Signatures

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

It has been discussed before i know full well however...

Where's the harm in having text only sigs exactly? You could regulate against offensive or abusive content as normally done in posts.

As i recall one such reason put against them was that they would hinder scrolling through threads, but then some people have sizable avatars which do just the same and more so in fact by a fair distance.

 

[pillory]

Where's the harm in having text only sigs exactly?

Where's the point?

 

[Brwned]

It just looks rubbish and a bit childish really.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

It just looks rubbish and a bit childish really.

Should be as at home as a cat by a fireplace in winter time then.

But i don't think they are, or at least don't have to be. It is somewhat unique not to implement the feature in my experience.

And cluttering up the location section with all and sundry is the better?

It also seems odd to me that the reason for opposing signatures is treated differently in regard to avatars.

 

[Mockney]

No point, and I agree it looks childish. It also confuses lurkers as to whats part of your post and whats not

Why not just end all your posts with whatever rubbish you want at the bottom?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

No point, and I agree it looks childish. It also confuses lurkers as to whats part of your post and whats not.

Explain how a quote say at the foot of your post in a defined section is childish? Too why it is better situated in the location section on the left hand side?

So everything on the Caf has a point in your personal opinion currently?

Having been to another forum as a guest i would dispute the claim about lurkers but that's JMO of course.

Why not just end all your posts with whatever rubbish you want at the bottom?

Is that not the raison d'etre for this very feature in the first place?

 

[Top]

Just use your location like you are doing now.

 

[Xander45]

I believe he is trying to say there is no need for signatures. But if you want to write something at the end of each of your posts, just do it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They call him the White Pele"

 

[RedNome]

In a word (two actually) feck NO.

The fact the Caf doesn't have all that pointless clutter is what makes it brilliant imo.

I love the simplicity.


Why exactly would you want such bollocks anyway?

 

[golden_blunder]

We have consistently had a no sigs policy for the last 8 years, its never gonna happen.

They look crap, and are off putting when you try to read someone's post.

 

[Red_Jamie]

Don't get them. They're utterly dog shit.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Ah your honours, you bless this humble thread. But such establishment Cafers rallied against this as a mass and no support for the idea, i am concerned of failure.

They look crap, and are off putting when you try to read someone's post.

As are avatars it could be argued. However it would seem that this is another matter [or standard], it was not always so.

 

[Merman]

I believe he is trying to say there is no need for signatures. But if you want to write something at the end of each of your posts, just do it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They call him the White Pele"

Good idea

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I believe he is trying to say there is no need for signatures. But if you want to write something at the end of each of your posts, just do it.

But why not give people the option? What you propose is an unnecessary use of time when the facility is there as it is.

 

[jgraham]

I believe he is trying to say there is no need for signatures. But if you want to write something at the end of each of your posts, just do it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They call him the White Pele"

Your post just goes to show why we shouldn't have them, i know it's been said but they do look childish I think and would clutter the place up. Some of the shite used in then would be ridiculous, I know you mention regulation it or checking them but could you expect each and every one checked when created an/or changed? it'd be too much work imo.

Also part of the cafs appeal for me its its layout, if I ever look at rawk, one of the first things i notice is those deluded scousers acting like tits, but after that all the sigs just confuse things.

Better without i say.

 

[Marching]

As are avatars it could be argued. However it would seem that this is another matter [or standard], it was not always so.

But the avatars are given out by the Admins and don't get in the way as they are not part of the post which a signature would be...there would also be too much work involved in monotoring their size, language etc.

 

[WeasteDevil]

And cluttering up the location section with all and sundry is the better?

No, and should be limited to 30 characters. It's just bollocks repeated over and over that serves no particular purpose other than making the cnut that wrote them smile in a disturbed fashion. I reiterate, they are pointless.

 

[Merman]

Should be as at home as a cat by a fireplace in winter time then.

But i don't think they are, or at least don't have to be. It is somewhat unique not to implement the feature in my experience.

And cluttering up the location section with all and sundry is the better?

It also seems odd to me that the reason for opposing signatures is treated differently in regard to avatars.

Locations do not interfere with the flow of the page since they are located on the left. When you scroll through, you'll view the next post directly and not unrelated signatures. There is a solution though, you can allow signatures and disable the "Show signatures" options by default so that those who want signatures can enable them.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Your post just goes to show why we shouldn't have them, i know it's been said but they do look childish I think and would clutter the place up. Some of the shite used in then would be ridiculous, I know you mention regulation it or checking them but could you expect each and every one checked when created an/or changed? it'd be too much work imo.

Better without i say.

In theory they wouldn't have included pictures and the monitoring would have been much the same as is done with posts day-in day-out, but no matter it is of little importance when no-one else agrees.

But the avatars are given out by the Admins and don't get in the way as they are not part of the post which a signature would be...there would also be too much work involved in monotoring their size, language etc.

Of course they interfere, particularly the larger ones. Somebody might say three words but you have to scroll the length of the respective avatar. They also slow the forum down.

Little chance of making headway on such an issue mind when the Mods [as is their right understandably] are opposed as one. That being said, i don't appear to have attracted any support whatever from among the masses either.

The Caf is certainly unique in this regard [perhaps for the better though not being the norm], i've not encountered such an attitude on the matter from admins and users alike.

Likewise people aren't even trusted to start polls by themselves here. Although this may well by justified.

 

[x42bn6]

Your posting personality is defined by your posts, not your signature. Signatures are where kids go all emo in them.

I turn them off in other forums.

 

[IBleedRed]

Signatures are bad and so are avatars (unless I have one)

 

[Fergies Formula]

the annoying thing is, some favorites are allowed to have avatars which is bad in itself, some people are worthy and some aren't, sends out the wrong message, we should all be allowed to have one or nobody (bar mods)

 

[kietotheworld]

But the avatars are given out by the Admins and don't get in the way as they are not part of the post which a signature would be...there would also be too much work involved in monotoring their size, language etc.

It's not a huge amount of work, all you would need to do to avoid those issues you're outlined is have a word filter, limit their size through the amount of characters available, and disallow size tags and images.

 

[Brwned]

the annoying thing is, some favorites are allowed to have avatars which is bad in itself, some people are worthy and some aren't, sends out the wrong message, we should all be allowed to have one or nobody (bar mods)

It sends out the message that anyone without an avatar is a spastic, and encourages everyone to be less of a spastic to be able to have an avatar, seems fair to me.

I don't understand why anyone would want a 'sig', what's the point of them?

 

[Fergies Formula]

It sends out the message that anyone without an avatar is a spastic, and encourages everyone to be less of a spastic to be able to have an avatar, seems fair to me.

I don't understand why anyone would want a 'sig', what's the point of them?

I
I dont think ive ever witnessed someone who disagrees with near enough 100% of the things i ever say.

And it doesn't even send out that message at all, as you'r on here so much i thought you may have learned that at least. Although your doing your best to get one with the brwned nosing!

I also never said about a sig, avatar if you read

 

[Top]

Avatars are lame.

 

[Fergies Formula]

Avatars are lame.

sarcasm, amazing

 

[x42bn6]

Avatars are lame.

Only because you make most of them.

 

[Sultan]

The site owner, Admins, Mods, and Scouts are all united this site should remain a signature free zone.

There's no debate to be had really.

 

[Niall]

Sorry again Nick, like thread icons they serve no valuable purpose and disturb the flow of reading a topic.

The site has never used them and as far as I'm concerned, never will.

KISS - Keep it simple shithead!

 

[IBleedRed]

Avatars are elitist

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Sorry again Nick, like thread icons they serve no valuable purpose and disturb the flow of reading a topic.

The site has never used them and as far as I'm concerned, never will.

KISS - Keep it simple shithead!

Oh it's all fair enough and on this one i gathered no support at all which hardly helps my case. lol

But as you can see and maybe you are annoyingly aware , it's all with the best of intent and to the betterment of the forum when i offer up one of my "ideas". One day i'll succeed, one day.

 

[Niall]

But as you can see and maybe you are annoyingly aware , it's all with the best of intent and to the betterment of the forum when i offer up one of my "ideas". One day i'll succeed, one day.

Of course, keep the ideas coming!

It's just that signatures has been done to death and it ain't gonna change.

 

[Wibble]

This is exactly why they aren't allowed.

I believe he is trying to say there is no need for signatures. But if you want to write something at the end of each of your posts, just do it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They call him the White Pele"

 

[samabachan]

Because they are massively homosexual. Unlike the Caf.

 

[Dans]

That pic Xander45 posted is the sort of thing that suggests you are 13 and wank regularly over pics of your hero Wayne Rooney.

-------------------------------------------------

No to signatures.

No to spoilers.

That'll be my sig then........

 

[Xander45]

That pic Xander45 posted is the sort of thing that suggests you are 13 and wank regularly over pics of your hero Wayne Rooney.

-------------------------------------------------

No to signatures.

No to spoilers.

That'll be my sig then........

only 8 years out, i'm actually just a very eloquent 5 year old. My post was designed to show people what it would look like, i have never used a signature before and don't intend to again. It was just to show that if you really want to you can do it, but you have to go to a lot of effort so whats the point?

A definite no to a signature function from me.

 

[TheReligion]

Sigs are so childish

Hope they never come onto the Caf

 

[TheReligion]

the annoying thing is, some favorites are allowed to have avatars which is bad in itself, some people are worthy and some aren't, sends out the wrong message, we should all be allowed to have one or nobody (bar mods)

Agree with this too

 

[Fergies Formula]

Mods: Why cant we all have avatars then????