Should political avatars be banned?

[Bright Moments]

What say you all?

[Van Basten II]

You would have to define political avatar first.

[Noj]

If someone with bad taste and idiotic political opinions wants to wear it like a badge of pride, let him/her.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Noj

[Aggie87]

I'd prefer to ban images in people's signatures. They disrupt discussions, and are more annoying.

Also, nudity in any images doesn't seem appropriate (like your avatar, small as it is). My kids occasionally look over my shoulder at what I'm doing online.

[7/4]

I'd prefer to ban images in people's signatures. They disrupt discussions, and are more annoying.

Even if they're small?

.

[Bright Moments]

I'd prefer to ban images in people's signatures. They disrupt discussions, and are more annoying.

Also, nudity in any images doesn't seem appropriate (like your avatar, small as it is). My kids occasionally look over my shoulder at what I'm doing online.

i was waiting for that!

start your own poll!!!

[Jim R]

I'd prefer to ban images in people's signatures. They disrupt discussions, and are more annoying.

I've always had "signatures" turned off in my board settings. Never understood the point or the appeal.

[Bright Moments]

I'd prefer to ban images in people's signatures. They disrupt discussions, and are more annoying.

I've always had "signatures" turned off in my board settings. Never understood the point or the appeal.

hijack! hijack!!!!!

[paul secor]

I don't care what people use for an avatar. I'm interested in what they write next to their avatar.

[JSngry]

I like images & signatures alike. Especially them purty girlz...

The political avitar thing, though...I can see some "violation" issues here...if a deal had to be made, I suggest the options be keeping the political forum and banning political avatars or dropping the political forum and allowing political avatars.

My vote, if one was to be called for, would be to keep the political forum and ban political avatars. But I don't think that's necessary, at least at this juncture.

[Aggie87]

I'd prefer to ban images in people's signatures. They disrupt discussions, and are more annoying.

I've always had "signatures" turned off in my board settings. Never understood the point or the appeal.

Guess I may have to resort to that. I enjoy reading people's signature lines for the most part, don't mind those there. It's the big, annoying images that just get in the way and add no value.

I'm surprised people think it's ok to have large images of females attached to their every post though. It would make me uncomfortable about posting here if I were female, especially a newbie. Fortunately (or coincidentally?) we don't seem to get too many of those.

It's one thing to avoid a thread that exists solely to show off pictures of females (which is also unnecessary IMO), but it's difficult to avoid signature images, unless you turn signatures off completely.

It's a shame to have to do that.

[Van Basten II]

If a female member wants to have a half naked hunk in their signature, i would have no problem with it

[Shawn]

Yes, they should. I have the political forum hidden, I don't need to see it elsewhere.

[Jim R]

I'd prefer to ban images in people's signatures. They disrupt discussions, and are more annoying.

I've always had "signatures" turned off in my board settings. Never understood the point or the appeal.

Guess I may have to resort to that. I enjoy reading people's signature lines for the most part, don't mind those there. It's the big, annoying images that just get in the way and add no value.

What I've never understood is the appeal of reading a person's signature over and over and over. Unless people changed them frequently, it seems like getting beat over the head to me. You can see what someone has chosen for their signature by visiting their public profile, so I don't want to view the same message multiple times every day. Maybe I'm missing or overlooking something. I like Jim Sangrey's signature-like phrase that he has under his avatar, and that seems like a more appropriate place for such a message, because it can be more easily "tuned out" over there (and yet it's still there if you choose to shift your eyes over to the left).

I'm surprised people think it's ok to have large images of females attached to their every post though. It would make me uncomfortable about posting here if I were female, especially a newbie. Fortunately (or coincidentally?) we don't seem to get too many of those.

I agree.

[Jim R]

I'd prefer to ban images in people's signatures. They disrupt discussions, and are more annoying.

I've always had "signatures" turned off in my board settings. Never understood the point or the appeal.

hijack! hijack!!!!!

Guilty.

I agree with Jim S and Shawn on the political avatar thing, btw.

[Aggie87]

What I've never understood is the appeal of reading a person's signature over and over and over. Unless people changed them frequently, it seems like getting beat over the head to me. You can see what someone has chosen for their signature by visiting their public profile, so I don't want to view the same message multiple times every day.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with this, so I turned off the signatures.

[mjzee]

I voted no. I think most censorship is repugnant. I like personality, and listening to jazz is all about life and personality. Where I'd draw the line is common decency: lauding Oscar Peterson's demise, for example.

[Dan Gould]

Personally I don't understand how a signature could have the effect of beating someone over the head; when I read new posts I scan to the next one anyway and find it quite easy to not pay any attention; its just useless verbiage, like Goody's posts.

[Soulstation1]

You just quote him all the time.

[Jim R]

Personally I don't understand how a signature could have the effect of beating someone over the head; when I read new posts I scan to the next one anyway and find it quite easy to not pay any attention; its just useless verbiage, like Goody's posts.

Obviously, I'm only imagining that I would feel like they were beating me over the head (no offense to anybody who uses or likes them, btw), because I've always had them turned off. I do visit a few other boards though, where I haven't bothered to turn them off because I spend far less time there (and the traffic is more sparse), and I do notice them and find them pretty useless. Anyway, I guess I envisioned that they would be somewhat difficult to ignore here, where I read a lot of posts by the same people every day.

So, if you see it as useless verbiage, and pay no attention, why do you have them turned on?

[Brad]

If you're going to have the political forum, I don't see the point in banning avatars. Conversely.....

[papsrus]

If you find yourself thinking about the politics of avatars, you should probably turn the computer off and go outside.

EDIT: On the other hand, there is a "Sexy Trees" thread here, so who am I to judge?

Edited October 5, 2009 by papsrus

[Niko]

i've managed to leave the board to a degree that i don't really care anymore... will switch off avatars next time they bother me...

[rockefeller center]

Heißes Thema.

Sollten Sätze in nicht englischer Sprache verboten werden?

[jazzbo]

Nyet!