Woooooow, well played sir. Awesome.


- NMHU.

On the contrary, I hate the signature more when it's difficult to read like this one. It kind of stands out in its non-outstandness.

Just no pleasing everyone.

currently? LOL

btw..glad to know your tilt n rant threshold is so low. Wuss.

b

doesn't make your "-b" at the end of every post any less douche-ish

You're kidding, right? It's a very bad idea, which is basically the opposite of "genius" or "great."

Is mise tompakee

I think it's a decent compromise. Obviously you can feel free to disagree.

Nazi.


Is mise tompakee

Because the Nazi's were known for their willingness to compromise.

It's not so much a compromise though because of all the different skins. I use the dark one with grey background and that one you said looked better earlier looked like plain text to me.

I think it's still too soon to ejaculate on Whitney Houston's face, even in a graceful arc.

What if the ejaculate is a powdered substance?

In before new photoshop.

Agreed. Way, way too soon.

It's a good compromise because:

1) Most people use dark text on a light background. A lot of research has been done on this.

2) Most people find it easy to ignore lower contrast text. Again, a lot of research has been don on this. Many people are so good at mentally editing out things in which they have no interest that they are genuinely unaware of what adverts have repeatedly appeared on pages they view.

There is no perfect compromise but it make little sense for an entire community to reject something on the basis that it will still affect a tiny minority who use a very unusual colour scheme or who have some weird psyco-visual wiring that causes them to need to read something that is unusually low contrast.

Were you also not taught that it was polite to conform to the standards of the community in which you choose to 'live'.

I have some difficulties to understand the hate for signatures, it's now 29-12 in favor of a ban.


Is misé plaaynde

Actually 36 - 12. Banning all but names is close enough and is a fine compromise.

If we can't block mods (I think I read that somewhere, never tried to block anyone yet) the solution breaks if someone with a signature becomes mod.
Not that the problem would arise often enough for a fix to be necessary and scrolling down remains very efficient.
I don't care much about signature, but found the thread interesting about forum dynamics between posters.

You are correct you can't block mods.

And, ironically enough, both MM and mods like TheEngineer use signatures, but they are the type nobody complains about (or only a small few complain about), that being their name at the end of longer posts.

A despite the vote, I say LOL sample size. It would be great if more posters popped into ATF, but alas, it is not so. They are missing out on the funniest forum on 2p2. Their loss.

2p2 should just enable signatures so the post signing yahoos can put it there and then people can disable them if they want. obviously ban anyone who just types them out.






315,912 and counting

I agree with dkgojackets IF its possible to disable the sig's by default (in favor of the anonymous lurkers). Anyone that wants to see them creates an account or enables them on their existing account.

In B4 Kevmode says he is entitled to just disable the signatures he doesn't like.

We already discussed that itt. I think the conclusion was that modding sigs for spam would be more work than this is worth.

the default should obviously be to not have signatures if you go the rout of enabling/disabling (though that would be a stupid decision as well)

i think they should just be banned outright. there is literally no need to put a "-snagglechud" at the bottom of every. single. post. why? because my name is right there to the left of it.

it is narcissistic and douche behavior.

as i said it is fine and makes sense if someone is making a public statement, letter, or is speaking on behalf of some organization or in a professional context. but that is it

the people who are signing their name on very post for no real reason are generally awful posters as well. so f em

"don't sign every post with your name for no reason and don't have a stupid signature" seems like a pretty rational, airtight policy with no downsides