations that Mindwarp referred to.

 

[dlockz]

The next rule in the TOS clearly covers the Off Topic violations that Mindwarp referred to.

The rule applies to posts not signatures.

 

[byroan]

The rule applies to posts not signatures.

No, The rule applies to the entire site. At the top of the TOS. It states:

It has come to my attention that FinHeaven & Co should create a governing policy for our message boards.

 

[Mindwarp]

The rule applies to posts not signatures.

its funny how anytime there is a question something your the one in here that needs EVERYTHING spelled out for you.

Guess what when you post something, your signature is part of your post. let me look at my post in this thread.. yup there it is my signature.

 

[dlockz]

On the contrary, the highlighted part indicates the intent of the restriction on sigs that promote off-topic discussion and disrupt thread subjects.

If the intent is to curtail off-topic discussion from one source, why would it logically be any different for any other source?

The highlighted part refers to political signatures. The off topic posts should be the one dealt with. Thats like saying my signature is wrong because I am implieing that the other Dolphan Qb's sucked and people are responding to my signature. This is your logic and I think that your thinking is somewhat right but really the TOS does not really cover this issue on signatures.

 

[dlockz]

its funny how anytime there is a question something your the one in here that needs EVERYTHING spelled out for you.

Guess what when you post something, your signature is part of your post. let me look at my post in this thread.. yup there it is my signature.

whatever Mindwarp. The TOS specifically addresses Signatures in its own section and even added the verbage on political sigs. Your a mod and you are going to do whatever you like but that does not make you correct. So spell out what you need but I have no problem with my reading comprehension. This is your implied interpretation of the rules, definately not clear cut according to the TOS.

 

[dlockz]

No, The rule applies to the entire site. At the top of the TOS. It states:

Yea, it states a governing policy and your point is _________.