Thread: No sig lines means no sig lines

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

But that's what I'm saying. Everyone isn't gone all of a sudden. Just instead of posting about razors or hones or whatever, there are posts about the new no sig policy. Not to mention people are listening. There has already been mention by Bruno about revising the no sig policy to possibly include one line sigs. That would be a compromise between what members are requesting and the less clutter goal.

And of course I can speak as a member and not a mod. I may fill some administrative roles, but I do not fill them all or even play a part in them all. Trust me, my part on SRP is much more like yours than you may think. I haven't served in the military or for the public, but isn't that exactly what "permission to speak freely" means?

Dylan, speaking freely is the opposite of censorship. My disdain is for censorship, not free speech. I would respectfully disagree. What we do in life changes our thought patterns. Since you and I are mods, we look upon stuff a bit differently. Can't help it. But does that does not preclude your thoughts from being reasonable.

Originally Posted by HNSB

Images are resized by the software.
Server space and bandwidth have nothing to do with why signatures were removed.

Ok, I'll wait. Is someone going to post a reason? I would love to hear what the issue was. I also volunteer any amount of time required to assist you in any manner. (I know how, but won't write code.)

Too all the mods/admins who have taken the time to try and be reasonable with me in this thread: It is usually quite difficult to illicit this type of response from me. Suffice to say you struck a nerve.

Thanks for all you do. Where I moderate, they would have banned my butt several comments ago. Thanks for your patience.

I volunteer to be the sig line moderator!!

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

Is someone going to post a reason?

Read posts 9 & 18 in this thread.
http://straightrazorpalace.com/site-...tml#post823765
http://straightrazorpalace.com/site-...tml#post823849

Originally Posted by HNSB

Read posts 9 & 18 in this thread.
http://straightrazorpalace.com/site-...tml#post823765
http://straightrazorpalace.com/site-...tml#post823849

I graduated from the third grade a few years back and can read and even comprehend the posts you pointed out. I've read them several times and still cannot fathom a reason to remove the sig lines.
I'll say this again, you cannot moderate the forum with software. You can try, but from experience I can tell you it won't work. People like me and most others will abide by your regulations. The ones that are causing the issue will circumvent your rules and do it anyway. if you ban them, they will return under different screen names. If you ban their IP addy, they will return using an encrypted proxy and get on the forum anyway.

So basically, you only hurt the ones that follow the rules:

Signature policy

Below is SRP's policy on signature lines. We have tried to keep it short and simple:

1. Free expression is generally acceptable. We retain the right to decide the appropriateness of a signature line on an individual basis.
2. Non-advertisement links are generally acceptable, as long as they comply with our General rules of conduct.
3. Shaving Advertisement is generally acceptable, as long as the advertising is for your own product(s) or shop(s). Graphics or images for commercial use are generally unacceptable (cf. Vendor/Advertising policy). Advertising for other members is equally unacceptable.
4. Other advertisement links are generally unacceptable.

I volunteer to do the work.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Post #9 in this thread made it fairly clear, to me at least, that adding clutter to the page was the issue being addressed. Some one asked if this was a storage issue, and the answer to that was no. Then there was a reference to the 50% decrease in space when scrolling in threads after the new policy (see post 18). It almost takes willful disregard for the explanations given to not see that point.

Your clutter is my art.

That's the second time those have been alluded to by actual post number.

For the record, this not "our house". If the members who get this riled up about this type of request left, the house might be less full by... Well, one, but it would be significantly less noisy.

Also, freedom of speech is a lovely concept, and I'm a big fan of t. However, there's no restriction on your speech in this policy. We've just been asked not to express ourselves in a certain way. If the message is that critical that you have to write it in every post, find a way to make it relevant, and type it out, but don't format it to where it takes up a lot of space and clutter. This isn't the big bad censors coming to infringe on your rights, it's an attempt to make the site better.

This is a formatting issue, not a content one. Imagine sitting at home trying to read a nice book, and all of a sudden some dude walks in the door with a megaphone and starts yelling some political message in your face. Well, obviously, that's not legal, and the laws prohibiting that aren't infringing on free speech either... Again, this isn't censorship, or infringing on our rights in any way (which isn't possible considering there is no state actor here).

See? That's what I'm saying. It takes a willful disregard for the reasons given to not know why the signatures have been removed. Not agreeing with the reasons, not thinking the reasons make sense, etc. is one thing, but saying no reasons are given, or that they are not valid demonstrates an intentional obtuseness that makes this completely a waste of time, and as such I'm going to go read about hones or something. Enjoy your day, gentlemen.

When I go to someone elses house and I'm asked to take my shoes off at the door, I take my shoes off at the door. I don't need a reason.

This is someone elses house and though we all bring a dish to pass, we are still in someone elses house.

Let me try to rephrase the reasons Bruno posted:

1. too much scrolling
2. removing off-topic distractions from the posts
3. more natural flow of the forum discussion (i.e. not constantly interrupted by repeated signatures)

I don't really see a way to address the first point that is not a software related, as it is a software issue. Of course some people may prefer one sentence per computer screen, others 20 posts per screen, but for most it's somewhere in between. The point is this isn't a matter of principle, but something that needs to work reasonably well for most.

The second issue seems to be the central one. It is not a matter of administration, but a matter of vision what the forum should be. Similar to what forum sections there should be, what are the ground rules and policies (on the same footing with for example how the commercial activities are to be included in the site if at all). This is a matter of principle and unfortunately it's not up for a democratic vote even among the staff.

The third point is also a matter of judgment call. For some people signatures are an established part of discussion forums, for others the natural state of discussion doesn't involve a constant repetition of a tagline. Of course there is still the info block with the avatar and user data which is being repeated, but in our layout it's purposefully put to the side so that it's more like a side column than dispersed between the posts themselves. Again this is a matter of opinion and while I think removing signatures altogether is straying from the internet norm, it doesn't seem like a big outlier.

Of course, now that the change has been in for about 10 days we can also poll what the majority thinks. It seems that many people after having the experience of no signature lines actually prefer it. But that's only useful if the people who are responsible for point #2 are willing to reconsider their position.

And, of course, you are right that there are moderation tasks that cannot be done by a software and more freedom generally means more work to keep people from burning the place. And in my time as SRP mod whether a signature is compliant or not has always been decided by a discussion among all moderators, trying to be reasonable and give the member the benefit of the doubt. So it's a very inefficient process, but that's what you have to do if you want to ensure maximum objectivity. Even with that I can think of may be 10-20 members who when asked to correct their signatures decided that the moderators were conducting a witch hunt and stopped being helpful, or became outright disruptive, some to the point of being banned.
I don't know if this is just a small price to pay for allowing signature lines, but since I don't particularly care for the signatures their complete removal it is just fine with me. If it were up to me I'd remove all politics and religion from them and rather loose the zealots if that's going to make them leave the place, but I don't make the policy and can live with it as it were/is.

Pardon my ignorance here, and this is meant to be a polite set of questions. When we are talking about signiture lines, it's what has already been removed right? It's not about signing off at the end of your post with your name or anything is it? Or is it? If it is then I will stop doing that too. No problems with that on my part.


Mick

Yep, sig lines are (were) added automatically by the software from stuff you set in your profile information. Often people put witticisms there though just as often there are images or links to other sites. Different forums have different rules but nobody likes seeing spam links, for example.