I would like to voice the same complaint. If it was on a topic where religion wasn't involved, I could deal with being told that I'm wrong. But the approach Cycle chose was to attack our beliefs as well as tell us we were wrong, and that's not right.

While I realize the forum has taken some hits from certain other forumers who were overly zealous, I don't see any need for such extreme reactions to people who tried to express their beliefs.

If it was on a topic where religion wasn't involved, I could deal with being told that I'm wrong

I thought the issue was that religon WASN'T involved, and Bryan was insisting very adamantly that it should be.

TheCycle has been posting in the same manner his entire life-span here and if anything he's gotten better. If you didn't want your beliefs "attacked" as you put it then I want to know why you put them up for debate in that topic. Obviously someone was going to refute them, because that's what happens in discussion. Cycle just refuted them with the same attitude he does to everything in every single post he makes ever. What makes this some special incident?

I don't see any reason why "attacking beliefs" should be brought into this topic. This was made because someone didn't like Cycle's tone and that should not just be changed into something else more convenient.

Acrio, its religion. This is the problem people always tell me they have with this board. Artail has Reave, SHQ has religion. Having a belief is fine, trying to voice it as fact and then crying when told bluntly its not a valid fact... Bad.

As for ON TOPIC. My opinions.

Cycle's always had this tone, and if we warn him for that then I know a large number of chatters that this will green light warnings on for me. *laces fingers evilly* A LARGE number. o.o

Cycle's actual comments were no more hurtful to you than Jimro's were to me a few months back. Since we didn't do anything about one, we can't really do much about the other. Granted Cycle's tone is more a little more blunt and brash, the end meaning remains the same.

Basically, SS, you said that when you talk about gay marriage, expect christians to make noise. Well what I'm telling you is when Christians make noise, they should expect to be reminded that its a religion not a fact.

~Rico

I'm a fierce debater. (Big surprise there.) If you're going to say things like "marriage is a Christian concept!" and "homosexual marriage is an infringement on the right of Christians to practice their religion as they see fit!", don't expect to get away without a dressing-down from those of us who, based on basic high-school history, consider this particular line of thinking to be utterly false. The quotes you gave, when read in context and not simply chopped out mid-sentence, were fully called for and quite frankly, I think you're going out of your way to be offended. I do, however, accept full responsibility if the staff deems the rules to have been broken.

And for the record, I don't know how to be mean. I only know how to sound mean.

Quote:

---

I thought the issue was that religon WASN'T involved, and Bryan was insisting very adamantly that it should be.

---

No, that's not the issue. I refer to the initial post in this topic:

Quote:

---

I feel he's deliberately insulted me personally

---

(emphasis added)
What I'm complaining about is not about him saying anything about my beliefs. What I'm complaining about is him personally insulting me. That's the point I tried to make clear at the start here. When I read Cycle's responses to what I'd written, I felt personally insulted. Forget any aspect religion plays in this; if it was that I wouldn't be complaining. Let me state this clearly: the reason I'm complaining is because I believe Cycle deliberately insulted me personally. It has nothing to do with matters of my beliefs. OK? Sorry if that's how it came across.
I've already made reference to the parts where I felt I was being insulted. Please don't make me dig them up again and debate every point, as I'd rather not have to.

~SilverShadow.

*Whisper*

I was replying to Terg, who was saying that the topic was religious, which it wasn't

Ah right. OK Craig.

I don't believe Cycle would go out of his way to personally insult you. Why would he have the need? What he's said to you he's already said a bajillion times. You're just not used to the way he debates is the only real problem I can see (if you insist there is one).

As far as feeling offended goes and what it has to do with the rules (or lack of what), we covered that a while ago with Mau. The rest of this is really up to the admins. ^.^

Its the admins call on the personal insult. Everytime I have made a call in the past on that I got shot down so I'll leave this for Kat/Red/Sam/Vec

~Rico

Going from the quotes given, I'd have to give myself warnings for those kind of comments. I do the same exact thing. No one ever bothers me for them and as I've told the staff many a times, if no one will bother me for it, I won't bother someone else for doing it either. I don't warn people for tone or attitude, unless the attitude is one of those "I'm not going to listen to a mod/admin" in which case I will take care of the person myself when I notice it.

As a side-note, the way I "govern," I do not give preferential treatment to religious/political/controversial/etc. topics in terms of moderation either. So that stuff isn't going to cause Cycle to get in trouble as presented because it wouldn't get him in trouble if it were a game discussion, etc.

Unless you only read topics in Carnival Island (and that's not even a guarantee), you will have your beliefs insulted at some point around here. However, most insults towards a belief are challenges that will be allowed under the fact that you're allowed to debate and challenge pretty much whatever you want here--even the mods/admins up to a point much to the chagrin of many board staff members that remind me of that all the time. ^_~

If that stuff is the worse Cycle did, you're taking it too personally for this board. Debates can get rough here, and a little too rough for some people. If you're sensitive, most know to say their piece and then get out. Cycle is one of our many "rough" ones and I'm another. There are several "rough" ones around here (though I'm not going to be naming names beyond Cycle or myself).

As a minor side-note, everyone will be told that they are wrong for having religious beliefs or for not having religious beliefs. If being told that is going to cause you to be extremely offended, do not enter a topic with obvious religious connotations. You will save yourself from being offended, and save myself from getting the usual "the Mobius Forum is pro-Christianity and is always promoting Christians" or "the Mobius Forum is anti-Christianity and is always hating on Christians" stuff that I get depending on the situation and annoys me to no end.

(This is SS under a different account. Don't wanna waste my kilo)
How many times must I re-state this? My complaint is not to do with religious beliefs being attacked. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. My complaint is that I, personally, feel I've been insulted. That's an infringement of rule #1 of the MoFo, unless someone changed it yesterday. Frankly, I can't see how anyone could read what Cycle wrote and not see even the slightest degree of insult there. This is not a matter of religion being disregarded as fake, this is a matter of respect towards another Forumer. (And by the way, if I'd wanted to complain about lack of respect for my beliefs, this post would have been way longer)

So far I don't feel this issue has been properly addressed.

Here's my opinion.

You were insulted. You were offended. Woopty doo. Life is like that, except it has the capacity to do more than Cycle.

Move on and forget about it. Because in hindsight, is it really worth it to continue the argument?

Besides, if someone who insults or offends keeps on, eventually the Admins and Mods will call him (or her) on it. Until then, just brush it off.

Remember: 'Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me'.

Cliche? Yes, but it fits.

Quote:

---

It has absolutely nothing to do with that. My complaint is that I, personally, feel I've been insulted

---

Re-read the first paragraph of my post as well as the last. I addressed everything that was said within the topic, and the insult stuff was first and the last thing discussed.

If it's not clear for you, the point is, that's not considered "warnable" insulting. Everyone here is insulted by different things, so it takes more than feeling insulted or else no one would be posting here. You were also in a debate topic, and that's exactly what happens in them, so tough skin is required to last in them. He didn't call you "stupid," "dolt," etc. then he's not getting a warning. Everyone is allowed to make observational comments based on what someone has said. Whether someone agrees/disagrees with them is something that they have to decide to take up on their own.

BTW, Cyc, could you change your avatar again? It's a bit too gruesome for my tastes.

Its not has bad as beating on a defenseless controller.

And um... thats his title SH. He can't change that, you have wake up an admin. Want me to get a doggy bag till then?

~Rico

And um... thats his title SH. He can't change that

He just changes the image that's on his webspace which corresponds to the URL in his title. ;3

And so my post isn't just something that sounds like a RixxxikoNitPiK, it's too gorey for my tastes, too. I have to press stop each time I read one of his posts now. 😡

Ah, gotcha.

And that was comming for a guy with a pokemon spanking himself as a sig? Take yer pokemon porn and getouttahere! XD

~Rico

I kept the sig on for the post intentionally. N_n

Edit: The rephrasing of your post makes mine seem less significant.

LMAO *can't stop laughing*

Shoot. I think his new title is adorable.

I'll fix it in a sec, but currently I'm making my lunch.

EDIT: A temporary fix has been found, but the Shatner level is dangerously high. Will replace it with the weed-smoking Evil Monkey from last week's Family Guy when I have time.

Wow, just shows you the very, very, very sensible staff at the MF! 😛
Lol, you guys rock.

Jaffa your avatar is too big.

No one's complained about it before, I kept the width the same as Cooki's (sorry Cooki for dragging you in this >>) and the height is only a small bit above HSW's. What'cha on about?

Quote:

---

Keep photos 125 pixels wide or less.

---

That rule concerning avatars, which I haven't been enforcing because I've been surfing without images loading. So I have no idea whether or not someone is breaking that rule or not. But since I did check, VCP is correct as your avatar is over that limit. I'm sure there are many. Fortunately for those breaking it, I haven't had the time to check and seemingly no one else has been doing it. Thankies, VCP. 🙂

Quote:

---

Keep photos 125 pixels wide or less.

---

HSW is over 150 pixels wide. He's a mod. This CAN'T be right, the limit, I mean. o.o

Quote:

---

Sig/Photo/Icon rules - If your sig is larger than the post you're writing, please uncheck it (there's a checkbox under the posting form) when you post. Your sig and photo should be under 100K collectively. Keep photos 125 pixels wide or less. The maximum sig dimensions are 325 pixels high and 575 pixels wide (including text). If your sig, photo, or icon is considered annoying, rude, offensive, or a violation of another rule, you may be asked to turn it off or receive an official warning depending on the severity of the offense.

---

It appears that most users, especially when using animated gifs do not follow the 100K rule. Is this rule irrelevant now?

Quote:

---

especially when using animated gifs

---

*prods SHs sig*
This isn't right.
And dare I say, my dial-up doesn't seem to like loading up many of his sigs o.o
But yet again,a mod. You've got the system all scootered up. Besides, I've always been told to keep my avatar 160 pixels or less wide

Yeah, we've been really lax on it of late... to be frank, as far as I care Jaffa can keep his avatar, nobody's been complaining about it before...

And yeah, my sig's been really big for a good while. It was tons bigger before, though. And hey, it could be worse: over at SRB2's fora, the limit is 20K - for BOTH avatar and sig. Ridiculously strict, IMO...

I usually only do something if people complain, unless its stupidly large. File size isn't a problem much anymore since DSL/Cable is almost as cheap as dialup. Unless its bugging someone I usually never notice it.

~Rico

But to what good has changing my avatar done?

Its followed the rules. o.o

Quote:

---

Its followed the rules. o.o

---

0.o;;;
Oh dear... The rules should be lightened up a bit in my opinion, then

Maybe you need some time on a more lenient board. Like Team Artail.

~Rico

They're not obsolete. They're just not enforced mainly due to the fact that those that used to enforce it strictly have barely had time to be at the board, much less enforce it. Of course, as far as I'm concerned, the total disregard of it has gotten so bad that I can only view the board with images off--or else I'd have to wait minutes for topics to load. I find it ridiculous. That's why people better hope I don't get a lot of free time because the first thing on my agenda in terms of this board is to knock out avatars and/or sigs. 🙂

I've been mentioned. o.o

Is there something wrone with my avatar/sig? o_o

Yes Cooki.

Quote:

---

Keep photos 125 pixels wide or less.

---

Your avatar is 160 pixels wide.

Sorry I got you involved Cooki, love you. 🙁

WE WOULD HAVE FOUND HER ANYWAY. *throws Jaffa in the cell*

Mmmk, I've resized my avatar (thanks to Acrio for that. >>), but I was just wondering - the rules state that your sig and avatar collectively must be under 100k...I looked into it, and depending on the cell padding, it would take an image around 160px wide to stretch the tables, even on a resolution of 800x600.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to implement a filesize limit as opposed to a width limit? I mean, there are people well within limit on the board when it comes to their avatars, but only as a result of Ez's default resizing - the full size image still retains the large width and filesize, which means extended loading times on the board, despite the small width of the image.

I'd have thought that so long as the image isn't stretching the tables and is within the overall filesize limit, it wouldn't be a problem... >>

True. People who rely on ezboard's 60x60 file limit to take care of their avatars can have some very large images.

For example... Dark Hedgehog's avatar is a wallpaper... o.o

Quote:

---

Wouldn't it be a better idea to implement a filesize limit as opposed to a width limit?

---

No, there's both because you NEED both. Someone could theorically have a 500 pixel wide picture that's 1KB.

You're supposed to be under 100KB anyway when it comes to sig and avatars combined, basically meaning 50KB for avatar and 50KB for sig. However, since some people only have sigs or only have avatars among other possible combinations of stuff, 100KB is the filesize limit.

I honestly don't see the problem here, because those of us who have joined the twenty-first century can download 100KB in less than a second. If dialup users have a problem, maybe they should turn off pictures. 56K modems were never meant for the Intertron as we know it today.

The only problem I have with sigs and avatars is when people make them big enough to cause scrolling in 800x600 res. I'd switch to the higher level if it didn't cause my head and eyes massive pain. ^^

I'd switch to the higher level if it didn't cause my head and eyes massive pain.
How big is your monitor?

As big as he can afford. o.o

~Rico

Well it's entirely possible that he has a decent excuse for running at 800x600, such as a 14" monitor.

Exactly.

~Rico

Uh... 17 inch. Anything higher than 800x600 is too tiny and causes my eyes to cry out in pain & my head feel like a hammer's pounding it. Hmm... think I should get a smaller monitor? XD