Signature Lines And Bio Lines Thread
 

What do you think? :)

Personally, I'm not in favor of "moderating" signature/bio lines nor amending the TOS to set boundaries for same. I think the existing TOS is adequate to deal with offensive lines.

Furthermore, it was apparently a case of stalking which led to Randy's decision to temporarily take down that feature. Deal with the stalkers and, for all intents and purposes, the case is closed, right?

I also happen to think that his reference to the upcoming election was a way of acknowledging that passions are going to be running high, and the potential is just too great that the lines would be disrupting the FT experience for too many people.

Over and out.

I imagine that Randy is afraid of turning off people who don't want to have politics thrown in their face on every forum.

After all, if I were to go to the Delta Forum and post about Candidate X being the best man for the job, I would be considered off topic. If I were to start a separate thread to discuss Candidate X, it would be moved to Omni.

If all signatures are allowed, I would be free to include that "Candidate X is the best man for the job and Candidate Y is a moron" in every single post.

What I think? I think the thread in ORP should be sufficient to discuss the matter ;)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334114

We are working on it in the Talkbord, it shouldn't take long, be patient :)

Except ScottC Randy said he was leaving it to Talkboard...
 

I'm posting here cuz I thought Randy said in his first post he was going to let TalkBoard decide. So here's my 2cents.

I think signatures should be names, do or points/miles related - NOT politics. Even if I agree w/ someone's politics, I find it inappropriate to see the politics & offputting in their signature lines.

Yes, Randy said he was leaving it to the TALKBOARD, so why the new debate here, there was already a thread on the signatures with enough input from everyone to help us come to a decision, so I was mearly wondering why a new thread (this one) had to be started. :)

Just a misunderstanding - Randy says in his OP in ORP that he will leave it to Talkboard, suggesting that a discussion here is more appropriate, but in the latest Talkmail, he invites members to add their thoughts to the existing thread in ORP, so the thread in ORP is probably where Randy had in mind for discussion. Sorry for the duplicate thread. Post your thoughts here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334114

Agree. No place for it on FT at all.

Can't see how hard that can be to add to the TOS. :confused:

Plug a Doo or an airline etc and it is fine.

Push religion or politics etc and the signature line becomes a breach of TOS.

Simple as that. Let's have them back.

If we are going to limit what can be in Signature lines... then we have to do the same for BIOS. This has the potential to become a very slippery slope. Any time you allow people to "express" themselves, there will be opportunity to "upset" others. Where do you draw the line? Yes, this is a travel board... but for many of us, it is more. Signatures and Bios tell me much about a person... oftentimes more than their posts. I hate to see those limited.

Were two people "post stalking" another poster? Perhaps. Did the original member have reason to believe their post could anger others? Most Definitely. Who is to blame? Both and neither.

Of course, any member could now move their "signature" to be part of their actual posted message. How would that be impacted?

I will say again that we have to stop changing everything due to the immature actions of one or a few people. Deal with those people... do not punish the masses.

William

Oz, it's not quite as simple as that. There are too many grey areas.

How about my own signature: "Sir Dovster, OBE"? It is not religion or politics. On the other hand, it is not a plug for a do or an airline. On the third hand (which, obviously, I would have to borrow), it definitely does relate to Flyer Talk. Is it acceptable or not?

Or how about a signature which says, "Dismantle the TSA!" It refers to a governmental organization, so it could be considered politics. Yet the TSA impacts on all frequent flyers. Would this be allowed?

My initial reaction would be to rely on the good sense of the Flyer Talk posters. Unfortunately, experience -- even on the ORP thread -- has shown that good sense doesn't always play a part.

My next reaction would be to leave it up to the moderators. Again, however, there are too many examples of extremely provocative posts which the moderators have allowed to stand.

I like having signatures. I also liked having the reputation feature. I completely agree with everyone who states that the features themselves are not the problem -- their abuse is.

It is only when we Flyer Talkers refuse to accept any kind of extremism or purposely provocative behavior -- even from people on our own side of the political fence -- that this kind of behavior will cease.

Ditto what anonplz said.
 

ScottC, annoplz got it, so will leave it to that thread & up to Talkboard as you've indicated they're already discussing & getting input. Cheers. Sharon...

Excellent idea. Of course, there is a long history of allowing certain members to abuse the "bio" comments, so that likely would cause some issues.

How about drawing the line at common sense? It isn'y any more or less of a slippery slope that moderation in general.

Agree with par #1. Many downright hostile and very offensive and inflammatory biog lines and "clique" gibberish have proliferated for years .. way before the current FT, and there was never much fuss, as those abusing the system were mostly the "usual suspects" who are generally immune from any action. Shame there is no archive of "biog" some members have used in the past.

Par #2 makes sense to me too.