Siggies?

[Mobius]

Now we have a new leader - albeit a semi-literate one (;) - sorry KB, couldn't resist!) what's the chance of resurrecting board signatures? It's still there on my profile, and the option is still there in the posting checkboxes -- so how about switching 'em back on?

The board seems somehow poorer without them.

I remember getting quite a few chuckles out of siggies.

[KoolBear]

Mobius,

Do you ever check your PM's?

I voted \"I'm indifferent\", you didn't have an option for I'm semi-literate

Who abused the siggies and why were they de-activated?

[Krom]

Restore signatures?

Me pulls out the \"Rejected\" stamp.

Don't need em, don't miss em.

[Hattrick]

If theyre kept to a max of 3 lines with no images, I don't see a problem.

[Lothar]

It doesn't really matter who abused them...

once they were gone, I realized how much more I like reading a forum without signatures. The things pretty much just get in the way. The fewer non-thread-related words, images, icons, etc. in the middle of the thread, the better.

I wouldn't mind having taglines that go under or above avatars, though. Instead of name-rank-avatar, it could be name-rank-avatar-short funny sentence, or name-rank-short funny sentence-avatar.

[Krom]

Just put the location display back under the avatar if you need that. (just look at my profile and you will get it)

[MD-2389]

Bring them back. By installing a certain mod, those that don't want to see them (including avatars) don't have to.

[Top Wop]

Bring them back. By installing a certain mod, those that don't want to see them (including avatars) don't have to.

X2

[Kilarin]

I'm with Lothar on this. A tagline under the avatar would be fine, but otherwise, if I want more info about someone, there's that nice little button that takes me to their profile.

of course, since I'm about the only person left in the world who sticks his name at the bottom of posts, I may not have room to talk. I need to break that habit.

[Topher]

If we turn on sigs then we have to setup rules for them, then we have to hear complaints about how so and so's sig is 4 lines on their monitor instead of the maximum of 3. Then we have to hear how people bolded their sig or made it some obnoxious color.

Whether you can disable them or not, it's a whole lot more overhead cost for the moderators/admins than just \"Bing! Sigs are on!\".

[Lothar]

Whether you can disable them or not, it's a whole lot more overhead cost for the moderators/admins than just "Bing! Sigs are on!".

Yep. And if we install a mod that lets users block out sigs, the mods/admins can't really use it, because we need to be aware of what's in those sigs.

[MD-2389]

Was it really anymore work when we actually had them? Not really. The most we ever had to do was make sure they were within the 3 line limit imposed at the time. I honestly don't see a valid reason for them being off. Most of them at the time were so short that you could flat out ignore them. Turn them back on and see what happens. If they're abused, you can always remove them again.

[fyrephlie]

who wants them?

vindictive mirc loggers who got that 'perfect quote' of xxx saying xxx and looking foolish and clan kids who need their banner, angry key pounders that got such and such saying this....

so few are the people who use them for anything useful.

[DCrazy]

Check out .com and you'll see that sigs really don't add anything to the conversation. I used to support adding them and an option to turn them off, but for what Lothar and MD have said I realize that's not really an option for some people.