Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.I find signature lines to be a bit of a distraction, and most posters don't use them. So, shall we get rid of them?
View attachment 91477
This only works for logged users.Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.
Forcefully shielding readers from the "forced benefit" of repeatedly reading some bit of pomposity would be a kindness.Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.
Then that would be a different poll against pompous signatures. I hope mine does not fall into that category?Forcefully shielding readers from the "forced benefit" of repeatedly reading some bit of pomposity would be a kindness.
Aaawww. I like my skeptic-roasting propaganda! But alright…Then that would be a different poll against pompous signatures. I hope mine does not fall into that category?![]()
Signatures are also hidden to save screen space when using a mobile web browserThis only works for logged users.
That sounds like it might be the whole of the law, or something! Like you might be a star!Do as thou wilt.