I don't have a problem with religious or political signatures (honestly, I didn't realize I was supposed to be looking at them) but: a button? Absolutely. A button is something you wear for the express purpose of sending a message.

A shirt is a different story. I'd assume they got the shirt from the freecycle.

Hi...

That we do: ardvark71.

I disagree, I think it's a perfect place. Jesus died for Linux users, too. While I don't think it's the most effective way in the world to evangelize, my signature and blog is a small way that I do try to get the Truth out there for folks to hear. All of this pushback and hostility/resentment towards my signature and, ultimately, my beliefs is not an accident nor is it unexpected. Satan will try and make sure there is resistance and opposition to hearing the Good News, we can see that in other countries. Some more severely than others. It's still amazing though how the name of Jesus will strike an immediate reaction among people, either for or against. Have you noticed that other signatures that have (or had) pagan or atheistic references never get any attention or opposition?

I would like to also state my opposition to restrictions on signatures. I don't see how disabling them in the introductions forum and/or by default for new users makes any difference or solves any problems. As far my signature goes, there have been people who have been blessed by seeing it (in that particular forum) and have told me so.

Regards...

1 members found this post helpful.

I've stated earlier that I believe users should be free to debate anything in General and use .sigs freely, but if you ask me how I feel about the content of people's signatures, my answer is very different.

I've certainly seen .sigs in here that have rubbed me the wrong way. And yes, I would feel somewhat uncomfortable in a setting (say, a LUG meeting) where someone wore a T-shirt with a message I found wrong or offensive. Likewise, I'd react to people wearing political buttons, especially in a setting where a discussion around political views weren't at all expected or appropriate.

But would I do something about it? Would I act on those impulses? No. I'd keep my mouth shut and try my best to treat the person in question exactly like everybody else present. Should that person bring their views up in conversation, I'd either join a polite discussion if I so desired or I'd simply stay out of it. If I chose to take offense and perhaps even state so publicly, I believe I'd be the one who was in the wrong.

Admittedly, I'm one of those who react negatively to the .sig that's been implicitly mentioned in this and other threads. I think it sends entirely the wrong message, but that's my opinion and my feelings on the matter.

I know many share the opinion expressed in that .sig, and that's their indisputable right. In fact, expressing one's opinion publicly is protected by constitutional law in most countries, and for good reasons. The overriding principle is that no-one has the right not to be offended or not to have their views challenged, or to be protected from the reality that others hold opinions vastly different from their own.

Now, LQ is a private forum, so you're of course perfectly free to create and enforce any policy you like. However, I'd argue that banning certain content from .sigs would deny some people the right to express what they consider to be core elements of their identity. I don't think that's very friendly or inclusive, not to mention that the entire argument for censoring that particular content is one based on intolerance: "I cannot tolerate being exposed to such views, so someone needs so remove all signs of them from this place that I wish to frequent."

For the time, I do not care much about signatures, as they are never filled with white-space and a big diversity of elements which disturb my eyes. Never!

Signatures are not meant to convey a specific answer to a specific question. I may locate them on a communication-level slightly more “meta” than the smilies. As the latter are needed to replace elements of non-verbal communication, signatures make an introduction that you would have to ask from your other friends, otherwise: “Who was that girl? She seems to be quite fond of Claude Lévi Strauss.”

A second thought. Compare a few signatures, that you know of, let's say... 2.
Societal dynamics and politics can sometimes change the situation in a way, that renders one signature acceptable, while the other will get general contempt. Not much is needed to turn the tables and you are less in command, than you might think.

Edit: Here's the flat resume: Apart from technical restrictions, there should be none for signatures.

Thanks for the continued feedback. How I'm leaning at the moment.

* As clarified earlier, political or religious content is not permitted in threads in technical fora. If you see it please use the Report button and we will address it.

* We have no plans to ban certain topics from .sigs at this time.

* It is likely that we will hide all .sigs in the Intro forum. This should partially address issue some members seem to perceive with them impacting new members.

* We will likely leave .sigs enabled for new members, but will continue to monitor the situation.

* We'll look into the ability to hide .sigs on a per member basis but have no ETA for a rollout at this time.

Keep the feedback coming.

--jeremy

Additionally, the following message will appear in General for a while, to inform those members who no not read LQS&F:

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.

You may have moved on already, but thought I'd comment, since you asked for feedback.

If I walked into a LUG and I saw someone with a religious/political shirt/button/hat/whatever on, I'd honestly try to avoid such a person, just because I wouldn't want to get roped into a 'conversation' about their views. Such folks typically don't care that others don't want to hear them, and are 'doing it for the good of others', by trying to get them to the 'truth'. If I saw two or more such folks, I'd never go back to that particular group meeting again.

The post by ardvark71, post #107 in this thread, (which is also user ardvark and ardvark69 on this very forum; rules about multiple user ID's do exist??), is a great example. He's said before that his posts in the Introduction forum, and lots of others, are done to get his signature out there...which sort of boils down to advertising, doesn't it? If they said they were doing it to drive traffic to their blog/company, they'd be banned.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5552503

2 members found this post helpful.

Note that we have Ignore List functionality at LQ that allows you to do this.
FWIW, commercial links are also permitted in .sigs.

--jeremy

I did not know about the ignore function. That is a nice tip.

Also, to quote another post of mine:

2 members found this post helpful.

Quite true, but sticking my head in the sand because someone may 'offend' me isn't a good way to deal with things. While such folks may be irritating/annoying, they may ALSO contribute to solving a technical issue. Ignoring the message because you don't like the messenger isn't a good way to learn or grow for anyone.
Absolutely true, but my point is if someone posted, saying they *ONLY* reason they're saying hello, advising users to change their user ID's, or not answering folks questions other than to say "wrong forum!", is to advertise their signature....wouldn't that be the same? It's advertising....what's posted is there for the sole purpose of driving traffic to a blog/website/company, not to actually answer questions/help folks.

Especially if such a user had an ENORMOUS margin of posts that don't answer a question, relate to the post, and have often ignored a users questions flat-out, and removed it from the zero-reply list, making it harder for users to get help.

4 members found this post helpful.

I have signatures globally disabled so I can't say I've been over-exposed to any signature issue. I've also considered there to be 0 loss by having no sigs displayed. Very infrequently, there may be a post that says "look at helpful links in my sig" which I don't see.
My thought would be to have signatures enabled on opinion based forums like

• 2016 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards
• General
• Linux - News
• Linux - Screencasts and Screenshots
• LQ Suggestions & Feedback
• LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro

and disable sigs on technical ones

• Linux - Newbie
• Linux - Software
• Linux - Hardware
• Linux - Laptop and Netbook
• (and similar)

I disagree. My signature links have been helpful to many users in the technical fora:

I think it is nice to have a list of helpful links attached to your name that people might not otherwise see or think to ask for or even know they exist. Also I use it to beg for internet points which helps boost my low self-esteem.

1 members found this post helpful.

Some of us just wear that stuff as a kind of thumbs up the same as when I wear my Linux hoodie. I think of sigs as the same it's just a thumbs up to something specific.

FWIW, we have no plans to block .sigs in all technical fora.

--jeremy

Yes, I've been wondering about this. Having multiple user IDs per person appears to be explicitly allowed here. Don't you think that should change?