| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
pleiades97 |
Signature Policy |
Lead | |
|
There are signatures, and there are signatures. A blanket ban seems to be an awfully heavy solution, akin to dealing with weeds in the garden by digging up the whole thing and putting down concrete.
|
|||
graius |
Re: Signature Policy | ||
|
The problem, as always, is where to draw the line, as well as enforcement of such a rule, which would invariably involve the time-consuming and controversial editing of numerous posts.
|
|||
Liam Sinclair |
Re: Signature Policy | ||
|
The issue of signature-limitations was discussed greatly by the administration and it was felt that the only way to be fair to all parties was to have the signature option disabled in the main forums.
|
|||
Lachlan of Aerlig |
Re: Signature Policy | ||
|
They are, however, permitted in the forums of non MNN organisations (ie MRWS, GSO etc).
The problem is, quite a few members are making posts shorter than their signatures, which makes it hard to navigate any topic. |
|||
bluewave2 |
Re: Signature Policy | ||
|
Perhaps just threaten to ban the people who have signatures that are too large?
|
|||
Liam Sinclair |
Re: Signature Policy | ||
|
Once again, the problem is creating a concrete and fair policy which defines what is an excessive signature. With six people on staff, interpretations of any such policy can vary greatly. It's better to not have the signatures at all as everyone is then treated fairly.
|
|||
Neil Spall |
Re: Signature Policy | ||
|
What about excessive custom titles?
|
|||
Liam Sinclair |
Re: Signature Policy | ||
|
They're not contained within the actual post, but I'm glad you're exercising your traditional Cyberian attitude of once again finding something of no importance or relevance to complain about.
|
|||