Thread: No sig lines means no sig lines

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.