'Anus' Siggies

[MajorLeeHurts]

The anus siggy , a little mockery and humor could be offensive or a poke to start a conflict possibly but not so offensive, there has been allot worse. Just look at all the siggy's with females barely dressed.


The Ombudsman changing his user name to "SEX" offensive and inappropriate and a possible abuse of power and favor. Someones parents could complain.

Being an adult and a parent the user name "sex" needs to be addressed and the anus siggy well it will play out on its own unless people choose to take sides in this age of Empires and we have an all out server war with those who support TLE and those who support FUALL.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

that`s what you all noobs want isn`t it?


TLE vs FUALL.... well that ain`t gonna happen.

[Defense-Forcefield]

I have only seen 1 person using and what if he cant get to check these forums in the 24hours given!!!

so, maybe Mr Mystake and JDMx are only one player ?? In that case, maybe i'll send a pm to a mod to kick this dual guy.

[Mystake]

I have only seen 1 person using and what if he cant get to check these forums in the 24hours given!!!

so, maybe Mr Mystake and JDMx are only one player ?? In that case, maybe i'll send a pm to a mod to kick this dual guy.

we're like a dual planet.
we're double the awesome.

[Mukasa]

seeing as you posted here,then u saw what smoosh wrote,still didn't remove siggy,therefore you deserve a warning..

[MajorLeeHurts]

that`s what you all noobs want isn`t it?


TLE vs FUALL.... well that ain`t gonna happen.

Noobs

Nigatsu_Aka
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006

MajorLeeHurts
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005


and you dont know whos side I would take so dont be so quick to judge

[Severian]

1) More then One player has had the sig.

2) This sig's entire purpose is to satirise TLE/TAF pact. This is the difference between this sig and other sigs with just random women or other ideas. This one has ill purpose, solely to cause trouble and to spite an empire.

3) There was a large argument beforehand about sigs on forums and it was decided that no sig would satirise other players/alliances to avoid this sort of thing from happening again. It turns the community on each other and is self propergating in its self destructiveness.

4) The people trying to justify this are reminisant of Tok'ra. That is causing trouble for the sake of trouble under the guise of a .005% chance/angle while its 99.995% obvious its for stirring the pot. This forum is better without that and almost destoryed itself in the process of clearing that sentiment out and i'm sure people wouldn't like to see it back.

I'm disappointed in a lot of people and their actions recently and its not doing the overall community any favours...

[smooshable]

I have only seen 1 person using and what if he cant get to check these forums in the 24hours given!!!

This sounds like the Nazi party to me!!!!

Overstated Nazi reference of the year goes to

*drum roll*

Archon!

Seriously, have you not heard of the Godwin law?

[Nigatsu_Aka]

that`s what you all noobs want isn`t it?


TLE vs FUALL.... well that ain`t gonna happen.

Noobs

Nigatsu_Aka
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006

MajorLeeHurts
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005


and you dont know whos side I would take so dont be so quick to judge

I retract my previous statement about noobs. Sorry.... about that comment, but i keep the one about the TLE vs FUALL... a little fun won`t hurt i suppose, but i believe that the 2 pacts will not give this new possibility for the "oportunists".

[MajorLeeHurts]

3) There was a large argument beforehand about sigs on forums and it was decided that no sig would satirise other players/alliances to avoid this sort of thing from happening again. It turns the community on each other and is self propergating in its self destructiveness.

If that is the case then yes it is against the rules but there can not be double standards (as it was brought up in this topic ) that Jacks, our Ombudsman's user name is now "sex" . So how can a moderator point out one wrong doing and ignore another unless there are personal reasons and our mods would never let there personal interests define any judgments or warnings now would they.

[Severian]

3) There was a large argument beforehand about sigs on forums and it was decided that no sig would satirise other players/alliances to avoid this sort of thing from happening again. It turns the community on each other and is self propergating in its self destructiveness.

If that is the case then yes it is against the rules but there can not be double standards (as it was brought up in this topic ) that Jacks, our Ombudsman's user name is now "sex" . So how can a moderator point out one wrong doing and ignore another unless there are personal reasons and our mods would never let there personal interests define any judgments or warnings now would they.

Personally I don't agree with it either but thats for another topic (or this one, depending on the issues and relation).

Jack is a Flaymboyant and somewhat witty spammer. I do enjoy his posts and have nothing against the man and his crazyness. But at the same time, the position requires trust, confidence and a serious neutral outlook so people feel inclined to go to him and feel the system works and is in capable hands. Otherwise they may choose to remain silent and not voice their concerns.

Someone as volitile in randomness as Jack doesn't tend to fit that profile and again the vote for the Ombudsmen was 99% or so for Eros and only a tiny minortiy for Jack and others and so he inherited the postion and not truely represenative of the community and its needs.

The behaviour just seems to be polar opposites and tends to take away from the effectiveness of the position from the community side as i have no doubt from Jack's side that he's attempted (and done with the cases he's been approached with) to do a good job.

Do the requirments of being a high profile light hearted spammer and the requirements of Ombudsmen meant to solve serious issues conflict?

[Saintdeath]

They do breach rules

Which ones? (Honest question, I don't see any rule that they break.)

2) This sig's entire purpose is to satirise TLE/TAF pact. This is the difference between this sig and other sigs with just random women or other ideas. This one has ill purpose, solely to cause trouble and to spite an empire.

It's purpose is to make fun of an empire, that's right. It's a clever and amusing wordplay and not anything against the forum rules. Your empire should deal with it, not the mods of the forum.

3) [...]It turns the community on each other and is self propergating in its self destructiveness.

Because ingame wars don't do that, huh? Or alliances? Or people trying to be rank 1 and therefore competing against each other?

[Archon]

I have only seen 1 person using and what if he cant get to check these forums in the 24hours given!!!

This sounds like the Nazi party to me!!!!

Overstated Nazi reference of the year goes to

*drum roll*

Archon!

Seriously, have you not heard of the Godwin law?

In your opinion, and yes I have!

Why have not other peoples sigs been removed when they have insulted alliances and pacts etc.

For instance Bebizas sig that had a injured solider on the floor from 300 with FUALL written on him, I complained against this but was told it was not against the rules as the rule only referred to sigs insulting individuals and not alliances and pacts!!!

*Notices smoosh did not write in mod colour so no accusation of calling out a mod can be made*

[Mystake]

2) This sig's entire purpose is to satirise TLE/TAF pact. This is the difference between this sig and other sigs with just random women or other ideas. This one has ill purpose, solely to cause trouble and to spite an empire.

Can we have Satire added to the rules?

[Severian]

They do breach rules

Which ones? (Honest question, I don't see any rule that they break.)

2) This sig's entire purpose is to satirise TLE/TAF pact. This is the difference between this sig and other sigs with just random women or other ideas. This one has ill purpose, solely to cause trouble and to spite an empire.

It's purpose is to make fun of an empire, that's right. It's a clever and amusing wordplay and not anything against the forum rules. Your empire should deal with it, not the mods of the forum.

3) [...]It turns the community on each other and is self propergating in its self destructiveness.

Because ingame wars don't do that, huh? Or alliances? Or people trying to be rank 1 and therefore competing against each other?

The Signature Boarders on some rules, but definetly breaks others:

A) Impersonation: The Sig Impersonates the Janus Sig for satirical purposes.

B) "The use of profanity on the SGW forums is prohibited at all times. This means swearing, cursing and vulgarity." The Language is Questionable and somewhat offensive

C) c. Abuse / Racism - The purpose is to abuse through a continual verbal attack via the use of a sig

D) Roleplay - "It should generally be kept to the Race Forums and the Galactic Colosseum. The normal rules of profanity and abuse still apply however"

E) Section 9: Exceptional circumstances - "In the very rare event that a user causes an extremely large disturbance to the community"