Signatures

[Barely Human]

My tuppence worth : regardless of any artistic merit, or lack of, they definitely do slow the board down and make it much more difficult for people to use the board discreetly at work. Therefore they are definitely a deterrent to users.
As people (and coincidentally it seems to be the same people who are wittering on about "mutual respect" who are the main offenders) can't, or don't, voluntarily seem to want to respect the fact that it is annoying at best for work users - and some of the images, particularly the dodgy porn ones, could be sackable offences for some people in their jobs. For example, that one Wez has just used is blocked by our firewall, so my IP address will be appearing on our admins report for attempting to access a banned site every time I read a thread with that signature in it.

I agree that there should be a size restriction at the very least, if not an outright ban on them. Text only signatures would be preferrable.

Now this guy was the first person on the no signature side of it to post something constructive, and non offesive to other board members.

And anyway, why does something have to be oversimplified x 1000 for anyone to understand a point around here?? If people hadn't reacted badly initially then this ridiculous topic wouldn't have to be nearly 10 pages long, and people like Patrick wouldn't have to (repeatedly) process very simple messages into a discourse that can be understood by a child.
It was a simple request initially, to get rid of them - I maintain that I think that they look absolutely dire, but that's neither here nor there, but if a community (of 1000's of members, hundreds of thousands of posts, numerous forums, and loads of moderators) such as this can operate pretty smoothly then I don't see what the problem is in turns of simply giving us a choice to switch them on or off. is it unreasonable??
This topic would stop dead should this be enabled, then we could all stop wasting our time going round and round in circles and focus more on the music discussion.

No, the topic doesnt have to be simplyfied, but you dont get my point here....

You started this thread, and all you had to say was -

Just wondering if thier is any chance of a avatar/signature on off button, as its a bit dodgy with all these pictures at work.

Instead you posted -

Many on here look atrocious. They are filled with info that nobody reads, and generally make me look much more conspicuous at work.
I call for an outright ban on these self promotong monstrosities. I can just about tolerate some text. Anyone else?

The first reply was a sensible one -

lol, since about 70% of the board have them i dont think your going to get a good responce , i think there ok if there a sensible size but the gigantic ones can be a bit

Then your reply could be seen as a bit offensive -

What's up with your signature?? Did you design that?? Is it you??
It's OK to look at, like, once....but 50 times on a single thread? Do you get where I'm coming from??

Then, death on a stick decides to make the post completely negative by posting these stupid coments -


some people need to learn to use an imaging program. unless they're deliberately taking up the entire screen with their oversized flashy banners. I guess it's some kind of "flash car" syndrome, posting a great big image to make up for what's lacking elsewhere.

some forum software prevents the sig showing in all but a posters first post in any one thread.

Actually, going back and noticing which avatars/sigs I find annoying, they seem to belong to equally annoying individuals, so there seems to be a correlation there.

Wich you see, is where all this shit has come from! You didnt help the situation by making yourself look very arorgant by posting this -


No ones getting shirty, we're just saying that it looks absolutey sh1t.

I dont think that was a constructive coment, do you?

If you and death on a stick hadnt started the childishness in the first place, then we would be having the convesation now.