Let's ban signatures! Compulsory poll included

[Count Chocula]

no, you got it right the first time with that insulting thing.

[Pasghettos]

Meh, clever posters will find a way to sneak sigs into posts no matter what the rules are.

[caseycjc]

Originally Posted by WalterS

And just to be clear I'm talking about signatures like tompakee's. Not Mason's or Nate's or even NMHU's.

So most sigs are ok, just not the one you don't like. If every subjective suggestion brought to ATF was enforced we'd probably have no forum.

[Mr.mmmKay]

There's an objective difference between sigs that are just a name (Mason, NMHU) and tompakee's, which has 2 lines of text.

2 whole lines, ffs!!

[SGT RJ]

I'm basically arguing that we don't need a rule when there's already a solution in place - ignore the poster.

Making a rule just gives the mods something more to do and more reason for randoms to hate on us for enforcing a stupid rule.

I kind of agree that people with "annoying" signatures are a bit selfish in keeping it once they realize how many people are annoyed, but guess what? There are tons of posters that are annoying. There are people who think I'm annoying (in b4 a ton of people agree). As long as they aren't deliberately trolling, being annoying in some way isn't against the rules. It's just what happens when a vast horde of people with different writing styles and personalities all interact.

This **** can only annoy you if you let it. Either ignore the poster or grow thicker skin.

[Omar Comin]

Signatures are silly.





#1 Phill Hellmuth Fan
#1 Daniel Negreanu Fan

THE BEST EVER DON'T MESS

[WalterS]

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

I'm basically arguing that we don't need a rule when there's already a solution in place - ignore the poster.

Making a rule just gives the mods something more to do and more reason for randoms to hate on us for enforcing a stupid rule.

I kind of agree that people with "annoying" signatures are a bit selfish in keeping it once they realize how many people are annoyed, but guess what? There are tons of posters that are annoying. There are people who think I'm annoying (in b4 a ton of people agree). As long as they aren't deliberately trolling, being annoying in some way isn't against the rules. It's just what happens when a vast horde of people with different writing styles and personalities all interact.

This **** can only annoy you if you let it. Either ignore the poster or grow thicker skin.

Again, I do ignore them! I just want 2+2 to be a better place!

F those moron randoms who complain and come on, it wouldn't be that much more work at all. Sounds like you are tired of doing mod work and getting bitched at to me (understandable). Maybe you are judging this not on the validity of the complaint but on the way it would affect you directly.

This could be easily and swiftly implemented and would probably only be a few more infractions per month per mod if that.

[SGT RJ]

Originally Posted by WalterS

Again, I do ignore them! I just want 2+2 to be a better place!

F those moron randoms who complain and come on, it wouldn't be that much more work at all. Sounds like you are tired of doing mod work and getting bitched at to me (understandable). Maybe you are judging this not on the validity of the complaint but on the way it would affect you directly.

This could be easily and swiftly implemented and would probably only be a few more infractions per month per mod if that.

Given that my stance on this is pretty much identical to my stance about banning "seizure avatars", I'm pretty sure I'm not overly biased by how much bitching I receive. You can't please everyone.

And you honestly have no idea how "easily or swiftly implemented" this would be for mods, or how many more infractions it would mean. It seems to me that you're making a lot of assumptions about how the site/modding works and using that to justify your "sigs are annoying and getting rid of them is so EZ, so let's do that!" argument.

I think in general that 2p2 prefers not to have a rule about something unless there's no other efficient way to deal with the issue. There's already an efficient way to deal with this issue, ergo no rule is necessary. IMO, of course.

If we developed a rule to deal with everything posters found annoying there wouldn't be a site. Of course no one reads the rules anyway.

[WalterS]

New idea: make me (or someone) the mod of signatures and I will hand out swift and fair justice across all of 2p2! We can even give it to my old '04 registration account if necessary. I'd be happy to do it and have been on 2p2 daily for years without ever being banned or even getting an infraction.

Either that or managing this on a case by case basis and giving warnings to the most egregious offenders would be awesome. Like any time a thread is derailed by people complaining about a sig, take action or something.

If not, I'll just continue to ignore the asshats. No big deal.

Think I've said about all I can say here, so thank you all for your consideration and have a nice long weekend!

-WalterS

"You mark that frame an 8, and you're entering a world of pain. A world of pain. [shouting] Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a **** about the rules? Mark it zero! Mark it zero! You think I'm ****ing around here? Mark it zero!

It's a league game, Smokey"

[Bobo Fett]

Originally Posted by WalterS

Either that or managing this on a case by case basis and giving warnings to the most egregious offenders would be awesome. Like any time a thread is derailed by people complaining about a sig, take action or something.

This already happens. It's not like no one has ever been warned or infracted for a sig; it just doesn't happen often, and the threshold for when this happens is much higher than you'd like.

[Lovesantiques]

Originally Posted by Bobo Fett

I'm pretty sure it means I am Tompakee.

Bobo - you are Tompakee??

Lee

[gregorio]

Lee, your thoughts on people who sign their posts?

[Cardfish1]

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

I'm basically arguing that we don't need a rule when there's already a solution in place - ignore the poster.

The message that shows when an ignored poster posts is more annoying than the sigs.

Agree with OP.

WalterS for mod.

[NomoneyHU.]

Originally Posted by WalterS

I guess insulting may not be the best word but I'm not sure what the word is. Disrespectful maybe or just plain inconsiderate. They are making people read the same meaningless lines of text over and over and over again (or at least attempting to until they get ignored). Inconsiderate is probably what I should have said.

I really don't know why people are arguing with me here. Maybe I haven't presented my ideas in the best manner possible, but it doesn't seem like there is much of a debate that most signatures suck.

And just to be clear I'm talking about signatures like tompakee's. Not Mason's or Nate's or even NMHU's.


I understand the complaint that it would just be more work for mods, but I don't think it's much more at all. There are very few people that use signatures like tompakee's and it wouldn't take long at all to eliminate them.

A simple rule change and a post in the mod forum, and then a few PMs/warnings to the offenders and POOF, problem solved.

If we wants to govern using this philosophy, I got absolutely no problem having him as a mod imo.


- NMHU.

[wafflehouse1]

Originally Posted by NomoneyHU.

If we wants to govern using this philosophy, I got absolutely no problem having him as a mod imo.


- NMHU.

Gtfo










-NMHU.-waffle