NationStates Jolt Archive

The South Islands got in trouble partially for his/her sig in this thread (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408378), if I'm understanding Kat correctly.

Doesn't B0zzy have the same sig?
http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408366 (this is not not a complaint about the thread, the thread is linked to simply to show B0zzy's sig)
Or did The South Islands get in trouble for something other than the quote of Plutophobia?
EDIT:
Oops, I forgot to explain.
The last time I saw The South Island's sig, it was the quote of Plutophobia. That's why I'm asking this, because I thought TSI's sig was the same as B0zzy's.

well, that type of speech is allowed (to an extent) on NS. It is pushing the boundaries a bit though, so the mods will have to take it into consideration.

well, that type of speech is allowed (to an extent) on NS. It is pushing the boundaries a bit though, so the mods will have to take it into consideration.
I know that it's allowed. I didn't ask anything about whether it was allowed or not.
I was wondering why it was taken from one user's sig, but not another's.

I know that it's allowed. I didn't ask anything about whether it was allowed or not.
I was wondering why it was taken from one user's sig, but not another's.

probably because the mods just haven't caught it yet. They aren't (contrary to popular belief) omnipresent.

Noted, and corrected.

So what's wrong with sharing someone's hypocritical statement in my sig?

So what's wrong with sharing someone's hypocritical statement in my sig?

for a start it was taken out of context

If we do not allow flaming (to whit, "Fucking gays") in threads, we certainly are not going to allow it to be repeated ad nauseum throughout the forums out of context.

We've said it before, we'll say it again: sigs and names are held to stricter standards because they cannot be debated: they are just there in people's faces.

Sorry, I hadn't realized it had been discussed ad nauseum, sorry for the redundancy.

The quote was entire, not out of context. I presume the author was warned for his flame? Or at least warned about setting himself in such a manner.

I'll find a new sig. Shouldn't be too difficult.

(BTW - it was 'gay' singular, not plural - not that it matters)

Sorry, I hadn't realized it had been discussed ad nauseum, sorry for the redundancy.

"Repeated", not "discussed". It's repeated because your sig is automatically added to every post you make.