New Rule for Signatures - Rule is now actively enforced!

[Erwin Smith]

So, I'm guessing there will be no more "anti-homo/anti-trans ((yes that was a thing I saw ._.))" sigs now? Good good


QUESTION
I'm assuming "anti-abortion" will NOT be allowed? It really annoys me whenever I see something like that ((I am Pro-Abortion, so nobody PM me about me "hating abortion" please, because that is wrong c:))

Yes, no more anti-abortion phrases on CS.
If you don't support something, don't say that you don't That is pretty much the message here.

[AmyEnder]

So, I'm guessing there will be no more "anti-homo/anti-trans ((yes that was a thing I saw ._.))" sigs now? Good good


QUESTION
I'm assuming "anti-abortion" will NOT be allowed? It really annoys me whenever I see something like that ((I am Pro-Abortion, so nobody PM me about me "hating abortion" please, because that is wrong c:))

Yes, no more anti-abortion phrases on CS.
If you don't support something, don't say that you don't That is pretty much the message here.

Mmm, that makes sense. I'm glad they finally put up this rule, definitely makes the place a lot... I dunno, happier? ^^

[booklover789]

Just a question for the mods about this particular rule.

Tess stated that there are to be no "anti" phrases, messages, or stamps in any aspect of our profiles from this point on. Does this also mean that I cannot have a "pro" phrase, message, or stamp in any aspect of my profile? Previously here on CS I had a pro-life stamp in my sig. I'm not showing hate or being mean towards anyone by having that stamp in my sig - just so you know my motives - I'm just stating what I believe to be true, just as someone with a pro-choice stamp in their sig is stating what he/she believes to be true. I won't hate you if you disagree with me, as I understand that we all have our differences - that's what makes us each unique and special.

What I'm asking is this: I understand that "anti-abortion" phrases, messages, and stamps like it are no longer allowed; but does this also apply to phrases, messages, and stamps that have a positive spin on them? Like "pro-life," "pro-choice," "pro-gay marriage," "pro-traditional marriage," etc.?

[The Furry Fandom]

If only this applied to the sigs like "98% of people think ___ are evil / stupid. Repost this if you are the 2% who think ___!"
They aren't offensive, just annoying as heck and really wrong statistics. Glad someone did something about this though. Never bothered me much but there was lots of drama stirring up over them.

[Ethulai]

^ We do not allow negative phrases such as this, as Tess has previously mentioned.

I actually see nothing wrong with the signatures saying someone wishes a celebrity to jump off a cliff and do a flip. I used to have a WEBSITE based on those.

I DO hope that putting "97% of teens would cry if they saw Justin Beiber standing on top of a sky scraper, about to jump. If you're one of the 3% who would sit there eating popcorn screaming "DO A FLIP!" as he hurtles torwards the possibly tattered safety net, then copy and paste this to your profile." *is okay.

*Forgot this.

Sorry, but these are not allowed. The only purpose of these is to joke about how you hate a person, while simultaneously making jokes out of death and suicide(?). It's purely negative and we don't need to hear it. Talk about something positive like the singer you do like instead.

[Loki.Laufeyson]

Feeling much safer already Tess and staff! Thank you!

[{ Peridoot }]

I'm so glad that this is a new rule now, everyone can feel comfortable for who they are. I've seen the "93% of people would cry if they saw a celeb on a cliff about to jump blah blah blah" and i felt really discussed about how they feel, and i'm not saying that they should change their opinion but they need to think about putting messages that would hurt others. This is such a great idea to keep everyone comfortable for each other, everyone has their own opinion if they want to be homosexual or not its not a bad thing its just their opinion and people don't need to make fun of that.

Thank you Tess, CS Staff

[Scarvia]

^ We do not allow negative phrases such as this, as Tess has previously mentioned.

I think Xylom talks about different phrases. There are things like:

98% of people think books are stupid. Repost this if you are the 2% who think reading rules!
98% of people do not care for real life animals in pounds. Repost this if you are the 2% that do care!
98% of people think gays are evil. Repost this if you are the 2% who think they rock!

Something like that. The message itself is not really negative ("I think reading rules!", "I care!", "I support homosexuality!") but there usually is a wrong statistic that implies many many people would have a different opinion and that you, the reader, might be part of it because of the huge number in front of it.
So they usually spread negativity by implying most of us do not care/like/whatever but the posters themselves are shown in a positive light (- They are the small percentage that is better than the rest of all people).
One might also argue that it implyes "If you do not repost, you are part of the 98%" but most times that is not directly stated.

[Erwin Smith]

^ We do not allow negative phrases such as this, as Tess has previously mentioned.

I think Xylom talks about different phrases. There are things like:

98% of people think books are stupid. Repost this if you are the 2% who think reading rules!
98% of people do not care for real life animals in pounds. Repost this if you are the 2% that do care!
98% of people think gays are evil. Repost this if you are the 2% who think they rock!

Something like that. The message itself is not really negative ("I think reading rules!", "I care!", "I support homosexuality!") but there usually is a wrong statistic that implies many many people would have a different opinion and that you, the reader, might be part of it because of the huge number in front of it.
So they usually spread negativity by implying most of us do not care/like/whatever but the posters themselves are shown in a positive light (- They are the small percentage that is better than the rest of all people).
One might also argue that it implyes "If you do not repost, you are part of the 98%" but most times that is not directly stated.

This is still saying negative phrases and then you supporting the opposite.
Your examples show this.
Your examples show that the negative thing is being stated first, and then the positive thing after it.
It would still be classified as a negative phrase because of this because even though the intention is good, the general ideal of listing the negative is still bad.

[Scarvia]

^ We do not allow negative phrases such as this, as Tess has previously mentioned.

I think Xylom talks about different phrases. There are things like:

98% of people think books are stupid. Repost this if you are the 2% who think reading rules!
98% of people do not care for real life animals in pounds. Repost this if you are the 2% that do care!
98% of people think gays are evil. Repost this if you are the 2% who think they rock!

Something like that. The message itself is not really negative ("I think reading rules!", "I care!", "I support homosexuality!") but there usually is a wrong statistic that implies many many people would have a different opinion and that you, the reader, might be part of it because of the huge number in front of it.
So they usually spread negativity by implying most of us do not care/like/whatever but the posters themselves are shown in a positive light (- They are the small percentage that is better than the rest of all people).
One might also argue that it implyes "If you do not repost, you are part of the 98%" but most times that is not directly stated.

This is still saying negative phrases and then you supporting the opposite.
Your examples show this.
Your examples show that the negative thing is being stated first, and then the positive thing after it.
It would still be classified as a negative phrase because of this because even though the intention is good, the general ideal of listing the negative is still bad.

Yeah, I tried to make the last one pretty obvious. The book one might consider harmless, the pound one - I am not even sure, it's simply wrong on here, we are on a animal/pets side so its an unnecessary and wrong statement that most people would not care - and of course the third one was supposed to show why those message can be considered negative, even if someone might say, the first two examples are ok. And I am sure some people might even get offended by the book one.

So yeah, I too think, they should be forbidden. You make wrong assumptions and might hurt people with the negative statement, that is in front of the sentence.
But they are something different than the celebs jumping of cliffs, that Tess commented on.