A clever way to state what issue? As far as I know the majority of signatures used on any forum are taken at face value. The same way a company logo tells you at a glance what/who you are dealing with. Ask yourself this: Do I follow each and every link in a signature? Do I, with intent, investigate whether a pictorial sig contains a link, or do I look at it and take it at face value?

I object (obviously pretty strongly) to this signature, even with the newly added information, because the image is so strong. Just one glance and it tells you a story, not a very good story in my view. Lilshu states the following:

I did some checking with a few friends, in the Netherlands, the US, the UK and a few in Germany, and as you can guess all of those I contacted are in the group targeted by said bumper sticker. Lilshu might think he 'adresses a problem', I can tell you for a fact those who are subject of this 'remark' do not share that sentiment. The least strong remark I received could be described as 'you can call it counter productive'. The more militant remarks wouldn't bode well for Lilshu's physical well being.

There is a very big difference between intent and actual result. My day-time job revolves around something called design. I work with, for the lack of a better description, 'visual intent'. What you present to a client has to have an impact, what you present to his/her customers has to have an impact. Basically what it means is this: The first impression has to be so strong it 'blows the customer away'.

All hinges on the first impression, and that is exactly what is wrong with this sig: The impression it gives is the pic... not the explanation given in hind-sight after I blogged about it. A clever way? Nope, because it doesn't state an issue. The image does the work, albeit in a profoundly negative way. It is demeaning, hurtfull, discriminating, inviting abuse, and a whole host of other negative connotations. Not breaking rules? I don't think so.

Maybe you could have PMed them? I think you'll find you're fairly influential.

Of course, but should the report have no effect (which is partially why, I assume, you have posted this topic), a few private words could possibly help before making this into a forum-wide thing.

Again, sorry to say this, but that is not the way I think a forum should work. I feel strongly enough about this to have it public. It is my experience that keeping things behind closed door is sure to back-fire. I don't like closed doors, and I feel this should be forum wide. The basic thing I am arguing about is this: Does a picture paint a thousend words? Apparently the moderator team doesn't think so, I do.

Like I said in the quoted part: First impressions are what drives us. Look at it this way, when you meet someone for the first time you instantly like or dislike. A large part of that reaction is based on visual information. The same holds true for advertising, design, television, you name it. I don't object to the reasoning behind the sig, my problem is with the picture.

Ask yourself this: Do I follow each and every link in a signature? Do I, with intent, investigate whether a pictorial sig contains a link, or do I look at it and take it at face value?

The only thing in all you said I completely agree with: Yes, you are an idiot.

Does anyone click the link on my signature image?

I apologize if my signature offended you- it was certainly not my intentions. My intentions, rather, were to bring up an entire history of people being murdered simply for being gay, as well as the American courts' common total denial of anything wrong with that. (But of course, if people haven't been clicking that link, I suppose my point's rather moot.)

If it really bothers you I will happily remove it. I wish you had come to me first rather than making a blog entry attacking me.

No.


If anyone wants the full story behind that, I was driving downtown and saw a bumper sticker that said something like "Kill a queer for Christ." The guy who was with me had no idea that there are people who actually kill homosexuals because of Christianity. I was trying to enlighten anyone here who didn't know about the persecution gays have faced in America, because it seems to be a largely unknown topic. (At least to the extremes people go with it. They realize that a lot of people don't like gays, but they don't realize people take it upon themselves to either end their productive life, or end their life period.) So, I posted the picture of a related bumper sticker, and linked it to a history of violence against the LGBT community.

But that's okay. I guess I'm just an idiot.

Kuepmer's comment was that the moderator team was treating me unfairly, which doesn't really hit any nail with any hammer. The slogan itself has a very pertinent "why" behind it- the link to a very serious article discussing the problem of unjust and violent treatment of LGBT people. So far, only two people I know of haven't clicked the link and understood they "why," you being one of them. It was not my intention of misleading anyone, or creating any false thoughts about my beliefs, so I've gone ahead and added a few sentences explaining exactly what I was getting at.



Complaining? I simply commented that some people apparently haven't followed it.


Assuming that it was a bumper sticker, had a link to a site describing lynchings of Blacks, and had a full reason for posting that, I don't see any problem. People wouldn't view it offensively, people would view it as a stark reminder of what has happened. Out of several homosexuals on this forum, you were the only one who took any offense to it. The rest appreciated the sentiment, and some even congratulated me on making it known. I didn't find anything offensive by it, so I was honestly surprised you found it at all offensive when I first read your blog entry, and your report. But honestly, it looked like you didn't see the link, and was basing it solely off the slogan. If someone were to just have a slogan with absolutely no explanation, than I agree, something should be done to amend that. But this isn't the case with my signature.



I'm trying to be a pleasant person in this Simple, I know it's upset you greatly. But please, respond to me with the same courtesy I am sharing with you... So far, I have heard the opinions of every single moderator. None of them find it against the rules. None of them. No forum member would be in trouble if he had my signature. None. You say it's discrimination? I am discriminating against no one. I am not making any claims against any group of people- in fact, you'll find all of my posts are strictly against discriminating groups based on race or sexual orientation. I am not discriminating. I am bringing to light a very serious topic, in a very straightforward way that I find people need to know about. The only commentary I am making through my signature (previous version, and new version) is that the LGBT community is often treated down right despicably, and that people need to be aware of how bad it is.

There are no Sal's rules that I know of that are broken by my signature. I say that with backing from the moderation team. You may not agree with the presentation I have chosen, but I haven't broken rules, and I am not receiving special excuses to break rules because I am a moderator.


I am not attacking you in the least, and you are attacking me with almost every word you write. Please do not flame bait me, please...

So, first you say that having it there without any explanation and anything of the sorts is sure to convey a bad message (you did say that in PM), and now that an explanation is added and the person in question has directly apologised and explained himself you bring this up again without a change of argument?

The only explanation possible for this is that this is just an argument for the sake of having an argument. Not unlike a similar signature issue a while ago...

For "face value" there's the sentence below the signature.
There is now, it wasn't there before, as you know. That said, it isn't about the meaning of this sig, it is about the picture.

Also, I can't help but wonder why you didn't bring up the actual signature bearer's comment in this thread...

And on a final note, how can you complain about people breaking rules when you yourself address them like Ah well, your brought it here, I didn't. Still I'll respond to it: I agreed with him when he called himself an idiot.

EDIT: I also wonder how you hadn't anything to complain about my own so far. Isn't it ALSO discriminative, just to religious people?
Guess it is hard to believe: I don't read sigs, thus I can hardly comment on a discriminative nature of it. But, I guess not willingly, you made it clear why I think a picture paints a thousand words...

EDIT AGAIN: quoting the person in question's comments.





*emphasis mine except on the words "all", "very", and the Scates quote.

And as I have already said, if taking a comment at face value was an effective moderation criterion, we'd have half of the debate board banned. You know very well that there are moderators that do a lot to fight any kind of discrimination, and a j'accuse like this is only bound to create even MORE strife. You may get what you wish in the end, but that'll be a Phyrric victory.

Besides that, "Is a picture in a signature allowed when the content of said picture is in violation of Sal's rules" - it isn't in violation of the rules if explained and/or warned...see Vera's thread in the Website/forum suggestions board.

I don't think a signature is in any way, shape or form compareable with the debate room. People know what to expect when entering a debate. A confronting picture is very, very different from a debate, as you well know.

Discrimination1:

Discrimination of any kind is not allowed here, including discrimination based on anyone's religious, sexual or other personal beliefs, or ethnicity, gender, language, social condition, or anything else.

To me, when I see that signature, the only thing that goes through my head is "Serious Christians who believe that are morons". Honestly, lighten up a bit, this is an internet forum and I doubt it was intended to be malicious, although I can see how it is insulting.

Although I agree with you, that the said signature does in fact violate this rule:

How is it discrimination? It seemed to me to be against it. Hell, I could find discrimination in Simple's sig.

-All you need to do for the environment is do nothing-

The LGBT community faces a shocking amount of prejudice and hatred, even today. 12 year olds are killed for being effeminate. People are murdered for holding hands with their loved one- and some judges couldn't care less.

Against environmentalists.


Sounds anti-discriminatory to me.

Against environmentalists.

Guess your english isn't very good. The moment you do nothing the environment benefits...

As for the second part, you really should read the first post a little better. What I reported was the picture... The signature consisted of only the picture with the embedded link when I reported it. The explanatory senctence was added after I blogged about it.

Because it says that the only "right" homosexuals have under "God's law" is the "right to die".

That screams blatantly, discrimination against homosexuals all over it, doesn't it?

The explanatory senctence was added after I blogged about (and reported) it.

Doesn't that mean that the situation has been amended then?

I mean: you complained about it, and that's very well within your rights to do so. He complied with your request by adding an explanatory sentence. What else can anyone wish for?

Actually, I do think that all of this would have never happened if the person in question wasn't a moderator.