One thing I've noticed that has gone on for awhile here is that it seems flaming is acceptable when it's immortalized in a sig.
I'm gonna refrain from giving out names, but quite a few members here have quotes in their sig which directly address other members in a negative light. Or have quotes in their sig from one user who flamed another, names retained and everything. The sigs remain unchanged for months, so I assume no mod action is ever taken place. Hell, some mods themselves even have this kind of stuff in their sig.
My question is, what is the justification for this? Even if the quote is from the user himself, saying something the sigger (hehe, that word sounds funny) thought was ignorant. How is:
"Some brilliant words of advice from(insert user name)"
followed by a quote clearly chosen to make the quoted member appear foolish.
any different theoretically than saying "wow, you sounded really stupid" in a post responding the aforementioned quote?
Now, as of yet, I have no reason to be personally offended by this. As far as I know so far no one has quoted me in a negative light, yet. I guess I'm more playing devils advocate here in questioning why this sort of thing is acceptable so much as the mods themselves do it. But other forms of flaming are not.
Look, I'm going to level with you, I don't really consider quoting something a member has said as flaming. Even if the quote doesn't put the member in the nicest light. Some members quote things they think are insightful, others quote things they think are funny. I like to quote things that bring a smile to my face. And sentimentGX4 is a member who rarely fails to bring a smile to my face. Not because I think he's stupid or anything of the sort, I just think that some of the more radical things he says are hilarious. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but I kind of hope not.
I first sigged him after the Anna Nicole Smith Death thread debacle when I held firm that calling a woman a ***** shortly after her death was inappropriate at best and sentiment disagreed. That disagreement gave birth to the absolute funniest attack on my moral fiber I've ever taken. I couldn't not sig it.
Honestly, I've never gotten a complaint before. Not from staff, not from members and most importantly not from the member I'm quoting. Even though it's not intended to be a slight on him, if sentiment felt my sig crossed the line, I'd remove it and apologize. Although I'd like to think he sees it for what it is: preserving awesome snippets of funny for posterity.
im a proud member of the On-line campain for real english, If you believieve in capitol letters, and good spelling, and good sentense structure. than copy this in to you're signature.
i find you're signatare offensive
EDIT: I realize I need a little more meat to this post. I just find your statement to be hypocritical. I agree some people need to speak with stronger grammatical care, but you can not also expect to speak with perfect even good grammar at all times. Plus, you have to realize that the internets are is worldwide and it makes you ignorant to expect what you do.
Fair enough to what everyone has said. I'm not even saying I actually "disagree" with the policy of having such sigs.
I'm just questioning why inflammatory quotes in sigs are acceptable, yet actual "live" flaming is not.
And again, I'm not saying this from personal experience, I've never really had it happen to me. Although, knowing how people work I'm sure during the course of this thread someone is gonna do it, thinking it clever to spite me.
I see the logic in "If you don't want to get a stupid quote in someone's sig, don't post things that are stupid". But if we can agree that a "flame" is basically "intentionally saying something to make attack another user or bring him down". How would we define having such a sig, what would its purpose be if not to mock the user mentioned in the sig in some way.
@Mikey: While I do certainly admit that you were indeed the mod I was speaking of, and I can't say I entirely agree with your explanation. I do agree that it shouldn't be a problem unless the user or someone else complains about it.
However, regular flames are indeed infracted whether or not a person has complained or not.
@Jobie: Heh, seriously does my sig offend you. Or was that a joke sort of thing? If so, why?
I'm just questioning why inflammatory quotes in sigs are acceptable, yet actual "live" flaming is not.
If a member is inflamed because of a quote of themselves...well, you can't exactly be faulted for flaming yourself.
Besides, it doesn't really qualify as flaming. It's intended to be humorous, not hurtful. And it's the thought that counts.
If a member is inflamed because of a quote of themselves...well, you can't exactly be faulted for flaming yourself.
Besides, it doesn't really qualify as flaming. It's intended to be humorous, not hurtful. And it's the thought that counts.
But what if this humour comes at the expense of another? Lots of flames are indeed humourous but nevertheless hurtful to the person the flame was directed at.
And regarding the whole, "you can't be pissed about a bad sig if you said it yourself" thing. I do agree with that to an extent.
But again, if not to mock the poster publicly on some level, what would reason be to sig someone in such a way. Certainly mockery can be humourous, hell, it most often is.
What does quoting someone in your sig do? It draws attention to that quote. What is the difference between putting in my sig
Quote from Furor »
'Sup *****es, this is Furor comin' at ya. These be my bros Jigger, Marijuana Mike, and F-Stop. We be straight-up trippin', and you best believe it. Holla!
and
Quote from idiot poster »
hurr hurr i am idiot
?
In the first case, others will surmise that it is for the humour, and in the second, for scorn. But in both cases, I am still only drawing attention to the quote. There can be nothing wrong with simply highlighting something that someone else has said, and so properly quoting someone else can't be wrong - they did, after all, say it;
Quote from CynicalSquirrel »
If you don't want to get a stupid quote in someone's sig, don't post things that are stupid.
Incidentally, your sig reflects at least as much on you as it does on the one you have quoted.
I was attempting to show the hypocrisy within what you said.
Certainly anyone could be offended by anything. If I so chose, I could go so far as to say I was offended by someone's "currently playing" list in their sig.
It's not a matter of what is and isn't offensive, that's a rather shaky and hard to define line.
I'm more specifically talking about sigs where a specific member is addressed in a negative light.
But what can I say, it seems the majority doesn't really see any correlation between flaming and sigs intended to mock other users. And that's all I was wondering about, whether I was alone in seeing that correlation.
If that's the case, then so be it. Tis seriously not a major deal to me (or most of the other posters from what it seems) or anything, just more of a curious discussion.
I was attempting to show the hypocrisy within what you said.
You failed as all you are trying to do is insult people. You taka a quote and twisted it around for your own purpose of spitting in jolly's eye. Congrats.. You keep proving yourself to be one to dig at people.
For the purpose of discussion, would quoting an incendiary/infraction-worthy response to a quoted text be allowed?
For example:
" 'How is Yawgmoth's Will so good? I don't get it.'
What a complete n00b. Go back to school, moron."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
You failed as all you are trying to do is insult people. You taka a quote and twisted it around for your own purpose of spitting in jolly's eye. Congrats.. You keep proving yourself to be one to dig at people.
For being an "Anti-Drama Member", you sure cause a lot.
I mean, what? There's a line in Jolly's sig. Jobie quoted it without realizing the joke, attempting to be funny.
But in fact he was twisting quotes and "spitting in jolly's eye"? Where do you get this stuff?
For being an "Anti-Drama Member", you sure cause a lot.
I mean, what? There's a line in Jolly's sig. Jobie quoted it without realizing the joke, attempting to be funny.
But in fact he was twisting quotes and "spitting in jolly's eye"? Where do you get this stuff?
Actually I don't think he even missed the joke. I think we was saying that he felt it was offensive to ridicule people for not using proper grammar.
But really SapphireTri, why do you try and start things like this? At the very least, clarify what people are saying first.
Actually I don't think he even missed the joke. I think we was saying that he felt it was offensive to ridicule people for not using proper grammar.
But really SapphireTri, why do you try and start things like this? At the very least, clarify what people are saying first.
Not only would him saying it was offensive for me to "ridicule people for not using proper grammar" be besides the point.
In not getting the joke, he completely misunderstands the point of my sig. Which is in fact making fun of the people who DO ridicule others for not using proper grammar. I've always agreed that the whole "I'm part of the online campaign for proper grammar....." is pretty pompous.
Ya'll see that my sig is full of intentional spelling and punctuation errors, right?
If Job's intention was simply to point out some sort of hypocrisy, certainly his attempt was on false grounds. And in that regards becomes little more than a subtle jab that offers little to the conversation.
Back on subject. Again, I'm not specifically saying people shouldn't have the right to express potentially offensive statements or quotes in their sig.
I'm simply questioning why a personal attack delivered through a response to a post is infraction worthy, yet a blatant mockery of another user when put in a sig is acceptable.
For instance, and please Mikey, I don't mean this as an attack, simple playing devil's advocate here and making an example. Hell, I'm even making up a quote you didn't say as to not seem like I'm attacking anything you might have said. Anywho If I had something like this in my sig:
Some brilliant thoughts from MikeyG:
"I really think american idol is an intelligent and thought provoking program!"
And yes, you haven't actually said that. What I'm trying to express is that what would I be doing by putting that in my sig other then ridiculing your opinion publicly? If I had something like that in my sig, could I really write it off as "I don't mean to offend you at all, I just thought it was funny". That brings to question, what was funny about what you said? At face level, there's nothing obviously humourous about it, unless I myself thought it as silly/stupid opinion and went on to present it as such. In the process I would essentially be mocking you and your opinion by putting it in my sig if I did.
And finally, let me reiterate I personally am not offended by any of the sigs I've seen. Hell, I don't really care what happens to them.
Again, I'm simply bringing into question what I see as a potential contradiction is all.
The best thing to do in these situations is just report the person. I've done so a few times, and it was always addressed. In fairness, the person in question wasn't a Mod, but I don't think that's too much of an issue.
As for whether or not attacking people in your sig is acceptable..of course it's not. It's like flaming a person in every post that you make. Would this be allowed? No, it wouldn't. Case closed.
The best thing to do in these situations is just report the person. I've done so a few times, and it was always addressed. In fairness, the person in question wasn't a Mod, but I don't think that's too much of an issue.
As for whether or not attacking people in your sig is acceptable..of course it's not. It's like flaming a person in every post that you make. Would this be allowed? No, it wouldn't. Case closed.
What's your definition of "attacking a person in your sig" then?
I fail to see the relevancy of discussing people's sigging the obvious tactile-optical malfunction of others. But hey...what the heck.
People are sigged for any number of reasons. Just because something gets sigged doesn't mean it was sigged to offend the other person or criticize their comment. The quote in my own sig is there because it amused me. Nothing more. Since you don't know the reason a quote is in someones sig its impossible to pin down the context of the quote w/o asking that person.
It shouldn't be acceptable at all. It's obviously one of the many things users do to place their actions in an ambiguous area regarding the rules and thus, in this case, get away with being disrespectful to another member.
I've seen it done in basically every forum I ever been to and for some reason moderators seem always oblivious about it. It somehow goes hand in hand with all the lame ad homminems, straw man-ning, relentless multiple-quoting deliberatedly out of context, etc. . . - things that should be kept a much closer eye upon than it's generally done (as opposed pettier things that don't make a difference) because they are often used for the same final purposes as those actions that are explicitly forbidden by the rules; purposes such as humiliation, harassment/mobbing, causing a spiral of silence, etc. . .
For example, if anyone has a typically unpleasant exchange with a member retorting things like "only an idiot wouldn't understand. . ." that lasts for pages. . . the last thing that person wants is to have reminder of that discussion (flame-war-in-disguise) everytime, everywhere, so and so posts. . .
. . . falls easily under trolling or even harassment.
I fail to see the relevancy of discussing people's sigging the obvious tactile-optical malfunction of others. But hey...what the heck.
People are sigged for any number of reasons. Just because something gets sigged doesn't mean it was sigged to offend the other person or criticize their comment. The quote in my own sig is there because it amused me. Nothing more. Since you don't know the reason a quote is in someones sig its impossible to pin down the context of the quote w/o asking that person.
What is a flame if not at times attacking "the obvious tactile-optical malfunction of others"? I've basically asked this question in nearly every post and have yet to get an answer other than of:
"People are sigged cause it's funny".
If I said in a post "Hey (insert name) it's not my fault your dad smacked you around when you were little, so don't take it out on me, scumbag" I might indeed be amused by my own comment, so yes I'd certainly agree such quotes could be amusing. However, I don't understand how this makes them cease to be a flame.
Flames can be funny/entertaining/amusing yes? Is this not often the subconscious attempt of a user when they flame? To entertain themselves or the people around them at the expense of another?
Also, people seem to keep on thinking that I'm saying either "every signature is offensive" as Jobie misunderstood in many ways. Or they're thinking I'm saying "It is offensive to quote anyone in any context" as you've assumed I'd meant.
Of course not every quote from another user in a sig is meant to offend. I never said that was the case, and I feel that attempting to say that that was what I said only serves to derail my argument on false pretense.
Certainly it would be possible to misunderstand the context of a quote in a signature. The same could basically be said about any statement what so ever, anything could be misunderstood.
However, it would be fair to say that there's a clear difference between quoting someone to pay homage to a statement you agreed with them on, or felt strongly about in the sense that you're in a way honouring them by putting said quote in your sig. And putting a quote from someone in your sig, where clearly the intention of putting that quote in your sig is to mock them, even if you're using their own words. It's fairly clear that some users are putting such quotes in their sig to pour derision upon the user who made that quote.
Also, people seem to keep on thinking that I'm saying either "every signature is offensive" as Jobie misunderstood in many ways. Or they're thinking I'm saying "It is offensive to quote anyone in any context" as you've assumed I'd meant.
I seem to be not the only one misunderstanding here. I never said that every signature is offensive. I'm saying your views on this topic should not be taken with as much credibility due to the hypocrisy shown through your sig. And yes, I realize his sig is a joke, but there may be some people who would not take it as such, just as someone could be offended by a quote or a stupid comment in someone else's sig.
Also, usually if someone makes a statement that is "sigged" and even though it's completely moronic or easily taken out of context, some people may not be offended. I say if you're offended by someone quoting you in their sig, request them to remove it. It's an obvious solution.
Oh and I'll reply to the query in the introduction of you previous posting on the illustrious forum:
If the quotation of a member of this forum offends said member, it's probably a flame. If said person has a problem with said quotation they should contact the person before requesting assistance from the moderation community.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
There is a difference between flaming and light ribbing. Ever hear a "Yo' momma" joke? They can be vulgar and offensive on the surface, but no one takes them seriously because they aren't meant to be truly cruel. That's ribbing. A flame is different because it is meant to burn and cause pain, even if it is humorous to some. Looking at {mikeyG}'s sig, I see some light ribbing but nothing "incendiary." Besides, he already said he'd remove it if the original poster asked. What more do you want?
Cyan's right, if you see a specific sig that seems like too much of a flame, report it. Do you have other specific signatures in mind, or was {mikeyG}'s the only one? It seems like you're probably making too much out of the situation.
I'd just like to add to my answer. If you're offended by something in someone else's signature, but it isn't directed at you, add that person to your ignore list. It's there for a reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
Alas Jobie, it still seems you're missing the point. I must reiterate the same statement I've made in the original post, several posts following that and again in my most recent post before this:
I am not offended by anyones sig. I am simply questioning why it would seem flames are accepted as "acceptable light ribbing" or "entertaining" when put in the form of a sig. Yet unacceptable when said in a post.
For instance, if I put in my sig:
"Jobie's brilliant response after I've told him multiple times I wasn't offended:
Quote from Jobie »
If you're offended by something in someone else's signature, but it isn't directed at you, add that person to your ignore list. It's there for a reason.
"Ahhh, the great minds of MTGsalvation.....:rolleyes:"
Now let me first off say that I have no intention of doing so, and I don't even really feel that way.
I'm simply asking if you would be offended or not by that. Or at very least if you would consider something like that a personal attack.
If not, than so be it. As I've said from the start, I have little personal concern with this issue. If it seems like everyone here is indeed not offended by these sort of sigs, than I suppose there isn't a problem.
Again, I was simply trying to draw attention to what I saw as a hypocrisy. If no one else sees it, my bad.
Regarding my own signature, yes it is a mockery. However it is not directed at any particular person. It's meant to make light of a general mentality and calls no one out.
Just as I would imagine saying "Gosh, I hate Xbox" would not be considered a flame and would be very different from "Gosh I hate (insert name) because he plays Xbox"
I think that if something said was bad enough to warrant an infraction or warning, then it probably shouldn't be in anyone's signature. It should be treated as an extension of whatever thread the user posts in. However, in the majority of the cases I can think of, the quoted post did not receive any sort of reprimand from the mods. Something along the lines of
Octopus? Please. It's more like JollyTheSquidd if you ask me.
Now, if a mod were to see that and think that it was out of line (Before anyone says anything, I'm specifically choosing to use something that is not.) then I would agree that people probably shouldn't be allowed to use it. However, as has been pointed out, we would need to self regulate this by letting a mod know.
I think that Bitsy has a good example of a quote that is fine (I think Bitsy still has Extarbag's "Cootieswyn" line). By not using the post that Extarbag is responding to, I can honestly say that I only have a vague memory of what was said. Now, if the original post had been there, I might think a little differently about it. However, I'm sure that the original poster is reminded of their comments that lead to the quoted line every time they see one of Bitsy's posts. I don't consider it to be a problem, but the one being chided might. I don't see why that poster couldn't go to Bitsy first and say "Hey, you know I don't appreciate being reminded of this every time I see one of your posts. Would you remove it, please?" and then go to a mod if they didn't get any results.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:: Put a two disc Wall into play.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm gonna refrain from giving out names, but quite a few members here have quotes in their sig which directly address other members in a negative light. Or have quotes in their sig from one user who flamed another, names retained and everything. The sigs remain unchanged for months, so I assume no mod action is ever taken place. Hell, some mods themselves even have this kind of stuff in their sig.
My question is, what is the justification for this? Even if the quote is from the user himself, saying something the sigger (hehe, that word sounds funny) thought was ignorant. How is:
"Some brilliant words of advice from(insert user name)"
followed by a quote clearly chosen to make the quoted member appear foolish.
any different theoretically than saying "wow, you sounded really stupid" in a post responding the aforementioned quote?
Now, as of yet, I have no reason to be personally offended by this. As far as I know so far no one has quoted me in a negative light, yet. I guess I'm more playing devils advocate here in questioning why this sort of thing is acceptable so much as the mods themselves do it. But other forms of flaming are not.
Look, I'm going to level with you, I don't really consider quoting something a member has said as flaming. Even if the quote doesn't put the member in the nicest light. Some members quote things they think are insightful, others quote things they think are funny. I like to quote things that bring a smile to my face. And sentimentGX4 is a member who rarely fails to bring a smile to my face. Not because I think he's stupid or anything of the sort, I just think that some of the more radical things he says are hilarious. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but I kind of hope not.
I first sigged him after the Anna Nicole Smith Death thread debacle when I held firm that calling a woman a ***** shortly after her death was inappropriate at best and sentiment disagreed. That disagreement gave birth to the absolute funniest attack on my moral fiber I've ever taken. I couldn't not sig it.
Honestly, I've never gotten a complaint before. Not from staff, not from members and most importantly not from the member I'm quoting. Even though it's not intended to be a slight on him, if sentiment felt my sig crossed the line, I'd remove it and apologize. Although I'd like to think he sees it for what it is: preserving awesome snippets of funny for posterity.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
i find you're signatare offensive
EDIT: I realize I need a little more meat to this post. I just find your statement to be hypocritical. I agree some people need to speak with stronger grammatical care, but you can not also expect to speak with perfect even good grammar at all times. Plus, you have to realize that the internets are is worldwide and it makes you ignorant to expect what you do.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
I'm just questioning why inflammatory quotes in sigs are acceptable, yet actual "live" flaming is not.
And again, I'm not saying this from personal experience, I've never really had it happen to me. Although, knowing how people work I'm sure during the course of this thread someone is gonna do it, thinking it clever to spite me.
I see the logic in "If you don't want to get a stupid quote in someone's sig, don't post things that are stupid". But if we can agree that a "flame" is basically "intentionally saying something to make attack another user or bring him down". How would we define having such a sig, what would its purpose be if not to mock the user mentioned in the sig in some way.
@Mikey: While I do certainly admit that you were indeed the mod I was speaking of, and I can't say I entirely agree with your explanation. I do agree that it shouldn't be a problem unless the user or someone else complains about it.
However, regular flames are indeed infracted whether or not a person has complained or not.
@Jobie: Heh, seriously does my sig offend you. Or was that a joke sort of thing? If so, why?
If a member is inflamed because of a quote of themselves...well, you can't exactly be faulted for flaming yourself.
Besides, it doesn't really qualify as flaming. It's intended to be humorous, not hurtful. And it's the thought that counts.
But what if this humour comes at the expense of another? Lots of flames are indeed humourous but nevertheless hurtful to the person the flame was directed at.
And regarding the whole, "you can't be pissed about a bad sig if you said it yourself" thing. I do agree with that to an extent.
But again, if not to mock the poster publicly on some level, what would reason be to sig someone in such a way. Certainly mockery can be humourous, hell, it most often is.
I was attempting to show the hypocrisy within what you said.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
and
?
In the first case, others will surmise that it is for the humour, and in the second, for scorn. But in both cases, I am still only drawing attention to the quote. There can be nothing wrong with simply highlighting something that someone else has said, and so properly quoting someone else can't be wrong - they did, after all, say it;
Incidentally, your sig reflects at least as much on you as it does on the one you have quoted.
Certainly anyone could be offended by anything. If I so chose, I could go so far as to say I was offended by someone's "currently playing" list in their sig.
It's not a matter of what is and isn't offensive, that's a rather shaky and hard to define line.
I'm more specifically talking about sigs where a specific member is addressed in a negative light.
But what can I say, it seems the majority doesn't really see any correlation between flaming and sigs intended to mock other users. And that's all I was wondering about, whether I was alone in seeing that correlation.
If that's the case, then so be it. Tis seriously not a major deal to me (or most of the other posters from what it seems) or anything, just more of a curious discussion.
You failed as all you are trying to do is insult people. You taka a quote and twisted it around for your own purpose of spitting in jolly's eye. Congrats.. You keep proving yourself to be one to dig at people.
For example:
" 'How is Yawgmoth's Will so good? I don't get it.'
What a complete n00b. Go back to school, moron."
For being an "Anti-Drama Member", you sure cause a lot.
I mean, what? There's a line in Jolly's sig. Jobie quoted it without realizing the joke, attempting to be funny.
But in fact he was twisting quotes and "spitting in jolly's eye"? Where do you get this stuff?
Actually I don't think he even missed the joke. I think we was saying that he felt it was offensive to ridicule people for not using proper grammar.
But really SapphireTri, why do you try and start things like this? At the very least, clarify what people are saying first.
Not only would him saying it was offensive for me to "ridicule people for not using proper grammar" be besides the point.
In not getting the joke, he completely misunderstands the point of my sig. Which is in fact making fun of the people who DO ridicule others for not using proper grammar. I've always agreed that the whole "I'm part of the online campaign for proper grammar....." is pretty pompous.
Ya'll see that my sig is full of intentional spelling and punctuation errors, right?
If Job's intention was simply to point out some sort of hypocrisy, certainly his attempt was on false grounds. And in that regards becomes little more than a subtle jab that offers little to the conversation.
Back on subject. Again, I'm not specifically saying people shouldn't have the right to express potentially offensive statements or quotes in their sig.
I'm simply questioning why a personal attack delivered through a response to a post is infraction worthy, yet a blatant mockery of another user when put in a sig is acceptable.
For instance, and please Mikey, I don't mean this as an attack, simple playing devil's advocate here and making an example. Hell, I'm even making up a quote you didn't say as to not seem like I'm attacking anything you might have said. Anywho If I had something like this in my sig:
Some brilliant thoughts from MikeyG:
"I really think american idol is an intelligent and thought provoking program!"
And yes, you haven't actually said that. What I'm trying to express is that what would I be doing by putting that in my sig other then ridiculing your opinion publicly? If I had something like that in my sig, could I really write it off as "I don't mean to offend you at all, I just thought it was funny". That brings to question, what was funny about what you said? At face level, there's nothing obviously humourous about it, unless I myself thought it as silly/stupid opinion and went on to present it as such. In the process I would essentially be mocking you and your opinion by putting it in my sig if I did.
And finally, let me reiterate I personally am not offended by any of the sigs I've seen. Hell, I don't really care what happens to them.
Again, I'm simply bringing into question what I see as a potential contradiction is all.
As for whether or not attacking people in your sig is acceptable..of course it's not. It's like flaming a person in every post that you make. Would this be allowed? No, it wouldn't. Case closed.
What's your definition of "attacking a person in your sig" then?
People are sigged for any number of reasons. Just because something gets sigged doesn't mean it was sigged to offend the other person or criticize their comment. The quote in my own sig is there because it amused me. Nothing more. Since you don't know the reason a quote is in someones sig its impossible to pin down the context of the quote w/o asking that person.
I've seen it done in basically every forum I ever been to and for some reason moderators seem always oblivious about it. It somehow goes hand in hand with all the lame ad homminems, straw man-ning, relentless multiple-quoting deliberatedly out of context, etc. . . - things that should be kept a much closer eye upon than it's generally done (as opposed pettier things that don't make a difference) because they are often used for the same final purposes as those actions that are explicitly forbidden by the rules; purposes such as humiliation, harassment/mobbing, causing a spiral of silence, etc. . .
For example, if anyone has a typically unpleasant exchange with a member retorting things like "only an idiot wouldn't understand. . ." that lasts for pages. . . the last thing that person wants is to have reminder of that discussion (flame-war-in-disguise) everytime, everywhere, so and so posts. . .
. . . falls easily under trolling or even harassment.
What is a flame if not at times attacking "the obvious tactile-optical malfunction of others"? I've basically asked this question in nearly every post and have yet to get an answer other than of:
"People are sigged cause it's funny".
If I said in a post "Hey (insert name) it's not my fault your dad smacked you around when you were little, so don't take it out on me, scumbag" I might indeed be amused by my own comment, so yes I'd certainly agree such quotes could be amusing. However, I don't understand how this makes them cease to be a flame.
Flames can be funny/entertaining/amusing yes? Is this not often the subconscious attempt of a user when they flame? To entertain themselves or the people around them at the expense of another?
Also, people seem to keep on thinking that I'm saying either "every signature is offensive" as Jobie misunderstood in many ways. Or they're thinking I'm saying "It is offensive to quote anyone in any context" as you've assumed I'd meant.
Of course not every quote from another user in a sig is meant to offend. I never said that was the case, and I feel that attempting to say that that was what I said only serves to derail my argument on false pretense.
Certainly it would be possible to misunderstand the context of a quote in a signature. The same could basically be said about any statement what so ever, anything could be misunderstood.
However, it would be fair to say that there's a clear difference between quoting someone to pay homage to a statement you agreed with them on, or felt strongly about in the sense that you're in a way honouring them by putting said quote in your sig. And putting a quote from someone in your sig, where clearly the intention of putting that quote in your sig is to mock them, even if you're using their own words. It's fairly clear that some users are putting such quotes in their sig to pour derision upon the user who made that quote.
How is that not flaming?
I seem to be not the only one misunderstanding here. I never said that every signature is offensive. I'm saying your views on this topic should not be taken with as much credibility due to the hypocrisy shown through your sig. And yes, I realize his sig is a joke, but there may be some people who would not take it as such, just as someone could be offended by a quote or a stupid comment in someone else's sig.
Also, usually if someone makes a statement that is "sigged" and even though it's completely moronic or easily taken out of context, some people may not be offended. I say if you're offended by someone quoting you in their sig, request them to remove it. It's an obvious solution.
Oh and I'll reply to the query in the introduction of you previous posting on the illustrious forum:
If the quotation of a member of this forum offends said member, it's probably a flame. If said person has a problem with said quotation they should contact the person before requesting assistance from the moderation community.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
There is a difference between flaming and light ribbing. Ever hear a "Yo' momma" joke? They can be vulgar and offensive on the surface, but no one takes them seriously because they aren't meant to be truly cruel. That's ribbing. A flame is different because it is meant to burn and cause pain, even if it is humorous to some. Looking at {mikeyG}'s sig, I see some light ribbing but nothing "incendiary." Besides, he already said he'd remove it if the original poster asked. What more do you want?
Cyan's right, if you see a specific sig that seems like too much of a flame, report it. Do you have other specific signatures in mind, or was {mikeyG}'s the only one? It seems like you're probably making too much out of the situation.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
I am not offended by anyones sig. I am simply questioning why it would seem flames are accepted as "acceptable light ribbing" or "entertaining" when put in the form of a sig. Yet unacceptable when said in a post.
For instance, if I put in my sig:
"Jobie's brilliant response after I've told him multiple times I wasn't offended:
"Ahhh, the great minds of MTGsalvation.....:rolleyes:"
Now let me first off say that I have no intention of doing so, and I don't even really feel that way.
I'm simply asking if you would be offended or not by that. Or at very least if you would consider something like that a personal attack.
If not, than so be it. As I've said from the start, I have little personal concern with this issue. If it seems like everyone here is indeed not offended by these sort of sigs, than I suppose there isn't a problem.
Again, I was simply trying to draw attention to what I saw as a hypocrisy. If no one else sees it, my bad.
Regarding my own signature, yes it is a mockery. However it is not directed at any particular person. It's meant to make light of a general mentality and calls no one out.
Just as I would imagine saying "Gosh, I hate Xbox" would not be considered a flame and would be very different from "Gosh I hate (insert name) because he plays Xbox"
Octopus? Please. It's more like JollyTheSquidd if you ask me.
Now, if a mod were to see that and think that it was out of line (Before anyone says anything, I'm specifically choosing to use something that is not.) then I would agree that people probably shouldn't be allowed to use it. However, as has been pointed out, we would need to self regulate this by letting a mod know.
I think that Bitsy has a good example of a quote that is fine (I think Bitsy still has Extarbag's "Cootieswyn" line). By not using the post that Extarbag is responding to, I can honestly say that I only have a vague memory of what was said. Now, if the original post had been there, I might think a little differently about it. However, I'm sure that the original poster is reminded of their comments that lead to the quoted line every time they see one of Bitsy's posts. I don't consider it to be a problem, but the one being chided might. I don't see why that poster couldn't go to Bitsy first and say "Hey, you know I don't appreciate being reminded of this every time I see one of your posts. Would you remove it, please?" and then go to a mod if they didn't get any results.