Can we institute a "no signature" rule in NVG or even forum-wide like there apparently is in BBV?

The software doesn't allow signatures for a reason (they suck). So let's enforce that and not let people use them? That would be awesome!

I bring this up because of the signature discussion from the FTP thread in NVG where numerous people have mocked/complained about Tompakee's super annoying signature and he refuses to not use it:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29.../index453.html

Is mise Tompakee

Keep up the good work

GTFO, some terrible rule like this might make those quality posters angry and they'll leave 2p2 forever.

Seriously, who cares? If people get tilted by signatures, they have some serious leaks to work on.

People are angry over this? No one is forcing you to read the signature.

Ce1ska

Haters gonna hate

I would like to see ANobleGent's opinion before I chime in.

Using a signature like

"Is mise Tompakee

Keep up the good work"

precludes you from being a good poster.

Please don't judge me because of my join date/post count. I have been around these forums since 04 on my main account. I started this one for anonymity.

Signature are ****ing awful.... or at least some of them are like tompakee's.

Or they enjoy 2p2 and want the best forum browsing experience possible. Having signatures turned off in the software is one of the reasons this forum is so great. Now let's just enforce that.

Seriously though, if 2p2 supported signatures they would have them turned on in the software (it's super easy to do).

It is clearly something that 2p2 doesn't want and as far as I can tell these people are basically skirting the rules.

Also, some signatures aren't annoying at all. Three line signatures with a happy face are ****ing ******ed.

I'll admit to getting much more annoyed with signatures than I should, but I also find myself a little inconsistent with it. Mason always signs off his posts, but it doesn't bother me at all. But that's not just because he's the "Top Dog" - I feel the same way about Nate.'s sig, for example. I think it's because they post in a style that makes a formal signature seem like a natural conclusion to their post. I'm sure there's a few others that I feel the same way about.

What I don't care for are sigs that people use to make themselves appear unique in some way. IMO, this is the kind of thing that is being stopped by disabling signatures. I can't stand reading forums where every post is followed by some long quote, a .gif, and a bunch of other crap (in before a half dozen posts demonstrating the awful sigs we see on other sites). And while

and

aren't quite as bad, they aren't far off. If you like signing your posts off with your name, so be it. I think it's a little nitty to worry about that, even if it annoys some of us. But when you start adding quotes and so-called witticisms to the end, or a crapload of blank lines for some kind of style reasons, I don't think we need to see that.

I'd like to agree with bobo because it's the reasonable position (no reasonable person likes signatures, so that's out), but perhaps for irrational reasons I can't recall a signature that didn't annoy me — at least among signatures that posters always use.

Mason's is a bit different and I don't think I'd even call it a signature in the same sense because he doesn't always use it, and when he does I think he means something (albeit maybe not much) by it.

No other signature I've seen on the forum comes close to looking to me like anything other than a pointless, irritating affectation.

I agree with Bobo too.


_____



"An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind." — Buddha Luther King

is he saying keep up the good work to other people or himself? For example he will post information in regards to full tilt poker and continue with his...

Is mise Tompakee

Keep up the good work

It kind of reminds me of gollum

if you erect me as president of 2+2 I promise to enable signatures and encourage their use among members.

I will then be able to more easily identify the posters that need to be cleansed in the upcoming.. well, cleansing.

There's a difference between accepting sigs like these :

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=143769703

and those like we currently see on 2p2 right now. That's where 2p2 drew the line where users could choose between enabling or disabling them. That's just my opinion about it.


- NMHU.

There are some differences. That doesn't mean that smaller sigs don't also annoy most posters here.

What does "Is mise Tompakee" even mean?

means is mise tompakee

Does "Keep on truckin' 8-)" count as a sig?

Thank you. Well then.

Apparently, it's Irish. Only a small portion of the community understands what he actually says but for others, it's gibberish.


- NMHU.

I'm pretty sure it means I am Tompakee.

That's actually a bit disappointing, but I guess I should have worked it out.

Makes it even more affected, self-centered and banworthy than the others imo.

Absolutely correct, and that's what I was alluding to earlier. I'm kind of shocked that TTI is the only one who's actually used an example ITT; usually these kind of threads being out a whole bunch of humorously ridiculous fake sigs.

So I think we can almost all agree that sigs like those are hideous, and that's why they're disabled in the software. Of course, people can just post the same thing at the end of every post to get around this limitation. Obviously a line needs to be drawn somewhere; what we'll get some disagreement on is where that is. OP, atakdog, and others will say the line is at anything repeated in every post. That would be just fine with me, but as I said before, I think worrying about a simple sign-off with a name is probably going too far. But anything going beyond that is just annoying IMO.

So make it anything beyond your name or screenname isn't allowed. I'd be more than happy with that.

I guess that's villain dependant imo (mod). I, for one, was kinda tilted about tompakee sig because it was simply too long and gibberish but I didn't got all that mad because I knew that it wouldnt be consequential with my actions. But as you just said, worrying about a simple sign-off with a name is out of line imo. But, that's up to the discretion of the moderators I guess...


Is mise...**** off.

- NMHU.

I support that short signatures aren't banned. Most people don't want to use them anyway, they are essentially redundant, because the poster is obvious anyway. I would never even consider using one. But let people have their ways, within limits of course. Bobo's post earlier itt was quite solid.