# new signature limits



## mkellogg

Hi everybody,

There have been a number of complaints about lengthy signatures.  While this isn't the most important problem, I have instituted new restrictions on them.  The details are on the edit signature page, but basically, they will be limited to a single line, only one smilie, and no colors.  Actually I think I will change them all to blue in a few days.

For existing signatures, I'll wait a week, but then start removing the BBcodes to make them comply with the new rules.

The goal here is to restrain the signatures to something unobtrusive.  99.9% of you will still be able to say what you want, but just in fewer lines and colors. 

Mike


----------



## Ilmo

It seems very reasonable at least to me, and I should know that because it was exactly today that I got the idea of having a motto of my own, and I got the desired formulation thanks to the WR.
*What cannot be said in one line probably isn't worth saying.*
(I grant the whole aphorism to the free disposition of all forer@s.)


----------



## maxiogee

This subtracts greatly from the gaiety of nations!


----------



## geve

Yeah, I can see how my current signature, with its two lines and bright colour, is very obstrusive. 

But seriously, I agree that smileys and bigger fonts can damage reading and could be spared, but colours? 
I am not an ornament-freak, in fact I often shiver when I visit other forums and see that signatures occupy more space than the post itself, or that threads are cluttered with animated icons or avatars. It is indeed hard to read through a thread in such conditions. But we're very very far from that here... Of course the focus of this forum is about content more than format and words more than images, but even the most rigorous linguist can enjoy a little bit of colour 
Or, maybe I should start writing my posts in different colours!

Will we still be able to choose the font? (to have the illusion that we are expressing our creativity! )


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Hum..."numbers of complaints". As usual, we often hear much more about grumpy people, don't you think so?


----------



## cuchuflete

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> Hum..."numbers of complaints". As usual, we often hear much more about grumpy people, don't you think so?



Well, so far three people have grumped about the new signature parameters!



______________________________________________
 I am not an ornament-freak, in fact I often shiver... -geve


----------



## cuchuflete

geve said:


> Will we still be able to choose the font? (to have the illusion that we are expressing our creativity! )



If you add or change a signature, the limits and options are listed at the bottom of the page:



> Allow Basic BBCode No
> Allow Color BBCode No
> Allow Size BBCode Yes
> *Allow Font BBCode Yes *
> Allow Alignment BBCode Yes
> Allow List BBCode No
> Allow Link BBCode No
> Allow Code BBCode No
> Allow PHP BBCode No
> Allow HTML BBCode No
> Allow Quote BBCode No
> Allow HTML No
> Allow Smilies Yes
> Allow  Code No
> Can Upload Images for Signature No
> Can Upload Animated GIF for Signature No
> 
> [/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> [COLOR=DimGray]__________________________________
> [FONT=Palatino Linotype][COLOR=Black]Creativity is highly overrated as an ingredient in fish chowder.  —Brillat-Savarin[/COLOR][/FONT]
> [/COLOR]


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> If you add or change a signature, the limits and options are listed at the bottom of the page:


So you mean I'm supposed to read this technical jargon now? Where's the French-Computerspeak forum please? 


____________________
Call me a grumpy old man, but do it with *colors*.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

cuchuflete said:


> Well, so far three people have grumped about the new signature parameters!


Is this a request to hear from more grumps complaining about that? 
I just thought about this French saying reading this thread: "on ne parle jamais des trains qui arrivent à l'heure".


----------



## Panpan

Seriously Mike, 2 lines would allow for a signature line to be posted in both languages in a language-pair forum, in the spirit of the Forum.

Please would you re-consider the single line whip?

Panpan


----------



## cuchuflete

So good, they named me twice. — Cosi buono che mi hanno battezzato due volte. —Tan bueno que  me han bautizado dos veces.


----------



## Panpan

Yes, but you can read them both at the same time, or at least in the same view, if they are vertically positioned. I always find I absorb more from translations this way than if they are on facing pages, because with vertical positioning you can often match up pairs of words as you read.

Panpan


----------



## geve

Panpan said:


> Yes, but you can read them both at the same time, or at least in the same view, if they are vertically positioned. I always find I absorb more from translations this way than if they are on facing pages, because with vertical positioning you can often match up pairs of words as you read.


Not to mention people who wouldn't think of sending a message, even over the internet, without a proper form of address like this:
____________________
_Yours,_
_Member's first name_

Or those who like poem lines like me... 

But anyway, I see that it's not really open to discussion (and the overpolite members can just type it in every message). Now I just want to make sure I understand right the BBcode jargon that appears now on the "edit signature" page: 
So if I change my signature now (which I was planning to do, but I'm a bit scared), I will have the default blue color and only one line?

*Would it be possible to choose between using a smilie and using a font color?* Smilies are more obstrusive and heavier to load than font colors, aren't they? 
(I know someone here really enjoys blue, but I'm having allergies if I take my blue undiluted. )
(And I'm afraid yours is not the regulatory shade of blue, Cuchu. )
____________________
*Unobstrusive single-line blue signatures rock!*


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> ____________________
> *Unobstrusive single-line blue signatures rock!*




... the boat.

Don't rock the boat!


----------



## geve

maxiogee said:


> [/color][/size][/size][/color]
> 
> ... the boat.
> 
> Don't rock the boat!


Oh no, I wouldn't do that - I'm already feeling a bit queasy from all that blue... Or is it that I'm feeling blue already?


----------



## mkellogg

Yes geve,

I understand, but the whole concept here is to make it so that people can easily skip reading the signatures when reading threads - to basically make the threads more readable.  (Well, that, and to get rid of obnoxious sigs.)  That is why I'm controlling colors, extra lines, etc.

Mike


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Does anyone else have trouble with changing their signatures? I'm posting this here as I assume it's linked with the new requirements, but when I try to change it into one sentence (not my current one, something else), I get this message:


> 1. Your signature contains too many lines and must be shortened. You may only have up to 1 line(s).



But I only have one line


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Ok, I managed to change it into something other than I'd planned - my first choice was written with the Cyrillic alphabet though; is this not possible anymore?


----------



## geve

mkellogg said:


> Yes geve,
> 
> I understand, but the whole concept here is to make it so that people can easily skip reading the signatures when reading threads - to basically make the threads more readable. (Well, that, and to get rid of obnoxious sigs.) That is why I'm controlling colors, extra lines, etc.
> 
> Mike


But from what you said, the complaints were about _lengthy_ signatures...  

"More readable signatures" - is that not subjective though? Personally I have no problem skipping coloured signatures, whereas a smilie might stop my eyes... Should we make a poll to see if grumpy people such as those mentioned in the first post of this thread, are more numerous than grumpy people like me? 



Alright, I'll shut up now and go put on my blue uniform.


----------



## Nunty

mkellogg said:


> Yes geve,
> 
> I understand, but the whole concept here is to make it so that people can easily skip reading the signatures when reading threads - to basically make the threads more readable.  (Well, that, and to get rid of obnoxious sigs.)  That is why I'm controlling colors, extra lines, etc.
> 
> Mike



There is possibility in the UCP "Options" not to view signatures. Wouldn't the easiest thing be for the people who don't like sigs just to tick the box?

Obnoxious posts can be deleted. Obnoxious sigs cannot?

I miss my two-correct-me's-and-a-quote three-line siggy.

Not a happy camper-nun


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Ok, so Cyrillic letters work. But why do I get the error message quoted above when I try to put it all in Cyrillic?


----------



## cuchuflete

mkellogg said:


> The goal here is to restrain the signatures to something unobtrusive.  99.9% of you will still be able to say what you want, but just in fewer lines and colors.



The 00.1% who prefer something un-unobtrusive will find creative ways to demonstrate their individualism  (individual ways to demonstrate their creativity?), and will keep Comments & Suggestions hopping and jumping.





_________________________________________
Correct me in language A.  Correct me, please, in Language X.  I welcome corrections to my &&&&&&&&&. Merci, Thanks, Obrigado, Prego  "This is a special quote for your own amusement."


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> mkellogg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal here is to restrain the signatures to something unobtrusive. 99.9% of you will still be able to say what you want, but just in fewer lines and colors.
> 
> 
> 
> The 00.1% who prefer something un-unobtrusive will find creative ways to demonstrate their individualism (individual ways to demonstrate their creativity?), and will keep Comments & Suggestions hopping and jumping.
Click to expand...

I have to ask, though (you know I have to, Cuchu, since you started this thread): 

Can you provide a reliable source to back up these figures?



Nota: Nun-T's suggestion seems to me the less obstrusive way to make everyone happy... Also, I got the same error message as Lemminkäinen when trying to post my current signature. It took me a while (and a return ticket from WYSIWYG to "Extra formatting control" interface) to be able to save it.


----------



## Nunty

geve said:


> [...]Also, I got the same error message as Lemminkäinen when trying to post my current signature. It took me a while (and a return ticket from WYSIWYG to "Extra formatting control" interface) to be able to save it.


So did I with my new (like it?) sig line. (That's line-no-S. Singular.) I got the error message informing me I could only have one line. Yes, I understand that, thank you very much. I selected the one line, clicked un-format button, chose Size 1 again, then it was accepted.


----------



## Nunty

Cuchu,

Correct me in language A. Correct me, please, in Language X. I welcome corrections to my &&&&&&&&&. Merci, Thanks, Obrigado, Prego "This is a special quote for your own amusement."
 
is amusing and all, but not very easy to read. All this lovely white space around posts and threads (which I _like_) and then a crunched-up sig looks silly and detracts from readability, rather than adding to it.

Would you or anyone care to relate to my questions in post #21?

Thanks. I'll just go hop over to the sign-making room in the Student Union and then I'm on the picket line from 3 to 5. After that I'm making sandwiches for tomorrow's sit-in. Seeya.


----------



## ElaineG

> There is possibility in the UCP "Options" not to view signatures. Wouldn't the easiest thing be for the people who don't like sigs just to tick the box? Well, we mods have to review signatures, for advertising and the like, so we're stuck with siggies, and cannot skip them.
> Obnoxious posts can be deleted. Obnoxious sigs cannot? They can.  But as you know, doing it without dialogue will raise cries of censorship, foul play, Animal Farm, and the like.  Before Mike changed the format, the mod team was spending an unwarranted amount of time corresponding with people about their signatures, time that we could have spent helping with language issues, educating newbies, or heck, playing with our dogs or cooking dinner for our loved ones.
> 
> No one size fits all format can make everyone happy, but it did seem like some foreros were going to ever greater lengths to make their signature stand out from the crowd.
> 
> That kind of attention-seeking has little to do with learning languages.
> 
> I do not include your signature in that class, NT, but I'm sure you will have seen examples of what I mean.
> 
> 
> I miss my two-correct-me's-and-a-quote three-line siggy.


----------



## cuchuflete

Nun-Translator said:


> There is possibility in the UCP "Options" not to view signatures. Wouldn't *the easiest thing* be for the people who don't like sigs just to tick the box?





Nun-Translator said:


> Would you or anyone care to relate to my questions in post #21?



Easiest for whom?  





> Members: 91,950,                     Active Members: 14,755


On more than one occasion, between server upgrades to handle increased volume, Mike has turned off avatars and signatures to try to improve performance.  I don't believe this caused the forums or any individual members to suffer greatly.  If one smilie is allowed, some number of members will want two.  If colors in signatures are limited to blue and green, some will prefer another color choice.  If the character limit is 100, a number of people will ask for 120.  

All those requests may be perfectly reasonable, taken one by one. Try pleasing 92 thousand or 15 thousand sets of reasonable requests!

See you on the picket lines.  First, though, I have to figure out a way to instruct one thousand newbies a week to turn off signature displays, after I persuade them to give context, use the dictionaries, and wash behind their ears.  


_______________________________
I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure, which is: Try to please everybody. -Herbert B. Swope


----------



## geve

I realize that by posting here again I might be called a grumpy nuisance and possibly make it into the staff's PITA list if I'm not in it already, but I'm willing to take the risk - because you see, I view my signature as the only small off-topic space where I can freely (but in a short amount of words) let out the weird things that occur in my brain; and I cherish it dearly for this reason. 



cuchuflete said:


> See you on the picket lines. First, though, I have to figure out a way to instruct one thousand newbies a week to turn off signature displays, after I persuade them to give context, use the dictionaries, and wash behind their ears.


I am really puzzled. There are really that many _newbies_ who complain about the length, color, number of lines of signatures? 


ElaineG said:


> There is possibility in the UCP "Options" not to view signatures. Wouldn't the easiest thing be for the people who don't like sigs just to tick the box? Well, we mods have to review signatures, for advertising and the like, so we're stuck with siggies, and cannot skip them.


Or it's a mods' complaint?  
(reviewing all mods' signatures, I'm afraid that many of them don't fit with the new rules  - I wouldn't say that any of them (signature, not mod!!) is obstrusive though)


ElaineG said:


> No one size fits all format can make everyone happy, but it did seem like some foreros were going to ever greater lengths to make their signature stand out from the crowd.
> 
> That kind of attention-seeking has little to do with learning languages.


There is always a way to be obnoxious (see my post #13 that fits the new standards for signatures) - unless you make everyone look the same and allow no personal touch, no signature, no avatar. Oh, we could do that. It'd be a little less fun but we could. Avatars and signatures have little to do with learning languages - but we're not language-learning machines, and as I've said earlier, even the most rigorous linguist can like his words to come in a nice packaging.  The problem that this forum has is the human beings who visit it!



ElaineG said:


> I do not include your signature in that class, NT, but I'm sure you will have seen examples of what I mean.


I can only think of one that I've ever found a bit obstrusive, one that didn't change since the last restrictions to signatures were implemented, and it's one of a senior member (who's still "wearing" it, BTW).




cuchuflete said:


> Easiest for whom? On more than one occasion, between server upgrades to handle increased volume, Mike has turned off avatars and signatures to try to improve performance. I don't believe this caused the forums or any individual members to suffer greatly.


I remember seeing quite a few threads at that time, that said "any idea when we'll get our avatars back?" or "good job Mike, thanks for getting the avatars back on!" 
I don't remember seeing a thread on the colours of signatures...



cuchuflete said:


> All those requests may be perfectly reasonable, taken one by one. Try pleasing 92 thousand or 15 thousand sets of reasonable requests!


No one has asked for an increase of the previous standards in this thread.  
I don't think we complained that much when (not so long ago) the character limit was reduced - and believe me, I must often rack my brains because I had found a good quote or a pun that fitted my mood and it won't fit in the little boxes... 
Maybe we're a little scared at the thought of an interface that would look like the basic notepad application that computer producers give for free!


----------



## Nunty

I think I understand now. I would have had absolutely no objection at all -- okay, I'm a nun, I musn't lie -- let's start again. 

I have great respect for the work the moderators are doing *free of charge* so that bums like me can enjoy these pretty much problem-free (for members) forums. I would have had much less objection if the original post had said something like "The mods are spending an inordinate amount of time on making sure the signatures meet guidelines, so it has been decided to limit them to save wear and tear on the volunteers who are already working so hard to keep this forum at its present high level." That would have been simple and straightforward. The way this thing was presented was... not. 

That is why I'll keep my lovely new blue ONE LINE siggy for a little longer.


----------



## maxiogee

I'm with geve!
Our sigs are a place where we can say a little bit of "who we are".
I was recently PM'd by a 0 post person who asked, bluntly

Title :	hiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how are you i want to be your friend is it ok?

There was no nothing, no age, no gender, no indication of what drew this person to me, or what might draw me to them. There was a geographic location, but this turned out to be a semi-temporary one as they are from elsewhere.

How can we get a feel for those we deal with if, in the midst of the on-topicness we try to maintain, we cannot slip in a capricious quote which says something about us on that day?


----------



## ElaineG

> How can we get a feel for those we deal with if, in the midst of the on-topicness we try to maintain, we cannot slip in a capricious quote which says something about us on that day?


 
I've had the same (one-line, blue) signature for almost a year (since I become a moderator). In that time I've also made more than 5,000 posts, of the moderating variety and of the forero variety.

Most people I deal with seem to have a feel for who I am. I suspect the posts have a lot more to do with it than the siggy.



> Our sigs are a place where we can say a little bit of "who we are".


 
Yes, and they still are. So is your avatar, your profile, and the ability to link to your webpage.



> I was recently PM'd by a 0 post person who asked, bluntly
> 
> Title : hiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> how are you i want to be your friend is it ok?


 
I don't think an elaborate signature field is going to increase or decrease the number of random spam PMs that you get.


----------



## ElaineG

mkellogg said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> There have been a number of complaints about lengthy signatures. While this isn't the most important problem, I have instituted new restrictions on them.


 


Nun-Translator said:


> I I would have had much less objection if the original post had said something like "The mods are spending an inordinate amount of time on making sure the signatures meet guidelines, so it has been decided to limit them to save wear and tear on the volunteers who are already working so hard to keep this forum at its present high level." That would have been simple and straightforward. The way this thing was presented was... not.
> 
> .


 
To be fair, NT, Mike never specified _who_ had made the "number of complaints" .

But I appreciate your understanding of our role. Thank you.


----------



## Agnès E.

mkellogg said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> There have been a number of complaints about lengthy signatures. While this isn't the most important problem, I have instituted new restrictions on them. The details are on the edit signature page, but basically, they will be limited to a single line, only one smilie, and no colors. Actually I think I will change them all to blue in a few days.
> 
> For existing signatures, I'll wait a week, but then start removing the BBcodes to make them comply with the new rules.
> 
> The goal here is to restrain the signatures to something unobtrusive. 99.9% of you will still be able to say what you want, but just in fewer lines and colors.
> 
> Mike


Reading this post again, I fail to see a request for approval from members and/or a poll....


cuchuflete said:


> Well, so far three people have grumped about the new signature parameters!


This is still valid almost two weeks after the thread has been created. Seven or eight people on... how many members? Almost 100,000, right?

Honestly, is this topic worth such a tempest in a teapot?


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> How can we get a feel for those we deal with if, *in the midst of the on-topicness we try to maintain,* we cannot slip in a capricious quote which says something about us on that day?



An editorial "we"?  Or, were you talking about me?


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> An editorial "we"?  Or, were you talking about me?



No, just a statement of how some of us forer@s do try to - against what is often overwhelming temptation - stay on topic.
When I talk about people, I talk about people!


----------



## geve

Agnès E. said:


> This is still valid almost two weeks after the thread has been created. Seven or eight people on... how many members? Almost 100,000, right?


Yes, Agnès (and they would do so even less now!!), but as you just said:


Agnès E. said:


> Reading this post again, I fail to see a request for approval from members and/or a poll....


 
And this is true indeed. I probably shouldn't give my opinion when it's unwanted. I probably do that way too often around here - my apologies. I simply love the place and can't help getting involved. Yes, I am one part of the problem of this forum that I described in my previous post. 

Ok, I drop it now!

(I too will keep my siggy for a while - for it matches the feeling I have that there is a glass wall between the participants of this thread - we (a general "we") failed to communicate here )


----------



## ElaineG

> we (a general "we") failed to communicate here


 
I agree.  Apart from Nun Translator, I didn't see any response from any one complaining about the siggy rule to my explanation of the burdens that elaborate signatures place on moderators.  It's like everyone thinks we have infinite time or resources!


----------



## geve

ElaineG said:


> I agree. Apart from Nun Translator, I didn't see any response from any one complaining about the siggy rule to my explanation of the burdens that elaborate signatures place on moderators. It's like everyone thinks we have infinite time or resources!


How should I know? I couldn't see the burden from my side of the glass wall.  From my limited standpoint, I thought that since there already was a 240-character limit, obnoxious talkative members couldn't do much harm, and also that sometimes two words are enough to be a nuisance, and that I would never dare to weigh your work on the amount of signature colours you have to deal with. 

I most certainly see only a small part of the problem - that's why we can't communicate.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

D'abord, soyons clairs : peu me chaut de garder ou non ma signature. C'est vraiment sans grande importance.
Je crois maintenant comprendre le but de ce changement de politique à l'égard des signatures, et ce, grâce à Elaine : alléger la tâche des mods, ce qui ne me paraît pas en soi une mauvaise raison.
Pourtant, ce que je n'arrive pas bien à saisir, c'est le but de ce fil. 
Qu'est-ce donc ? Une simple annonce d'un changement, sa justification, ou une discussion pour écouter les diverses opinions des foreros à ce sujet ?
(Comme il est très facile pour moi d'arriver à dire le contraire de ce que je voudrais dire en anglais, voilà un bon exercice de traduction Fr/En à l'intention de Nun-T  )


----------



## ElaineG

> How should I know?


 
Well, you could know because I posted about how we were spending time communicating with people about their signatures. So you could know if you read my post. I don't expect you to read my mind. But I do expect you to read the responses in a thread and I do expect you to believe me if I tell you that something takes time and is a burden -- why would I lie about it? 

What incentive do we have to impose this limit if it weren't to address something that affected us as a problem? Have you asked yourself that? 

Do you think that the moderators sit around dreaming up limits to make you unhappy? Or do you think that we're trying to address something that's causing problems?


----------



## geve

ElaineG said:


> Well, you could know because I posted about how we were spending time communicating with people about their signatures. So you could know if you read my post. I don't expect you to read my mind. But I do expect you to read the responses in a thread and I do expect you to believe me if I tell you that something takes time and is a burden -- why would I lie about it?
> 
> What incentive do we have to impose this limit if it weren't to address something that affected us as a problem? Have you asked yourself that?
> 
> Do you think that the moderators sit around dreaming up limits to make you unhappy? Or do you think that we're trying to address something that's causing problems?


Elaine, first of all let me state once again that I appreciate the work and dedication each of you put here. I really do not intend to attack anyone and I'm sorry if it sounded like that. 
I really think this is a communication issue, and I'll try to explain myself better, so I'm sorry for a yet again extended post but I hope this will help prevent any misunderstanding.

The way the new signature limits were introduced didn't mention anything about mods' burden but "a number of complaints". It was about making it easier to skim through signatures. Ok, now this has been straightened out.
I couldn't see how the colour of signatures could be obnoxious. I can make obnoxious blue signatures by _WRITING ALL IN CAPITALS_ or with a really big font or just using an obnoxious tone in the content - and _that _isn't going to be fixed by a BBcode restriction.
I am conscious that there is a lot of "backoffice" work that is done by the team and that I know nothing about and can only be grateful for. In the case of signatures, I would have thought that you mods dealt mainly with links, promotional, offensive, improper signatures - and _that _isn't going to be fixed by a BBcode restriction. Apparently this is not the case, and that's a part I still don't understand.
I realize you (the general "you"-staff) get tired handling all the trash on this forum, and by the ungratefulness that we (the general "we"-grumpy members) seem to show here. But I assure you that it's really a matter of understanding from both sides: _we_ can't imagine all the crap you put up with, and _you_ don't see that because we are attached to "our" forum we want to understand what's going on "underground".
Obviously you are totally entitled to reply that the "our" above is an abusive possessive and that you owe us no explanation, and I will stop giving my unwanted opinion. (in this thread though, 'cause I'll keep doing that in the language threads! )


-- edit: one last thing, and in French, just to make it clear: Personne ne veut d'un affrontement "nous" contre "vous". Je n'ai jamais considéré les modos comme des ennemis ou des policiers, mais comme des collaborateurs zélés, bienveillants et investis d'une lourde responsabilité. Les "petits en bas" ont beau admirer leurs "aînés", ils ne peuvent parfois s'empêcher de s'interroger sur les motifs qui les dépassent.


----------



## Benjy

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> D'abord, soyons clairs : peu me chaut de garder ou non ma signature. C'est vraiment sans grande importance.
> Je crois maintenant comprendre le but de ce changement de politique à l'égard des signatures, et ce, grâce à Elaine : alléger la tâche des mods, ce qui ne me paraît pas en soi une mauvaise raison.
> Pourtant, ce que je n'arrive pas bien à saisir, c'est le but de ce fil.
> Qu'est-ce donc ? Une simple annonce d'un changement, sa justification, ou une discussion pour écouter les diverses opinions des foreros à ce sujet ?
> (Comme il est très facile pour moi d'arriver à dire le contraire de ce que je voudrais dire en anglais, voilà un bon exercice de traduction Fr/En à l'intention de Nun-T  )



Nun s'etant déconnectée, je m'en charge 

OK, let's be clear : It doesn't really matter to me whether I keep my signature or not. It really doesn't have any importance.
I think I understand now the goal of this change in policy with regards to signatures thanks to Elaine : lighten the load of the mods, which doesn't appear to be in itself a bad reason.
What I really fail to grasp, however, is the goal of this thread. A simple announcement of the change, justification thereof or a discussion designed to take on the diverse opinions fororeos have about it?

----

I think it started off as an announcement, then rapidly transformed as these types of thread always do into a justification/explanation and also a sounding board to gauge the reaction of the forum.


----------



## Nunty

ElaineG said:


> To be fair, NT, Mike never specified _who_ had made the "number of complaints" .
> 
> But I appreciate your understanding of our role. Thank you.


 
That is precisely my point, Elaine. I drew the conclusion that the complaints came from moderators from the blast of chilly wind that blew from Mod City when I asked for a reply to my two specific questions in post 20, which addressed the two points Mike raised in his post of explanation. It was fairly easy to get from A to B. If Mike had been a little less clever, it would have been far easier to swallow this apparently necessary limitation, and this thread would probably have been far shorter.


----------



## Nunty

ElaineG said:


> I agree.  Apart from Nun Translator, I didn't see any response from any one complaining about the siggy rule to my explanation of the burdens that elaborate signatures place on moderators.  It's like everyone thinks we have infinite time or resources!



To be fair, Elaine, I don't think anyone had any idea the moderators do _anything_ with the signatures. I certainly did not until I read your post that told me so.

Addressing Agnès: Your chilly post surprises me. No, Mike did not ask for a responses or polls. He opened a thread to which we could respond. If he wanted to make an announcement without members' response, he could have posted and closed the thread, or posted an Announcement sticky. That is the nature of forer@s; if a thread is open, we feel that responses are not out of order.


----------



## ElaineG

> To be fair, Elaine, I don't think anyone had any idea the moderators do _anything_ with the signatures. I certainly until I read the post that told me so.


 
Well, after all, there are rules about signatures, and most rules aren't self-enforcing, so it might be a logical inference that mods have _something_ to do with signatures.  But what you might not know is that there was an increasing trend of huge signatures.   I sometimes think people are trying to show off in their signatures by having them be as conspicuous as possible.  Why I do not know, and that is only a theory, but that was an impression I had.  Some people always want to test the limits.

Now, I'm not going to name names, but honestly, when someone makes a one-line post and has a five line graphical signature, that's annoying.  Especially if that person posts repeatedly in a thread.  I have to load the whole thing, and I have to read the whole thing. I don't resent or mind reading the posts, because I volunteered to do that.  And I want people to post as much as they want to.

But when the clutter starts to outweigh the content, and you are reading your 100th or 200th thread of the day, your head starts to spin.

You can talk about "Mod City" or "us v. them", but really, I think the signature issue irked the mods more than others because we read such a high volume of threads, so we see the troublesome signatures over and over again, and they are cocomitantly more of a burden on us.  And of course, we have the responsibility of writing to people whose signatures are off the charts and nicely asking them to tone it down, when, as I said before that's time that could be spent doing other things.

Anyway, I can't believe we've spent this much time discussing this issue.  I guess there really is a communication gap, because I don't really understand why anyone would be particularly attached to a particular signature  in a particular forum or having a signature at all.  But it seems that everything around here readily becomes a discourse of rights, entitlements, us v. them, Mod City, etc.  Perhaps we all should spend more time playing with our dogs or cooking dinner for our loved ones!


----------



## Nunty

With all due respect, Elaine, "Mod City" was meant as a jokey shorthand way of saying that a series of mods responded to my post one after the other. I understand that yours is a thankless task (and may I point out that I changed my 3-line signature immediately upon reading Mike's post, which gave a week's grace period, and long before deciding to respond it?). Is it just possible that there is a touch of over-sensivitity in some of the mods' responses?

At any rate, the post from another mod to the effect that she did not recall that the original post "called for members' opinions" was haughty and patronizing, and made quite clear that there is a major us vs them attitude, not entirely on the part of members who are not moderators.

Please allow me to repeat that my problem is not with the fact of the new limitation, but rather the way in which it was announced. A simple statement similar to the one I suggest in post 29 would have been honest, simple and straightforward and, I believe, would have spared all of us this unpleasant thread.

I believe in truth, and sometimes that leads me to say things that others find unpalatable. I'm not looking to hurt anybody's feelings, but at the same time I am not averse to expressing my own, as gently as possible and always respecting other people and objective truth. I believe I have done so in this thread. If I have not, if I have hurt someone's feelings, I apologize. You are welcome to PM me if there is something we have to work out.

If the thread is too long and is going too far afield, I'm sure it will be closed shortly. That's probably for the best.


----------



## geve

You do realize that the last posts aren't just about signatures (even though I'm still unclear on the questions I had). I've been working hard on conciseness  and will put it in only one sentence:

Considering that WR isn't (to my knowledge) the CIA, the mafia or a company that has just developed the highly confidential cheap ecological reliable product that's going to replace petroleum,
I have trouble understanding why things sometimes have to be so obscure, un-collaborative and touchy. 


And now, here's an unpolemical gift from me for your eyes - hoping it will ease the soreness I caused!


----------



## Benjy

Hi 

I just thought I would pop my head in and wave the <approriate symbol of peace; be it a flag or a large piece of ridculously rich dark choclate cheesecake>. Tempers seem to have flared a little when they didn't really need to. Sometimes, whilst I love the internet, it seems to be a never ending source of misunderstandings. I get the impression that if this had been a press conference (which I think would probaly have been the *real life* equivalent of this thread) there might have been a few less harsh words spoken, and a little more understanding displayed from both sides (I hesitate to use the word sides.. that seems to be part of the problem). Oh well. We live and learn 

Notes taken: 
-Members feel that more clarity and transparency is needed in communications about policy changes.
-Mods feel that members SHOULD JUST GET OFF OUR FREAKIN BACKS OK??? <joke>
-Q&A sessions over the internet seem to be a lot more heated that ones where you get the non-verbal cues as well. I think there is also a time delay element as well, but I'm not sure what effect that has. *shuts up*

In fine:
The Mods felt that the signature restrictions that were in place were giving too much leeway to those who wished to abuse them and that too much time was being spent rectifing said problem. Restrictions were thus increased.


----------

