Michigander
03-28-08, 08:58 PM
In the vulgarity portion of the rules, there is nothing that mentions avatars or signature lines. In the past, I have had some avatars which I knew were a bit stupid which were up for a while before I was asked to remove them and happily complied. Then, as most moderators probably remember, I got really pissed off when my Hunter Thompson quote with auto censored PG words was voted on to be unacceptable.
Here's my problem. I have no issue with an absurdly censoring set of rules. After all, this site was turned into a profit machine, and you can't offend your customers. But to be blunt, the rules here, as they stand now, amount to an issue of popularity and political correctness voting of the moderators when it comes to avatars and signature lines. People with more PG13+ avatars and sig lines than I ever had have had no problems. This is really, really stupid and unfair.
Why does this go on? Would it be too hard to write something in about avatars and sig lines with nudity, sexuality, profanity to include the PG words that BF auto censors, and political view points?
Here's my problem. I have no issue with an absurdly censoring set of rules. After all, this site was turned into a profit machine, and you can't offend your customers. But to be blunt, the rules here, as they stand now, amount to an issue of popularity and political correctness voting of the moderators when it comes to avatars and signature lines. People with more PG13+ avatars and sig lines than I ever had have had no problems. This is really, really stupid and unfair.
Why does this go on? Would it be too hard to write something in about avatars and sig lines with nudity, sexuality, profanity to include the PG words that BF auto censors, and political view points?