Tools are gonna act like tools if you take away their signatures or not.

Sigs like Lee's and Buzz's are fine imo because it's just their name, I don't particularly like the style but it's not a big deal.

Having said that Is mise tompakee is ****ing stupid and adds 3 lines of spam to every post.

I guess I don't really have a point. It's a sunny day, I think I might go outside.

The obvious solution is to enable the forum software signature feature.

This would allow people to include a sig automatically but would also allow those who dislike them to turn them off.

It works perfectly for Avatars which some like and some don't. I find the moving ones annoying so have them turned off and am thus never bothered.

Similarly on sites that allow auto sigs, if the site culture is such that people make big, annoying ones, they can be turned off. (I think the site admins can impose automatic limits on what can and cannot be included in a sig.)

That's actually not a bad idea, as long as it comes with a rule against signatures outside the signature field. Then everyone can have his own mise tompawhatever thing, and no one has to look at it if he doesn't want to.

Shame we don't have a thank you button either

That has the potential to vastly degrade the experience for non-logged-in visitors who, additionally, might not realize that removing signatures is an option. (It would add a meme to compete with default-posts-per-page, though.)

Just how would you like to be "erected"?

@ToTheInternet - I love the cat photo! Thank you for sharing it.

Lee

Do you really want to tailor the facilities of a site for the benefit of people who do not consider it to be important enough to register/log in at the expense of those that do and are actually providing the content that makes the site?

The people who actually provide the content generally think that signatures are a terrible idea, and would only be indifferent if they could hide them, so that's not a very persuasive argument to me.

More to the point, I wouldn't care, but the site owners ought to, if it decreases traffic.

Can anyone with a signature explain why they feel the need to sign their posts when their name is stamped to the left of the post already?

I will often times sign PMs with my real first name, but that's because messages are already personalized things. But a poster that's mostly in RGT, GreatestIAm, signs each post:

Regards,
DL

And it doesn't make sense because we know GreatestIAm, but we don't know DL, and unlike a name, initials are just weird. Maybe his only bothers me because of how annoying he is even outside the signature. Or how disingenuous the regards is.

and default it to disabled.

And what about those who come to the site to check it out, see a bunch of crappy sigs, and flee for the hills never to return? And those who are members, but don't know to find their settings and get rid of the annoying sigs?

And of course, pity the poor mods, who would have to keep them enabled so they could spot any spam.

You'd have posters abusing it all the time with spam.

Just too many downsides to this to justify satisfying the handful that like signing their posts IMO, even when you include those who would start using sigs if the feature became available.

It seems to work on other sites, but I admit that I always turn them off. However, I rarely, if ever, see people complain about them - so maybe almost everyone turns them off.

I hadn't thought of that. Seems a very justified objection.

I suppose you're right. It may be that the sites that allow them appeal to a demographic that does not tend to abuse them.

This is important

facepalm.gif (sig)

I don't think it does work on other sites...

I think name signatures are only acceptable on somewhat long posts, to make them look like a letter of sorts.
Things like:

Ban op

-NMHU

Or:

+1

-NMHU

Are pretty annoying and pointless imo

I'm interested in this only as someone who would potentially have to enforce a ban. I view this pretty much the same way I do annoying (to me) avatars - 2p2 has a function to block users who are posting in such a way as to annoy you. I don't see the point in having a rule when there is already a solution in place.

I really don't get either the people who insist on signing things OR the people who become ravenously angry when people sign things. It's such a tiny issue, and to get that worked up over it seems kind of ridiculous to me. But I do understand that sometime really tiny things can be immensely irritating, or feel deeply personal in some way - this just isn't one of those tiny things I feel all that strongly about.

Making a site-wide ban just means another thing the mods have to enforce and people get to bitch about when their "freedom of speech" is trampled by the nazi mods. If you find signatures that annoying, just block the users that usually end their posts with signatures. How hard is that?

People signing their 2p2 posts is delightfully eccentric imo. It's like wearing jodhpurs or spats.

To ensure I never have to see any godawful signatures I use a greasemonkey script that hides the last 3 lines of every post.

Wow, can I get a copy of that? Sounds awesome.







Nah, just kidding, you suck.

thanks! there's a link to it in the greasemonkey thread in the mod forum.

Sigs are like water torture. They slowly work into your brain until there is nothing left of your sanity. It's like 3 posters that are the problem. Can't we just take a vote? I say of your post is less than 30 words NO SIGNATURE. Lee is cool cuz he writes essays but the others are annoying beyond belief.








-monkeylump



"People who talk in metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch."

Going to start signing all my posts with U mad.

-U mad.

Hi gregorio!

-U mad.
.
.
.
.
.

mason can do it since its his site, but i dont think its coincidence that everyone who signs their posts is a consensus horrible poster

Lonely_but_rich