Is there any need...

[Anonymous]

Is there any need for such long signatures? I don't know about about anyone else but I find them annoying. Of course one of or 2 lines is acceptable, a few more maybe, but the need for a whole song(or whatever it is in libertarian's) is completely over the limit. I also so seem to remember Austin having an inappropriately long one but I've not seen him since I returned. What are your thoughts on this? Do we need a limit on signatures or am I making a big deal out of nothing?

[LordAnubis]

Indeed we do. I've been wondering about this for a while, but didn't know where to post about it.

What most forums do is have a character limit of 200 or so. I thikn it's nice to have it a bit longer, so that something decent can be put in - a speech or w/e, but like you say when the sig is longer than any of their posts, and you spend longer scrolling than you do reading their post, it's excessive and uncessary!

[Gotlieb Alexander]

Yes, the situation has improved, but in the past some people had ridiculous signatures.

[orcprocess]

Yes, no longer than 7 or 8 lines.

[magicman92]

Quite agree. Around 500 characters would seem good.

[TheAngriestLeftyInTheWest]

I reckon whatever floats your boat. They don't really annoy me tbh.

[Mockler]

I reckon whatever floats your boat. They don't really annoy me tbh.

yes, exactly. we should be free to express ourselves no matter how annoying it may be.

[kaity221]

It really doesnt need a rule, its not harming anyone.

[schizii]

i think we do some peoples are more like essays than signatures!

[liberati]

I don't think there should be a rule against it, it's down to the individual, but some of the longer signatures are rather excessive :p

A few choice quotations/slogans/mottos should do.

[Anonymous]

yes, exactly. we should be free to express ourselves no matter how annoying it may be.

That's a pretty bold statement.

[magicman92]

It really doesnt need a rule, its not harming anyone.

It's harming my internet connection, as it takes a long time to load the long signature &c.

[Paul]

It's harming my internet connection, as it takes a long time to load the long signature &c.

View the archive version of the site, can still see everything - but without signatures and the (bandwidth-eating) like.

http://www.ukypforums.org.uk/archive/index.php <--- Can't post though, or at least I don't think you can.

[LordAnubis]

I don't think that you can negate the fact that some signatures are uncessaryily excessive - mainly because no-one can be bothered to read them.

Saying that they don't harm anyone doesn't justify them.

[Mockler]

Saying that they don't harm anyone doesn't justify them.

I disagree

[Conzales]

Its a pain when im out and about as gprs is slow.

[Anonymous]

Is it time for me to try and prove a point in the wrong way by abusing the "no limit to signatures" rule yet?

[orcprocess]

I tottaly agree with my sig :p

(steal Anonymous's idea!)

[orcprocess]

I will change it back tommorow. But take a good look at it Mockler, should we really allow me to do this?

[Patriot 167]

Yes there is a need.

I need to state fact about me, quote from famous people, and my thoughts on devolution ("The Scottish Assembly - The biggest regional council in the world" + "An independant Scotland? - You will not see it make a Third reading.")

Why don't you people who voted no live and let live?

[Anonymous]

I changed my mind. Long signatures are cool.

[LordAnubis]

You have to be kidding me -.-

[Anonymous]

You have to be kidding me -.-

People need to learn about Wikipedia and I like the picture(if it works)

[orcprocess]

I love long sigs!!!!

[Patriot 167]

People need to learn about Wikipedia and I like the picture(if it works)

Your abusing a right that I stand up for.

This is one of the many problems of free speech: Person A demands free speech and Person B uses that free speech to slander Person A. - (Just a thought)

[orcprocess]

Your abusing a right that I stand up for.

But surely it is an inalienable right? So we can't abuse it because there is no limit?

[Anonymous]

Your abusing a right that I stand up for.

This is one of the many problems of free speech: Person A demands free speech and Person B uses that free speech to slander Person A. - (Just a thought)

You spelt "you're" wrong. But that's beside the point obviously.

Does person B want to get rid of freedom of speech for everyone?

[Patriot 167]

Does person B want to get rid of freedom of speech for everyone?

No, that doesn't come into the situation.

[liberati]

There should be the right to as long a signature as you please, coupled with the responsibility not to abuse that right.
You're free to make it as long as you like, but you shouldn't make it too long as to be inconvinient

[Anonymous]

No, that doesn't come into the situation.

But it does come into this situation.

[orcprocess]

There should be the right to as long a signature as you please, coupled with the responsibility not to abuse that right.
You're free to make it as long as you like, but you shouldn't make it too long as to be inconvinient

Hoiw long is too long?

[magicman92]

Copying an entire Wikipedia article is too long...

[orcprocess]

Copying an entire Wikipedia article is too long...

What if it is a very small one?

[liberati]

Hoiw long is too long?

Long enough for people to complain, to be anoying

10 lines is a good enough limit

[orcprocess]

You're free to make it as long as you like, but you shouldn't make it too long as to be inconvinient

Long enough for people to complain, to be anoying

10 lines is a good enough limit

These contradict each other

[Anonymous]

Mockler said: "yes, exactly. we should be free to express ourselves no matter how annoying it may be."

[Patriot 167]

But it does come into this situation.

Person A demands free speech and Person B uses that free speech to slander Person A. - (Just a thought)

Person B is just using the free speech to say something like "Person A is a drug dealing pimp". B doesn't want to destory free speech, he just wants to abuse it.

[Patriot 167]

Mockler said: "yes, exactly. we should be free to express ourselves no matter how annoying it may be."

Your point being? :confused:

[Paul]

What if it is a very small one?

Very small is only where it says "Expand this article on X"/"Should this article be merged with X?"

Copying an entire Wikipedia article is too long...

Doesn't it break some sort of Copyright?

[orcprocess]

Person B is just using the free speech to say something like "Person A is a drug dealing pimp". B doesn't want to destory free speech, he just wants to abuse it.

But by the very nature of free speech it cannot be abused because there is no limits.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. We will remove the sigs as soon as a rule comes into place.

WE want to remove the unlimited signature rule, not abuse it.

And I was simply quoting Mockler.

[Patriot 167]

Doesn't it break some sort of Copyright?

Only if he uses it for a profit or tries to pass the work off as his own.

[Paul]

Only if he uses it for a profit or tries to pass the work off as his own.
They haven't provided a link - therefore they break laws!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and that acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under the GFDL and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom.

To this end, the text of the Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

[orcprocess]

Ooooh I'm an outlaw

[Anonymous]

They haven't provided a link - therefore they break laws!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

How many illegally downloaded songs do you have on your ipod?

[orcprocess]

How many illegally downloaded songs do you have on your ipod?

zero.

(filler)

[orcprocess]

Have we all learnt a lesson from mine and Anonymous' little experiment?

[liberati]

These contradict each other

Not if the limit is self-imposed, you could make it as long as you want, but should limit yourself.

[Marcus89]

I am all for people expression themselves in a signature, however for the sake of ease and I think most would agree, scrolling down too long a signature several times in a thread to read up on people's comments can get boring and needless.

[kaity221]

Yeah, seriously long ones can be annoying, but most people dont have them too long for long periods of time, and an extra bit of scrolling really doesnt matter much.

[malia]

can anybody tell what they put on survey above i really dont know what one 2 tick
reddeeeeeeeeeeeem my question
(WHATEVER)

[AKU//]

Long signatures take the ****-but no one should be forced to have a signature of a certain length.

It goes totally against my moral/political philosophy:p.

[LordAnubis]

I hardly think 'forcing' people to have a reasonable signature is that bad tbh. It's just sensibility, and good forum management.

[Mockler]

I hardly think 'forcing' people to have a reasonable signature is that bad tbh. It's just sensibility, and good forum management.

it'll never happen now unless the "Yes" vote gets a major boost.

[Anonymous]

I have changed the maximum length of signature to 200 characters as requested.

UKYP

Justice!!!!!

[Paul]

Justice!!!!!

Then how is Mockler's signature 591 characters long (according to Microsoft Word)?

[Anonymous]

Then how is Mockler's signature 591 characters long (according to Microsoft Word)?

This is bad news. I'll try it.

EDIT: 1. Your signature cannot be longer than 200 characters including BB code markup.
2. Your signature contains too many lines and must be shortened. You may only have up to 4 line(s). Long text may have been implicitly wrapped, causing it to be counted as multiple lines.

[Mockler]

Then how is Mockler's signature 591 characters long (according to Microsoft Word)?

If I want to change it it'll have to be 200 characters. I was actually planning on making it shorter but now I will not. out of protest. the votes arent exactly one sided in this thread... this change is a disgrace.

[Michael Prosser]

This is bad news. I'll try it.

EDIT: 1. Your signature cannot be longer than 200 characters including BB code markup.
2. Your signature contains too many lines and must be shortened. You may only have up to 4 line(s). Long text may have been implicitly wrapped, causing it to be counted as multiple lines.

4 lines... that's shorter than it is on the vast majority of forums. I was going to change mine but... no, I like the be able to put in more than 4 lines of stuff, too short...

[Mockler]

4 lines... that's shorter than it is on the vast majority of forums. I was going to change mine but... no, I like the be able to put in more than 4 lines of stuff, too short...

hear hear.

and may I add... that if my signature is edited or deleted in any way by the admin I will simply write whatever I had in my signature in each and every one of my posts.

[kaity221]

Why did UKYP agree to do that?
Blaitently the active users on here weren't massively favouring a new rule.

UKYP - Be ashamed

[Anonymous]

hear hear.

and may I add... that if my signature is edited or deleted in any way by the admin I will simply write whatever I had in my signature in each and every one of my posts.
Forum rules:"- DO NOT repeatedly post the same or similar messages (referred to as 'spam') "

[Michael Prosser]

Forum rules:"- DO NOT repeatedly post the same or similar messages (referred to as 'spam') "

Reality - it was only the third, hardly what you'd call real spam, in fact to most levels people really don't tend to care. Besides, he added a new point about his active protest.

[kaity221]

If UKYP do that to mine, i will also 'spam' every messasge with my preffered sig.

[Anonymous]

Reality - it was only the third, hardly what you'd call real spam, in fact to most levels people really don't tend to care. Besides, he added a new point about his active protest.

I meant continually posting his signature would be spam.

[ciara_squires]

Justice!!!!!

wow someone with only 150 posts emailed them and they actually did something? crazy

just don't edit your sig, the changes won't take affect, gahh i wanted to change mine aswell ¬¬

[orcprocess]

The amount of posts don't matter, it is the quality that defines them

[Mockler]

The amount of posts don't matter, it is the quality that defines them

not according to Austin...

[Anonymous]

wow someone with only 150 posts emailed them and they actually did something? crazy

just don't edit your sig, the changes won't take affect, gahh i wanted to change mine aswell ¬¬

Woah. That's a bit.. elitist? You are saying they should not listen to me because I am not as vocal as other people?

[Mockler]

Woah. That's a bit.. elitist? You are saying they should not listen to me because I am not as vocal as other people?

I suspect its because you havent contributed much to this forum. so why should you have the say over what other people, who use this forum more than you, do. and you have the nerve to call someone else elitist?

[ciara_squires]

Woah. That's a bit.. elitist? You are saying they should not listen to me because I am not as vocal as other people?

haha no that's not what i'm saying! but members have been moaning about this for ages, and there was a thread about it a while back and nothing happened, yet you managed to do it straight away. i don't really agree with a restriction but good job for getting it done!

i think there should be a limit but 4 lines? seriously?

[Paul]

haha no that's not what i'm saying! but members have been moaning about this for ages, and there was a thread about it a while back and nothing happened, yet you managed to do it straight away. i don't really agree with a restriction but good job for getting it done!

i think there should be a limit but 4 lines? seriously?

We were working on 8 lines in the last thread... or 500 characters.

[ciara_squires]

We were working on 8 lines in the last thread... or 500 characters.

yeah that seems like a reasonable limit to me, 4 lines is abit oppresive IMO.

[orcprocess]

i think there should be a limit but 4 lines? seriously?

Just don't leave spaces between the quotations...

[Anonymous]

I requested 200 characters. Also, did anyone actually ask ukyp for a limit or was there just a discussion?

[ciara_squires]

I think it would have been better if there was a general consensus over the characters, i've heard 500 mentioned many times so that would have been a more appropriate number to request?

[Mockler]

I think it would have been better if there was a general consensus over the characters, i've heard 500 mentioned many times so that would have been a more appropriate number to request?

no!!! no limit. we will, we will, we will not be moved....

[orcprocess]

But there is clear support for one.

[LordAnubis]

As long as the limit is reasonable, which this one doesn't seem to be (I know I randomly quoted 200 in my first post, but that was just as what others do and how it's too short) I don't understand why people are moaning so much about it. It's just good forum etiquette tbh.

[Mockler]

But there is clear support for one.

there is not enough support! there are too many against to justify this move.

[LordAnubis]

Yes 14:9 No

Ruling in favour of the minority or the majority?

[ciara_squires]

Yes 14:9 No

Ruling in favour of the minority or the majority?

it may have been a Yes but the 'Yes' had no number, it shouldn't ever be as low as 4 lines, no-one's really wanted that...i think 500's reasonable if people want a cap but i'm not fussed.

[Mockler]

Yes 14:9 No

Ruling in favour of the minority or the majority?

this is not a democratic forum. the majority vote doesnt make the majority right and it doesnt make the majorities oppinion law.
and ANYWAY, everyone hasnt even voted yet.

[Anonymous]

this is not a democratic forum. the majority vote doesnt make the majority right and it doesnt make the majorities oppinion law.
and ANYWAY, everyone hasnt even voted yet.

Exactly. It's not democratic. What ukyp says goes. We can attempt to persuade him/her but that's it.

[ciara_squires]

Exactly. It's not democratic. What ukyp says goes. We can attempt to persuade him/her but that's it.

it would be slightly more democratic if everyone voted and discussed till a majority decision was obvious then someone could have emailed ukyp.

[Michael Prosser]

It's just good forum etiquette tbh.

Entirely depends on the forum, taking 2 I am or have been active on as examples, on one the admin (in a part jokey but serious way via msn because we're vaguely friends) made me remove a single row xkcd strip (about 2 inches wide) from my sig when that was all there was. On another the average for active members is approaching a full screen. I'd say this should be user regulated. If people feel someone's is waaay too long that can be sorted out then but imposing an across the board limit is questionable.

Also as I've said but the debate appears to be coming back to it, 4 lines is insane, even without lines between many people's are approaching 8 or more lines. If they must do this then leave it with a word limit, line limits are foolish, especially when this low.

[Mockler]

Exactly. It's not democratic. What ukyp says goes. We can attempt to persuade him/her but that's it.

how is that a point which in any way which favours your argument?

[LordAnubis]

Sorry, I just thought that when you said 'there's not enough support to go ahead' that the poll spoke otherwise - atleast that's what I was getting at.

Can you atleast clarify whether you're arguing for an extention on the limit, or the abolition of the limit, as I'm confused tbh. A new thread and poll may be in order?

[Mockler]

Sorry, I just thought that when you said 'there's not enough support to go ahead' that the poll spoke otherwise - atleast that's what I was getting at.

Can you atleast clarify whether you're arguing for an extention on the limit, or the abolition of the limit, as I'm confused tbh. A new thread and poll may be in order?

I am completely opposed to every restriction on any kind of charcter limit of any signature.

and there is not enough support because a large portion of people do not support it.

[LordAnubis]

I think a limit of 10 lines would suffice. It's a leniant limit, doesn't impose on anyone's forum liberties while keeping the forum neat and tidy and people's ability to express themselves.

[Anonymous]

how is that a point which in any way which favours your argument?

The limit has been changed. Stop arguing.

[Mockler]

The limit has been changed. Stop arguing.

I dont care. there should be no limit.

[orcprocess]

We win, Mockler. Get over it.

[Mockler]

my signature is over the limit. so I think you'll find... I win.

[LordAnubis]

Then why are you complaining?

[Mockler]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :p

[ukyp]

Right, if I find anyone with a signature which exceeds 200 charatcters and 4 lines, they will be banned from the forums.

Joking of course - I'm not that bad! I'm quite friendly really. Let's come to a compromise.

We have received many complaints in the past about users signatures being too long, so there is a problem which needs to be addressed. But I'm more than happy to listen to you guys about what is reasonable and what isn't reasonable. If you can get back to me with a collective decision about the number of characters / lines should be allowed, I will implement it.

Sound fair?

[Mockler]

fine. I'll start the bidding at 5000 characters.

[orcprocess]

200 characters seems fine but make it 8 lines instead off 4.

[LordAnubis]

Yeah, that seems fair.

500 Characters/8 lines.

[Michael Prosser]

with spaces yours is longer than 200 characters orc...

Mockler's really isn't that long and yet it's over 500 characters, it clearly doesn't take up too much space, is just under the length of an average post and only fills about 2 inches on my screen.

I'd say 600/10
or 500/8

but the former is preferred as it probably fits most of the active users signatures quite easily.

I'd prefer no limit and allow us to sort it out on a case by case limit but if we must do it it should at least be rational and fit people... I'm presuming none of the complaints they've recieved was about mockler's sig or mine when it was a tad longer than it is now or anyone else's who've got 300-500 characters, in likelihood they were about people like libertarian when his was a full screen (it's still half to two thirds). Surely we should impose the limit that people actually dislike.

Consider this for your proposed limit actually. You want 200 but 8 lines. 200 characters isn't enough to fill 8 lines meaning we'll get mass line gaps or just a waste of space, at least make it something that makes grammatical sense.

[ciara_squires]

I'd say 500 characters, but 200 and 8 lines sounds alot more reasonable than 200 and 4.

[LordAnubis]

Sorry, I meant 500 not 200. I was thinking of 200 words or 500 characters. Do apoligise, edited post as necessary.

500/8 seems good.

[Michael Prosser]

Sorry, I meant 500 not 200. I was thinking of 200 words or 500 characters. Do apoligise, edited post as necessary.

500/8 seems good.

aah fair enough, yea I could probably work with that ;)

[Mockler]

1000 characters!

[Anonymous]

I suppose I will compromise and agree with 500/8

[ciara_squires]

500/8 seems good.

seems like everyone's preety happy with 500/8 :cool:

[LordAnubis]

Apart from mockler as usual.

Can we just ignore him? Would makes things easier :p

[liberati]

No character limit, 10 lines maximum

[Michael Prosser]

No character limit, 10 lines maximum

Would also be my preference probably (mixed messages raaar), I say 500/8 if we must have a character limit but it's surely the line limit people care about.

The number of characters within that makes no odds.

[liberati]

Would also be my preference probably (mixed messages raaar), I say 500/8 if we must have a character limit but it's surely the line limit people care about.

The number of characters within that makes no odds.

I see no need for a character limit, it does not affect the length of the signature on the screen. I'd also prefer the line limit to be more of a guideline than an absolute rule, I have no objection to a 11 line signature, especially as half the lines will most likely be line breaks.

[magicman92]

500/8 gets my vote.

Mockler, yours has 800 characters...

[Michael Prosser]

500/8 gets my vote.

Mockler, yours has 800 characters...

Meh, it's not that long, it's easy to read, provided it's shorter than people's sensitivity for lines why does the character amount matter.

[liberati]

Meh, it's not that long, it's easy to read, provided it's shorter than people's sensitivity for lines why does the character amount matter.

My point exactly.

[Mockler]

Apart from mockler as usual.

Can we just ignore him? Would makes things easier :p

:eek: I can never be ignored.

20 lines minimum.

[magicman92]

:eek: I can never be ignored.

20 lines minimum.

500 characters. 8 lines. Almost everyone else involved in the debate has agreed with this.

[kaity221]

Im happy with 500 characters, 8 lines, as it looks impossible that we can go back to no limit.

[Michael Prosser]

500 characters. 8 lines. Almost everyone else involved in the debate has agreed with this.

'Cept me and liberati now.

What's the point of the character limit if you're having a line limit...

[Anonymous]

OK, 8 lines. Unlimited characters. Happy?

[Michael Prosser]

OK, 8 lines. Unlimited characters. Happy?

I can accept that if we must although I'd still prefer it to be higher. Whatever, I can compromise here if we must.

[liberati]

OK, 8 lines. Unlimited characters. Happy?

I can accept that, though I don't think this should be an absolute rule.

[Anonymous]

I can accept that, though I don't think this should be an absolute rule.

Why not?????

[Michael Prosser]

Why not?????

Well take an example, I think we mostly agreed that Libertarian's old sig which was basically a whole screen, was too long BUT I don't see how mine or Kaity's which are both in the 12-15 range are offensively long. It comes down to a case by case basis more than a hard and fast rule required.

[liberati]

Why not?????

Because I oppose absolute rules on most things in general, these things should be applied on a more discretionary basis.
Because what is wrong with a signature 9 lines long, 8 lines (if that is what we have agreed on) should be a guideline appropriate length.

[Anonymous]

Because I oppose absolute rules on most things in general, these things should be applied on a more discretionary basis.
Because what is wrong with a signature 9 lines long, 8 lines (if that is what we have agreed on) should be a guideline appropriate length.

A signature with 9 lines is too long, that's what is wrong with it.

[Michael Prosser]

A signature with 9 lines is too long, that's what is wrong with it.

Why is it too long, doesn't obstruct much, you can still read 2 or 3 posts around it and you've either got a scroll wheel or a mouse. There is a length which is offensive but I don't think it's anywhere near 8.

[liberati]

A signature with 9 lines is too long, that's what is wrong with it.

How can you decide so arbitarily and with such finality that 8 lines is just fine, but that 9 is too long.

[Anonymous]

How can you decide so arbitarily and with such finality that 8 lines is just fine, but that 9 is too long.

Because if I didn't it would be :
"You allow 8 lines, why not 9?"
"OK 9 lines is allowed, "
"You allow 9 lines, why not 10?"
"OK 10 lines is allowed"
"You allow 10 lines, why not 11?"
"OK 11 lines is allowed"
"You allow 11 lines, why not 12?"
"It's too long"
"How can you decide so arbitrarily and with such finality that 11 lines is just fine, but that 12 is too long?"

[Michael Prosser]

Because if I didn't it would be :
"You allow 8 lines, why not 9?"
"OK 9 lines is allowed, "
"You allow 9 lines, why not 10?"
"OK 10 lines is allowed"
"You allow 10 lines, why not 11?"
"OK 11 lines is allowed"
"You allow 11 lines, why not 12?"
"It's too long"
"How can you decide so arbitrarily and with such finality that 11 lines is just fine, but that 12 is too long?"

Which is exactly why we say there should be no fixed limit and we should just leave it for a case by case basis unless someone actually has a signature which the majority deem to be offensively long and annoying.

[Anonymous]

Which is exactly why we say there should be no fixed limit and we should just leave it for a case by case basis unless someone actually has a signature which the majority deem to be offensively long and annoying.

A case by case system will end up with people feeling they have been targeted by the majority and that they have unfairly had to change their signature length. Having an absolute rule is also much less effort for ukyp.

[liberati]

Because if I didn't it would be :
"You allow 8 lines, why not 9?"
"OK 9 lines is allowed, "
"You allow 9 lines, why not 10?"
"OK 10 lines is allowed"
"You allow 10 lines, why not 11?"
"OK 11 lines is allowed"
"You allow 11 lines, why not 12?"
"It's too long"
"How can you decide so arbitrarily and with such finality that 11 lines is just fine, but that 12 is too long?"

Which is why I say that there should be a guideline of 8 lines but that those with 1/2 lines more are tolerable.

[Anonymous]

Which is why I say that there should be a guideline of 8 lines but that those with 1/2 lines more are tolerable.

So put the limit to 10?

[Paul]

Which is why I say that there should be a guideline of 8 lines but that those with 1/2 lines more are tolerable.

The algorithms would have trouble doing that...

[Daniel Frost]

Make it community-enforced.

[magicman92]

The algorithms would have trouble doing that...

Just to have 8 lines?

liberati was saying that 1 or 2 lines is more tolerable.

[Paul]

Just to have 8 lines?

liberati was saying that 1 or 2 lines is more tolerable.

To have one limit, but allow a few extra sometimes ... just decide a solid limit!

[liberati]

So put the limit to 10?

Well yes, I would like 10 as the limit, but my point is that it does not matter if a signature is slightly over the limit

The algorithms would have trouble doing that...

Do we need algorthms?

Make it community-enforced.

A much better idea,

[magicman92]

To have one limit, but allow a few extra sometimes ... just decide a solid limit!

No!

8 lines would be the limit, but my interpretation is that liberati is saying that:

LINE 1
LINE 2

as a signature is more tolerable.

[liberati]

No!

8 lines would be the limit, but my interpretation is that liberati is saying that:

LINE 1
LINE 2

as a signature is more tolerable.

That wasn't actually what I meant, but yes a signature of 1/2/3 lines is better.

[Anonymous]

Well yes, I would like 10 as the limit, but my point is that it does not matter if a signature is slightly over the limit

So if the limit is 10 then you wouldn't be bothered by 11/12? We would then have to change the limit to 12 and 13/14 would then become acceptable.

I have already said why a community enforced one would be a bad idea.

[Michael Prosser]

Then just leave it on a case by case basis and cintinue to give people the right to complain about a signature length. Add a tool and set the system so that if x people, say 7 or 8, complain about a signature's length then it needs fixing and unless it is shortened by a certain degree decided for that basis then the person can't post until they do. Surely that keeps all parties happy (and wouldn't be much harder to implement than a straight up limiter and a poll system in one).

[Michael Prosser]

So if the limit is 10 then you wouldn't be bothered by 11/12? We would then have to change the limit to 12 and 13/14 would then become acceptable.

I have already said why a community enforced one would be a bad idea.

Only because currently we have no way to enforce it. Fixed limits will annoy a lot of people who just have one thing they want to add to their but don't want to take out anything else. How about a fixed limit of 10 and the chance to appeal to get your limit extended by a few lines if you have something valid to add to it. . .

[liberati]

So if the limit is 10 then you wouldn't be bothered by 11/12? We would then have to change the limit to 12 and 13/14 would then become acceptable.


No, though I do not really have a problem with most signatures, it's only a few cases of very long signatures that are anoying (what Libertarian's used to be like for instence)


I have already said why a community enforced one would be a bad idea.

Well I think it is a better idea than an arbitary rule that allows no room for appeal :p

[Anonymous]

Then just leave it on a case by case basis and cintinue to give people the right to complain about a signature length. Add a tool and set the system so that if x people, say 7 or 8, complain about a signature's length then it needs fixing and unless it is shortened by a certain degree decided for that basis then the person can't post until they do. Surely that keeps all parties happy (and wouldn't be much harder to implement than a straight up limiter and a poll system in one).

It wouldn't keep me happy. 7 or 8 of you just have to decide that you don't like someone and then you can all say "you're signature has to be 0 lines or you can't post".

[Daniel Frost]

I have already said why a community enforced one would be a bad idea.
Apologies, I'm ill and am only just reading the forums. I'm too tired to read through all these pages. Still, I think community action to pressure people as it is at current is fine. Just asking people to change is all that should be needed. If they don't listen then they aren't exactly making friends.

[Anonymous]

Only because currently we have no way to enforce it. Fixed limits will annoy a lot of people who just have one thing they want to add to their but don't want to take out anything else. How about a fixed limit of 10 and the chance to appeal to get your limit extended by a few lines if you have something valid to add to it. . .

Why are you changing the limit to 10? The limit was decided to be 8. But I agree, we should have a limit of 8 and a public appeal is needed if you want to make it longer. No appeal will be successful so the limit will be 8.

And at Daniel: they will be "making friends" with the people who agree with what they are doing.

[Michael Prosser]

It wouldn't keep me happy. 7 or 8 of you just have to decide that you don't like someone and then you can all say "you're signature has to be 0 lines or you can't post".

Not 0, I was thinking more like 10 or 15, whatever the average is of people who are accepted is. + you appear to be one of the ones who thinks that because 4 more people voted yes on this poll it was valid to pass that onto everyone so what right does this poll have over a case specific one.

[Michael Prosser]

Why are you changing the limit to 10? The limit was decided to be 8. But I agree, we should have a limit of 8 and a public appeal is needed if you want to make it longer. No appeal will be successful so the limit will be 8.

And at Daniel: they will be "making friends" with the people who agree with what they are doing.

The limit was never decided to be 8 except by people who tended to add the line, if we must, to the end of it.

The whole point is they wouldn't be making friends with the majority because the majority asked against them.

I also dispute that no appeal would be succesful. Would you honestly demand that before someone witha 6 line signature adds a 3 line quote with witticism somewhere they must lose 1 line somewhere because that just sounds insanely petty.

[Anonymous]

The limit was never decided to be 8 except by people who tended to add the line, if we must, to the end of it.

The whole point is they wouldn't be making friends with the majority because the majority asked against them.

I also dispute that no appeal would be succesful. Would you honestly demand that before someone witha 6 line signature adds a 3 line quote with witticism somewhere they must lose 1 line somewhere because that just sounds insanely petty.

Your first statement is false.

In your second point: please explain what you mean by majority.

And with your third statement, I am glad that you have accepted 8 as the rule and I have no other problem with it because I am quite sure that an appeal will never be successful.

[liberati]

Does this line limit include line breaks?

[Anonymous]

Does this line limit include line breaks?

Yes, it is the length of the signature that we are concerned with.

[liberati]

Yes, it is the length of the signature that we are concerned with.

Good, I thought we might be taking it as 8 lines of actual text (presumably with 7 spaces between them)

[LordAnubis]

How about:

We have no signatures what so-ever to save all of this hassle? Everyone will be unhappy, but atleast then it's a unified agreement.

[Anonymous]

How about:

We have no signatures what so-ever to save all of this hassle? Everyone will be unhappy, but atleast then it's a unified agreement.

I won't be unhappy. And also, signatures are OK in moderation.

[orcprocess]

8 lines unlimited characters.

[Anonymous]

8 lines unlimited characters.

Seconded!!

[liberati]

8 lines unlimited characters.

Well if there has to be a limit, this is fine

But why not have no limit and merely encourage those with long signatures to shorten them?

[orcprocess]

Well if there has to be a limit, this is fine

But why not have no limit and merely encourage those with long signatures to shorten them?

Because they might be like Austin and say "good" if we say that their sig is annoying us.

[liberati]

Because they might be like Austin and say "good" if we say that their sig is annoying us.

Well they're not making any friends that way then are they?

[Anonymous]

Well they're not making any friends that way then are they?

But everyone is already friends with him. And people aren't stupid enough to base friendships on how long someone's signature is.

[liberati]

But everyone is already friends with him. And people aren't stupid enough to base friendships on how long someone's signature is.

I think you misunderstand me, I do not mean friends as in the friends function on a profile, I mean that no one is going to like you for it, you are not encouraging friendly behaviour in other people.

[orcprocess]

I think you misunderstand me, I do not mean friends as in the friends function on a profile, I mean that no one is going to like you for it, you are not encouraging friendly behaviour in other people.

We want to ecourage friendly behaviour, correct? And if long sigs stop attack friendly behaviour then why not have a rule about it?

[Anonymous]

I think you misunderstand me, I do not mean friends as in the friends function on a profile, I mean that no one is going to like you for it, you are not encouraging friendly behaviour in other people.

No, I meant friends as in how much people like someone. Just because Austin has a long and annoying sig doesn't mean we will instantly change our opinions of him. He may not be encouraging friendly behaviour but people aren't going to suddenly start hating him.

[liberati]

No, I meant friends as in how much people like someone. Just because Austin has a long and annoying sig doesn't mean we will instantly change our opinions of him. He may not be encouraging friendly behaviour but people aren't going to suddenly start hating him.

No, but having a long sig and then saying 'good' when someone says it anoys them does.

We want to ecourage friendly behaviour, correct? And if long sigs stop attack friendly behaviour then why not have a rule about it?

Because forcing someone to have a shortened sig does not encourage friendly behaviour.

[orcprocess]

No, but having a long sig and then saying 'good' when someone says it anoys them does.

Yes we need to eliminate such behaviour.

Because forcing someone to have a shortened sig does not encourage friendly behaviour.

Newcomers won't care and the older member will eventually get used to it or in Mockler's case leave the forums or die (I don't think he can die though:cool:)

[Daniel Frost]

Hang on, I'm going to go and increase the size of my signature. I always used to keep it relatively short because people usually use a long signature against you at some point in arguments, but if you are introducing rules then I'm going to have to break them.

[magicman92]

8 lines is more than adequate to convey any message you want to. I don't see why some people are getting so annoyed about this...

[Mockler]

Hang on, I'm going to go and increase the size of my signature. I always used to keep it relatively short because people usually use a long signature against you at some point in arguments, but if you are introducing rules then I'm going to have to break them.

yeah... UKYP already made it 200 characters... and then asked us if it was enough after we all started crying.

I literally laughed out loud when I saw I was in your signature. I am honoured :D:p:rolleyes::)


8 lines is more than adequate to convey any message you want to. I don't see why some people are getting so annoyed about this...

I've given up on this. all of you seem to think that signatures should be restricted now... or at least everyone who is talking.

I demand at least 16 lines. with spaces.

[Daniel Frost]

Well, been forced to reduce it now. I suggest we burn things.

[Mockler]

took me out of you signature *cries*

[magicman92]

yeah... UKYP already made it 200 characters... and then asked us if it was enough after we all started crying.

I literally laughed out loud when I saw I was in your signature. I am honoured :D:p:rolleyes::)




I've given up on this. all of you seem to think that signatures should be restricted now... or at least everyone who is talking.

I demand at least 16 lines. with spaces.
What do you actually want to put in your signature that you couldn't condense to 8 lines?

[Mockler]

What do you actually want to put in your signature that you couldn't condense to 8 lines?

its not about that. its about the fact that we deserve a choice.

and if you really want the answer... read my signature.

[magicman92]

its not about that. its about the fact that we deserve a choice.

and if you really want the answer... read my signature.

8 lines is still a lot. There are some forums that restrict you to 1 line and 255 characters. Why not try the system and see if actually, it works, rather than deny it outright? At least then we know that combination won't be enough &c.

[Mockler]

8 lines is still a lot. There are some forums that restrict you to 1 line and 255 characters. Why not try the system and see if actually, it works, rather than deny it outright? At least then we know that combination won't be enough &c.

what do you mean "see if it works"??? its not some complicated system that we are dealing with here. we all know and understand what this signature restriction means :mad:

[magicman92]

what do you mean "see if it works"??? its not some complicated system that we are dealing with here. we all know and understand what this signature restriction means :mad:
To see if it's enough. And obviously from your protests, you think it is some macro poltical system that will tarnish your life for all of it.

Why are you getting cross about a signature? Remarkably petty. Everyone else is willing to compromise, except for you and a couple of others. You have ignored any form of negotiation because "we deserve a choice." You still get a choice: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 lines and what you put in them.

[Daniel Frost]

Sorry, quotes have gotta be the first to go considering this insane limit...

[Mockler]

To see if it's enough. And obviously from your protests, you think it is some macro poltical system that will tarnish your life for all of it.

Why are you getting cross about a signature? Remarkably petty. Everyone else is willing to compromise, except for you and a couple of others. You have ignored any form of negotiation because "we deserve a choice." You still get a choice: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 lines and what you put in them.

I have actually put forward proposals of my own. Yes we do deserve a choice... we should be able to write as much in our signatures as we want. People like you are the people who are acting 'petty'... "oooo, signature is too long for me boo hoo!" GET OVER IT. :)

[magicman92]

Sorry, quotes have gotta be the first to go considering this insane limit...

It's not insane. The admins want this forum to look respectable, while Mockler et al. decide to have signatures stretching for entire pages.

[magicman92]

I have actually put forward proposals of my own. Yes we do deserve a choice... we should be able to write as much in our signatures as we want. People like you are the people who are acting 'petty'... "oooo, signature is too long for me boo hoo!" GET OVER IT. :)

I'm not being petty. I just don't want people like you throwing a tantrum and then getting their way. You should "Get over it." As for your proposals, 5000 characters is a stupid quantity. It is excessive and not needed.

[Daniel Frost]

Most posting members have more than four lines in their signature.

Hmm, do you know the limits in size for a sig pic? Because I'm off to make a flashing gif....

[magicman92]

Most posting members have more than four lines in their signature.

Hmm, do you know the limits in size for a sig pic? Because I'm off to make a flashing gif....
That's why the limit is going to be 8, to accomadate the majority.

[Mockler]

I'm not being petty. I just don't people like you throwing a tantrum and then getting their way. You should "Get over it." As for your proposals, 5000 characters is a stupid quantity. It is excessive and not needed.

1. show me where I threw a tantrum
2. explain how 5000 characters limit is a stupid quantity.
3. just because you dont want a long signature doesnt mean you should deprive others of having, in their signature, the things that they wish.


That's why the limit is going to be 8, to accomadate the majority.

if the majority already have small signatures then whats your big problem?

[magicman92]

1. show me where I threw a tantrum
2. explain how 5000 characters limit is a stupid quantity.
3. just because you dont want a long signature doesnt mean you should deprive others of having, in their signature, the things that they wish.

1. By continuing to have this arguement over 160 posts because you're not getting your own way

2. Because it's ineffective and pointless as it might as well as be unlimited at that sort of levels. Not even you will use all 5000 words.

3. Long signatures affect every member of these forums, so this is an act of community. By resisting you are being incredibly selfish, very annoying and boring. Also who is actually going to read your entire signature? It is more likely that if you have a small signature, then people will read it.


if the majority already have small signatures then whats your big problem?
To make the forum look respectable as I have already said.

[Daniel Frost]

I'd also remark that when I first joined, the best signature going was also among the longest. Vampiress'.

[magicman92]

I'd also remark that when I first joined, the best signature going was also among the longest. Vampiress'.

One exception.

[Mockler]

1. By continuing to have this arguement over 160 posts because you're not getting your own way

2. Because it's ineffective and pointless as it might as well as be unlimited at that sort of levels. Not even you will use all 5000 words.

3. Long signatures affect every member of these forums, so this is an act of community. By resisting you are being incredibly selfish, very annoying and boring. Also who is actually going to read your entire signature? It is more likely that if you have a small signature, then people will read it.

1. so not currently having the majority of posters on your side in an argument is now classified as having a tantrum? oh, that makes sense :)

2a. then make it unlimited and be done with it.
2b. I might use 5000 words... someone else might.

3a. by imposing your will onto other people of this forum it is, in fact, you who is being as you put it "incredibly selfish, very annoying and boring."
3b. I have read longer signatures than mine.

[Daniel Frost]

Is all that is needed. If a long signature is good, your system bans it. If the signature is bad, my system (i.e. where people just don't like the person) discourages it. Hell, this being a forum, there is probably even an ignore system allowing us to block people's posts if we don't like them at all :p

EDIT: btw, Mockler's signature isn't long. The people with long signatures would be the ones where it actually artificially stretches the page. Do you people not have a mousewheel? If a signature can be bypassed with one flick (or two small ones ;)) then it isn't too long. If it needs a few, then yes, it is.

[Mockler]

One exception.

you just wont admit that people having long signatures hardly makes one bit of difference to those people who dont want to read them but makes a massive difference to those who do wish to read them.

do you agree that you will not admit this obvious truth?

[magicman92]

you just wont admit that people having long signatures hardly makes one bit of difference to those people who dont want to read them but makes a massive difference to those who do wish to read them.

do you agree that you will not admit this obvious truth?

It's not true, so no. It's makes a difference to me and I don't read them. It's quite funny that you support a party that have tried to remove choice (eg ID cards), yet you defend it so strongly; ie you are a hypocrit (is that clear enough, or would you like me to put into my signature?).

You signed T&C when you joined the forums that you would obey the rules set down by ukyp. Will you now admit that you are now in violation of those T&C?

PS Please learn to punctuate. It makes you look like a fool...

[Mockler]

It's not true, so no. It's makes a difference to me and I don't read them. It's quite funny that you support a party that have tried to remove choice (eg ID cards), yet you defend it so strongly; ie you are a hypocrit (is that clear enough, or would you like me to put into my signature?).

You signed T&C when you joined the forums that you would obey the rules set down by ukyp. Will you now admit that you are now in violation of those T&C?

PS Please learn to punctuate. It makes you look like a fool...

I love it how you tell me I am having a tantrum because you disagree with me and then a couple of posts later (ie. the one quoted above) you have one.

I'm not going to get dragged in to Party political matters in this thread... and as far as I'm concerned you can put anything you want in your signature; I welcome it.

I am in violation of absolutely none of the Rules.

aNd I wilL puNCTuaTe mY PosTs hoWevER I WISh,,,;.;,

[magicman92]

I love it how you tell me I am having a tantrum because you disagree with me and then a couple of posts later (ie. the one quoted above) you have one.

I'm not going to get dragged in to Party political matters in this thread... and as far as I'm concerned you can put anything you want in your signature; I welcome it.

I am in violation of absolutely none of the Rules.

aNd I wilL puNCTuaTe mY PosTs hoWevER I WISh,,,;.;,

That is not a tantrum. Or maybe you can't read?

Well, you're impersonating an idiot...that's against the forum rules. :p

[Daniel Frost]

Yes, I forgot. We mustn't question authority.

[Mockler]

That is not a tantrum. Or maybe you can't read?

Well, you're impersonating an idiot...that's against the forum rules. :p

well, resorting to personal attacks and falsely accusing people of things just to avoid a perfectly valid argument because you are deafeated sounds pretty close to a forum tantrum to me.

anyway, I won this. ukyp will read it and see. bye bye.

[LordAnubis]

Mockler, no you haven't. You've just been unecessarily awkward by ignoring any reasonable suggestion by other people, then doubling it just to be annoying. There have been several - more than enough, discussions on a suitable signature length, and the majority of users agree with it. Your signature would actually fit within the 8 line limit if you removed the spaces - so I really don't know what you're complaining about.

UKYP would have read your constant arguieng and realised you have just been trying to be as much of a nuisance as possible in the name of some sort of perfect anachy with no rules anywhere?

And magicman isn't 'imposing his view' on other people, it's just showing some common courtesy and decency not to have a ridiculously long and pointless signature. I always thought that people on this forum may actually be able to understand this, but apparently not. The fact that you keep 'demanding' new limits in the face of discussed and agreed upon limits - which frankly aren't imposing or in any way - shows your selfishness over magicman.

I'd actually be happier if they removed all signatures without any discussion at all, just to prove a point against you're idea that somehow, somewhere UKYP haven't read this thread and just plucked a number out of the air. If you had the decency to contact ukyp, then you'd realise that they are infact considering a new limit and will be taking these discussions into account when they get around to re-making the forum.

But like you say, they're just nazi dictators I suppose.

And FYI, This is a tantrum because I've fed up with your pety arguments than fly in the face of good reasoning.

I would go on, but I really don't want to waste any more time on this thread or subject. I just hope you realise that all it is a signature, it's not like you're being banned for not having it. Although, that would make life a lot easier, and conform to the nazi dicatorship idea.

[Mockler]

LOL.

putting words into my mouth to try and prove your point that I am, somehow, being unreasonable because I dont want to impose a signature limit on to other people.

for your information I have already contacted ukyp; outlining my arguments against a signature limit and the arguments for a signature limit.

I havent ignored anybodies reasonable suggestions. I even take great care to think over peoples unreasonable suggestions.
It is you, in fact, who seems to think that your oppinion is above debate.

look at the number of No votes in this poll and tell me that I am the only one who disagrees with you.

[Daniel Frost]

If you kindly direct your eyes to the front page of this thread, you'll notice Mockler, kaity221 and schizii all have sigs which are over this limit you're imposing, and not at all too long.

If you remember them, these ones were too long:
-Michael Prosser's recent one
-Laura-Hanna's one
-Austin's
-Paul's (I think?)
-RATM's

There are probably others, but I only think they are too long when they look like they take up an A4 page (or less, but not much less. Perception, anyway) ;)

[Michael Prosser]

If you kindly direct your eyes to the front page of this thread, you'll notice Mockler, kaity221 and schizii all have sigs which are over this limit you're imposing, and not at all too long.

If you remember them, these ones were too long:
-Michael Prosser's recent one
-Laura-Hanna's one
-Austin's
-Paul's (I think?)
-RATM's

There are probably others, but I only think they are too long when they look like they take up an A4 page (or less, but not much less. Perception, anyway) ;)

Mine wasn't THAT long :p, anyway it's more reasonable now. Putting in a limit like this essentially limits me to 2 quotes and analysis or 4 straight up quotes. I knida like my ones from orcprocess and have no desire to remove them yet but that leaves 1 line (I'm not taking out the breaks it makes it unreadable) for 3 things minimum that I want to say. You can flick pasy my whole sig in about a quarter of a second with a mouse wheel so what's the issue, someone who hasn't seen it or is distracted by capital letters can read it and someone who doesn't want to can go past it..

[Mockler]

*nods madly* that is exactly the point I made to ukyp.

[AKU//]

How the hell are we going to enforce a signature ban?

[Mockler]

lets just keep to the matter at hand please?

[Paul]

We could always have it unlimited signature - and encourage the annoyed to visit their control panel, in the settings and options section they could click edit options, and then under the heading "thread display options" they could untick "show signatures". We could even make it the default option for all new members to not show signatures (requiring them to click through to a member profile to see the sig).

[Mockler]

We could always have it unlimited signature - and encourage the annoyed to visit their control panel, in the settings and options section they could click edit options, and then under the heading "thread display options" they could untick "show signatures".

oh, Paulie I love you.

[Michael Prosser]

We could always have it unlimited signature - and encourage the annoyed to visit their control panel, in the settings and options section they could click edit options, and then under the heading "thread display options" they could untick "show signatures". We could even make it the default option for all new members to not show signatures (requiring them to click through to a member profile to see the sig).

This is essentially a much easier to understand and simpler version of what I was suggesting. Do this :p.

[Anonymous]

If you kindly direct your eyes to the front page of this thread, you'll notice Mockler, kaity221 and schizii all have sigs which are over this limit you're imposing, and not at all too long.

If you remember them, these ones were too long:
-Michael Prosser's recent one
-Laura-Hanna's one
-Austin's
-Paul's (I think?)
-RATM's

There are probably others, but I only think they are too long when they look like they take up an A4 page (or less, but not much less. Perception, anyway) ;)

I disagree with part in bold.

Some people do not have mouse wheels, thus making it inconvenient for them.

Paul and everyone in support of what he just said, you seriously think that will work?

EDIT: Can you see my signature?

[Daniel Frost]

People don't have mouse wheels? :eek:

I think Paul's idea would work, combined with the solution of ignoring people whose sigs are too long and don't listen to the community.

[Anonymous]

People don't have mouse wheels? :eek:

I think Paul's idea would work, combined with the solution of ignoring people whose sigs are too long and don't listen to the community.

Ignoring people would make their signatures go away?

[Daniel Frost]

No, it would mean you wouldn't have to look at the signatures :p There is an Ignore function, I believe, which means you can choose not to see a person's post :p

[Anonymous]

I am content with the result of this thread as I no longer have to look at people with unnecessarily long signatures and I have an incentive not to include a wikipedia article in mine. But the fact that we could not come to a compromise between ourselves is disappointing

[magicman92]

I am content with the result of this thread as I no longer have to look at people with unnecessarily long signatures and I have an incentive not to include a wikipedia article in mine(I'll test it in a minute actually). But the fact that we could not come to a compromise between ourselves is disappointing

The 8 line limit was a compromise from the 200 word/4 line one.

[Anonymous]

The 8 line limit was a compromise from the 200 word/4 line one.

Well certain individuals were being particularly babyish in their "I WANT MY OWN WAY. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK" which hindered our search for a compromise.

[Michael Prosser]

Well certain individuals were being particularly babyish in their "I WANT MY OWN WAY. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK" which hindered our search for a compromise.

A compromise that now 4 of the 6 people debating this disagree with, that's not really a compromise.

Essentially since ukyp intervened:

people who are fighting for this limit: 2
people who are fighting against it: 4
people who have merely commented but seem not to care: 2

[Michael Prosser]

I disagree with part in bold.

Some people do not have mouse wheels, thus making it inconvenient for them.

Paul and everyone in support of what he just said, you seriously think that will work?

EDIT: Can you see my signature?

Then press down on your keyboard or turn of signatures (also buy a mouse with the functionality to work with what is contained on the vast majority of the internet and games for about a tenner).

[Mockler]

We could always have it unlimited signature - and encourage the annoyed to visit their control panel, in the settings and options section they could click edit options, and then under the heading "thread display options" they could untick "show signatures". We could even make it the default option for all new members to not show signatures (requiring them to click through to a member profile to see the sig).

I think we should all agree on what Paul said. agreed?

[Michael Prosser]

Well I'm with him and I believe dan is, obviously you and he both are and I'm not sure where magicman and anon's positions are against it. Anyone else?

[magicman92]

Well I'm with him and I believe dan is, obviously you and he both are and I'm not sure where magicman and anon's positions are against it. Anyone else?

I like signatures because they can be witty, clever &c., but I think long signatures are antisocial and impolite. So, following Paul's suggestion, although solves the problem, leaves pro-long sigs & pro-sigs in general unhappy :)

[Mockler]

I like signatures because they can be witty, clever &c., but I think long signatures are antisocial and impolite. So, following Paul's suggestion, although solves the problem, leaves pro-long sigs & pro-sigs in general unhappy :)

no. if peoples signatures annoy you then you dont need to view peoples signatures... if they dont annoy you then you can view them. I mean come on. just compromise on this so we can get over this and carry on with usual forum activity please.

[LordAnubis]

We've comprised before on the signature length, or so I thought.

I agree with magicman, unless it's user specific, it's going to be a pretty poor dodge to the problem.

So, for example, I could not see Mocklers Sig, but I could magicmans. This would be better over a all or nothing.

[Anonymous]

no. if peoples signatures annoy you then you dont need to view peoples signatures... if they dont annoy you then you can view them. I mean come on. just compromise on this so we can get over this and carry on with usual forum activity please.

That bold bit is rich coming from the guy who refused to reasonably compromise whatsoever.

And if some signatures annoy me and some don't?

[Michael Prosser]

That bold bit is rich coming from the guy who refused to reasonably compromise whatsoever.

And if some signatures annoy me and some don't?

Then ask UKYP to find a forum coder who can do that, it's not too chalenging, it just requires a dedicated coder who knows what language the forum is coded in.

[Anonymous]

A compromise that now 4 of the 6 people debating this disagree with, that's not really a compromise.

Essentially since ukyp intervened:

people who are fighting for this limit: 2
people who are fighting against it: 4
people who have merely commented but seem not to care: 2

Because everyone decided on 8 and thought that was going to be the limit before some unreasonable people decided to try and carry this on.

[Anonymous]

Then ask UKYP to find a forum coder who can do that, it's not too chalenging, it just requires a dedicated coder who knows what language the forum is coded in.

Or we could have a limit.

[Mockler]

I will not accept anything that prevents me, or anybody else, from having as long a signature as they want; and neither will many many other people on this forum.

you now have a choice. you can agree to this compromise... a compromise which will allow people, such as yourself, to ignore other members signatures if they wish... a compromise which will make people like me happy OR you dont agree with it and ukyp will have to decide whether the people who were ready to compromise to try and make the whole group happy or the people who wouldnt listen were right or not.

you choose. I will say no more... unless this threads slips into yet another subdebate.

[Anonymous]

I will not accept anything that prevents me, or anybody else, from having as long a signature as they want; and neither will many many other people on this forum.

you now have a choice. you can agree to this compromise... a compromise which will allow people, such as yourself, to ignore other members signatures if they wish... a compromise which will make people like me happy OR you dont agree with it and ukyp will have to decide whether the people who were ready to compromise to try and make the whole group happy or the people who wouldnt listen were right or not.

you choose. I will say no more... unless this threads slips into yet another subdebate.

I'll let ukyp decide thanks. Stop trying to make it sound like you are the good guy. We offered a compromise but you rejected and were very immature about it. You offer us a compromise that does not solve the problem and expect us to agree.

[Mockler]

I didnt offer the compromise, Paul did.

you keep calling me immature yet it isnt I whos been the one spouting personal insults around and I havent been the one making statements which hold no ground.

[LordAnubis]

If we can somehow make it optional as to the user that you can hide the signature from, then fine. But other than this, I don't see any way of it working as effectively as a limit would.

[Anonymous]

I didnt offer the compromise, Paul did.

you keep calling me immature yet it isnt I whos been the one spouting personal insults around and I havent been the one making statements which hold no ground.

I disagree.

[magicman92]

If we can somehow make it optional as to the user that you can hide the signature from, then fine. But other than this, I don't see any way of it working as effectively as a limit would.

Quite agree.

[Anonymous]

Quite agree.

Sounds like the perfect solution.

[LordAnubis]

*Waits for Mockler to kick up*

If he agrees, then we may have the final solution.

[Mockler]

well, of course it is a perfect solution. but is it possible?

[Michael Prosser]

*Waits for Mockler to kick up*

If he agrees, then we may have the final solution.

Sort of, essentially you are advocating putting a limit in place until someone can be bothered to recode part of the sig blocker.

[Mockler]

there should be no limit. it should be taken off immediately.

[Anonymous]

there should be no limit. it should be taken off immediately.

There should be a limit. It should be adjusted to 8 lines unlimited characters but not removed completely.

[joanne.b.]

There should be a limit. It should be adjusted to 8 lines unlimited characters but not removed completely.


Wow, that was definitely a 'do what you're told' comment.

Personally, they're annoying because I have to scroll past them but if people want them - let them.

[Michael Prosser]

See my current signature, I got bored of the debate for now, that compromise good enough for you?

[Mockler]

See my current signature, I got bored of the debate for now, that compromise good enough for you?

lets not try to start petty arguments and think of clever ways to get around the limit until this debate is over and only if we lose please :)

[Darryl'Libertarian'Jones]

...Seems like another nail in the coffin of free expression :(

[magicman92]

...Seems like another nail in the coffin of free expression :(

By that train of thought, you would like people to be able to racist, homophobic and sexist in public? (just a question; wondering if you believe it...)

[Mockler]

oh my god just let this debate end!!! we have agreed on something and now ukyp needs to comment to say whether its possible or not STOP posting now. jesus christ.

[magicman92]

oh my god just let this debate end!!! we have agreed on something and now ukyp needs to comment to say whether its possible or not STOP posting now. jesus christ.

My post was an innocent inquiry. Also, if you want an unlimited line count, why can't I now post in this thread by the same arguement of free expression and the like?

[Darryl'Libertarian'Jones]

By that train of thought, you would like people to be able to racist, homophobic and sexist in public? (just a question; wondering if you believe it...)

I'm just answering this one question, then I'm going to stop posting on thread:

I don't want people to racist, homophobic or sexist in public. But as long as they aren't actually doing any of the above (eg. not letting black people in bars) and they are only saying the things, yes, I think they should have a right to say such things in public. Take Geert Wilders for example, if they just let him show his film rather than kicking him out of the country, would he really have gained such publicity? it's horrible for people to say those things but if we try banning them from doing so, the government is basically saying that they are right and that it is trying to appease those who are offended by it. I say, just let them say hate speech if they want, just as long as it doesn't become hate crime.

[Mockler]

My post was an innocent inquiry. Also, if you want an unlimited line count, why can't I now post in this thread by the same arguement of free expression and the like?

I just explained. quit trying to stir up new arguments. I am not in the mood. I was happy until I read that post. thanks a lot.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for compromising Michael. Your signature is much smaller and bigger at the same time and everyone is happy.

[Daniel Frost]

I'm not....

[Anonymous]

I'm not....

Please explain why, don't just decide you're unhappy.

[Daniel Frost]

I'd still rather have signatures of a reasonable length.

[Anonymous]

I'd still rather have signatures of a reasonable length.

8 lines is unreasonable?

[laura-hanna]

I used to have a really long signature with my favourite poem in it but I shortened it because it was too lengthy even for me.

[Daniel Frost]

Well, it still isn't 8 lines.

And I don't think any limit is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Well, it still isn't 8 lines.

And I don't think any limit is necessary.

I think the majority of people agree that we need a limit.