Signatures

Summary:

Why are they banned, again?

page 1 of 212next »

Signiatures

RJB_R 18 Nov 2013 23:38

So, recently, people have been questioning the validity of our signature ban, and it got me thinking about why we actually do ban them. I realize they do annoy some people, but as long as they aren't something disruptive or inappropriate, I see no reason why we shouldn't allow people to have them. I mean, the Russians are able to handle allowing signatures just fine, and there are plenty of people who use WikiDot signatures as part of other sites, and it isn't fair to them to have a flat ban on signatures.

Not to say that they shouldn't be totally unmoderated though. If somebody has a ridiculously long/offensive/just plain stupid signature, we can ask them to change it. I also don't think we'd need to allow people to have pictures in their signature, for the same reason we don't allow them in the forums.

So, thoughts?

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Signiatures

Communism will win 18 Nov 2013 23:42

Basically, it cuts into our signal:noise ratio. Not having them streamlines the forums. The Russians probably manage it because they have a page and a half of forum posts per day.

---

if your reading this your gay

Re: Signiatures

Dmatix 19 Nov 2013 00:01

I honestly don't see any reason to allow them. They add nothing substantial and they clutter the already clutter-pron forums. That aside, no one likes to see the same silly joke or inane quote half a hundred times every time they want to browse the comments.

Re: Signiatures

AdminBright 19 Nov 2013 00:02

There's no real point to having them. They tend to be annoying. … Yeh, that pretty much sums it up.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Signiatures

Wogglebug 19 Nov 2013 00:42

In my experience, signatures rarely if ever tell you something you don't already know. On top of that, reading the same line, or block, or half-page of text a dozen times in the same forum is extremely annoying, and serves no real purpose. The only valid use I can really think of for a forum signature in our context is to link to something on or off the site, and we already have mechanisms in place for people to share such things (author pages, that one thread for blogs, the community-information threads, and various others). Even if there was some reason for a user to desire to have a signature, that desire does not really necessitate a change in policy that would inconvenience or annoy other users, as there is not a substantial benefit to be gained from their presence.

Re: Signiatures

Zyn 19 Nov 2013 01:24

I don't see why one would need a signature. We're a writing group, not a roleplay hub or pure-chat forum (to elaborate, we don't have people posting stuff like "sup" / "nm" / "cool" on the forums). So far (and this is based on the PMs I've sent to newbies, asking them to remove signatures) all I've seen people put as signatures have been one of the following:

- some phrase including their username or their "character" name, i.e. "- Dr. Kiryu" (unnecessary since their username is already at the top of every post they make, and we're not a roleplay forum)
- some inane joke phrase, usually in all caps
- a quotation from a famous person
- a portion of code (binary, gibberish, etc.)
- a link to another website

I feel like if a person really wanted some words to be associated with them, all of the above could easily be put on a person's wikidot user info page thing, in the "About" section. I don't find signatures necessary because they don't contribute anything and can be distracting.

Last edited on 19 Nov 2013 01:24 by Zyn Show more

Re: Signiatures

RJB_R 19 Nov 2013 01:26

If we seem to be pretty resolutely "no" on forum signatures being allowed, what about people who have reasons for having a signature(being members of the russian wiki, being wikidot community manager-types, etc.) being allowed to sport one, since they probably wouldn't be posting regularly in the forums?

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Signiatures

Dmatix 19 Nov 2013 12:42

I'm honestly not a big fan of that either. If we allow some people to have them then you get others whining about them not being allowed while others are, complaints of favoritism and all that lovely stuff. I honestly don't think we're the kind of site that needs to rely on signatures at all- I'd like to assume our members can concentrate on what a person is saying or have the foresight to look at their "About" page, rather than needing the crutch of a signature.

Re: Signiatures

Aelanna 19 Nov 2013 16:00

That's not really the concern, though. As one of the ones that originally brought this up, my point was that if someone who is primarily associated with the Russian SCP Wiki or — heaven forbid — a Wikidot Community Manager decides to join the SCP Wiki, we'd have people dogpiling them for having signatures when some of these people have had signatures for years. In the latter case, that signature is also part of their job.

---

Edit: Just to make it clear, I'm not so much campaigning for signatures to be allowed as just making an observation that there's a lot of signatures in Wikidot outside of our little corner.

---

Edit 2: After a little digging, it turns out there's a solution to disable forum signatures on a site-by-site basis by using custom styling. That's also a viable option while getting rid of an explicit signature ban; signatures simply won't show up on the SCP Wiki.

Last edited on 19 Nov 2013 16:04 by Aelanna Show more

Re: Signiatures

Wogglebug 19 Nov 2013 19:59

[This is the thing, in case we need it.]

Re: Signiatures

Communism will win 19 Nov 2013 22:40

Oh hey, neat. I like this thing. We should do the thing.

---

if your reading this your gay

Re: Signiatures

RJB_R 19 Nov 2013 22:51

Yeah, this seems like a good idea to implement. People can have sigs, and they just don't show up on our site.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Signatures

SoullessSingularity 19 Nov 2013 01:56

I honestly don't really mind signatures that much as long as they don't get distracting. Text should be small and non-invasive, easily ignored. Then again I'm not all for signatures either. I just know I'd use one if I could.

On the topic of reasons to sport a signature: I don't mind that either.

EDIT: I will say that on the extremely low chance in any future that we allow signatures, people should be allowed to report a signature that becomes excessive or distracting.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 19 Nov 2013 04:37 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Signatures

Vezaz 19 Nov 2013 01:58

I can't find any compelling reason why signatures should be banned; I don't really buy the arguments about clutter. That being said I have no great urge to have them around either, so unless members begin some sort of mass petition I'm alright with leaving things as they are.

---

I sing of arms and the man
Storm-tossed by Hera's jealousy

Re: Signatures

Dexanote 19 Nov 2013 14:58

I find signatures to be annoying clutter and often not contribute to anything we can't find out otherwise, or that they'll be a link to a blog or some quote they like. It's not cancer but it's not contributing.

page 1 of 212next »