No discussing sigs?

[Schmide]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2024012

I see Fern kind of answered my question?

You can "deduce" what you will from his sig, but pls don't derail threads with OT comment about it.

TIA

Fern
Supr Moderator

At what point does a sig go past benign information?

As far as I see in the above thread, Genx87 declaring his sig off limits is just a double standard, if Genx87 can display it in the thread, it's part of the thread. There is no other public place to rebut Genx87.

I would say either put limits on what can be placed in one's sig, or allow comments about them. For Genx87 to display that in public and be immune to comment is just lame. I don't agree with T2K in the way he rebutted, but I also don't agree with Genx87 that one's sig is off limits. I took exception to Genx87's declaration.

 

[KeithTalent]

If he really felt the need to discuss his sig, he should send him a PM and take the discussion away from the thread. Heck, he even suggests that in the thread. If someone believes a member's sig is inappropriate, then the PM should be directed to the moderator account. Seems pretty darn clear to me.

KT

 

[Schmide]

If he really felt the need to discuss his sig, he should send him a PM and take the discussion away from the thread. Heck, he even suggests that in the thread. If someone believes a member's sig is inappropriate, then the PM should be directed to the moderator account. Seems pretty darn clear to me.

KT

I'm not trying to be difficult. I assume he=Genx87?

Genx87 entered (hijacked) the thread telling T2K to "Seek help" not exactly on topic.

Then when T2K, who is now banned, prefaced the personal comment with available information within the thread, Genx87 cried foul? Despite all the foul language and general bias of T2K, he was the one on topic until Genx87 called him out and made it a personal issue.

I just don't think it's fair, especially in this context when Genx87 was the one derailing the thread.

 

[KeithTalent]

To me they are separate issues. This is how I see things:

1. If T2K had an issue with what Genx87 was posting, then he should have brought it up with the mods.

2. If T2K wanted to discuss Genx87's sig, he should have PMed Genx87 to discuss it.

3. If T2K had an issue with the content of Genx87's signature, he should have brought this up with the mods.

Personally I did not see Genx87's initial post as truly derailing the thread, though it could be deemed to be trollish, it was just an irrelevant comment that could have easily been ignored.

KT

 

[shortylickens]

If there is an official rule of "no discussing sigs" then I move that official rule be changed. Its something you are saying everytime you are posting.
It had been upheld many times you are not allowed to say something and then be immune from comments about it. We dont allow that kind of childishness here.

 

[Schmide]

Personally I did not see Genx87's initial post as truly derailing the thread, though it could be deemed to be trollish, it was just an irrelevant comment that could have easily been ignored.

KT

Huh? Regardless of how you see the initial comment, it was the direct cause of the derailing of the thread, signature and all. I find it an incredible double standard to ignore some information while making a point with other information. It's all out there, displayed in the thread.

The standard of PM me if you have an issue with this, is just way way to high to apply to one set of information and not another. If Genx87 had a problem with T2K's post it should of been taken care of in a PM, and so on and so on. The fact was it was a public comment that should be answered in public, sig and all.

 

[KeithTalent]

The standard of PM me if you have an issue with this, is just way way to high to apply to one set of information and not another. If Genx87 had a problem with T2K's post it should of been taken care of in a PM, and so on and so on. The fact was it was a public comment that should be answered in public, sig and all.

So you are saying people should be able to go in any and all threads and just starting talking about everyone's sigs? Talk about derailing threads.

My belief is you discuss the posts posted in the thread for discussion. If you would like to discuss other things, like signatures and whatnot, then take it to PMs.

KT

 

[Schmide]

So you are saying people should be able to go in any and all threads and just starting talking about everyone's sigs? Talk about derailing threads.

KT

My opinion, in a nutshell, if someone makes a comment like Genx87 made with said sig, it is unfair to declare certain available information in the thread off limits. If it's allowed to be there, it's fair game, especially when; as you said, one party is trolling for a response.

The PM for one issue and not another is just selective enforcement.

 

[KeithTalent]

My opinion, in a nutshell, if someone makes a comment like Genx87 made with said sig, it is unfair to declare certain available information in the thread off limits. If it's allowed to be there, it's fair game, especially when; as you said, one party is trolling for a response.

The PM for one issue and not another is just selective enforcement.

No, it is an attempt to keep threads on topic. If someone has posted a trolling response, then contact the mods and they will deal with it if appropriate, don't make things worse by attacking their signatures.

KT

 

[Fern]

IMO, this matter is not about sigs per se, but derailing a thread. We have some responsibility to the OP to help them get the info/help they need, and not derail into some unrelated topic.

The posts by T2k and Genx, while mentioning the sig issue still had content pertinent to the thread. Your post, OTOH, focused exclusively on the sig; a completely unrelated and different topic. At that point I stepped in to politely warn members against derailing the thread - to prevent it from developing into a problem.

At what point does a sig go past benign information?

Call-outs, flame bait etc. We do have rules on sigs.

[
As far as I see in the above thread, Genx87 declaring his sig off limits is just a double standard, if Genx87 can display it in the thread, it's part of the thread. There is no other public place to rebut Genx87.

I don't think it a 'double standard' issue, Genx mentions recent instructions from the Mods (I guess about no derailing, or that discussions on sigs don't belong in vid cards and gfx) and suggests taking it to PMs (correctly so, that way the thread wouldn't be derailed)

Publicly rebutting another member's sig? I'd be careful to avoid a 'call-out', but since his is politcs-related it should be done in P&N. perhaps you use that same quote to start a thread in P&N (w/o mentioning him by name) and PM him to join your thread.

[
I would say either put limits on what can be placed in one's sig, or allow comments about them. For Genx87 to display that in public and be immune to comment is just lame. I don't agree with T2K in the way he rebutted, but I also don't agree with Genx87 that one's sig is off limits. I took exception to Genx87's declaration.

We do have limits/rules. If you think a member's sig is inappropriate, post in the (new) Moderator Discussion forum, PM the Mods etc.

Genx's sig is not off limits per se, but a discussion about his sig simply doesn't belong in the OP's (tech assistance) thread.

Hope that helps.

Fern
Super Moderator

 

[Fern]

If there is an official rule of "no discussing sigs" then I move that official rule be changed. Its something you are saying everytime you are posting.
It had been upheld many times you are not allowed to say something and then be immune from comments about it. We dont allow that kind of childishness here.

OK look, sig != reply.

I get the impression some here want to equate sigs to a reply in a thread. That can't be, most sigs have nothing to do with the thread topic members are posting in. If we viewed sigs as the equivilent to posting a reply everyone would be warned for derailing threads because in 99.9999 of cases they've got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sigs are just sigs, and rarely have anything to do with any specific thread(s). I assume many are like me (and others) and do not even read them often, much less equate them to replies. And, IMO, Genx's sig didn't really have anything to do with that thread topic. I can see instances where that could happen, but in such cases mentioning the sig wouldn't be thread derailing.

Fern

 

[JD50]

shortylickens should be banned for trying to turn this thread into a babe thread with his sig. We have already have a babe thread in L&R.

 

[Born2bwire]

I don't quite like the idea of only being able to talk about it via PMs. The signature is displayed publically but the PMs forces any discussion of that privately. Obviously it would be derailing to completely try to shift the topic onto the signature, but shouldn't there be a possibility to discuss it publically? You certainly cannot go off and start a separate thread as that is a callout.

These are statements that the poster purposely expresses out to the forums at large. If they are inflammatory or controversial then I think that the forums should be allowed to have some kind of avenue on discussing them openly as well.

 

[KeithTalent]

I don't quite like the idea of only being able to talk about it via PMs. The signature is displayed publically but the PMs forces any discussion of that privately. Obviously it would be derailing to completely try to shift the topic onto the signature, but shouldn't there be a possibility to discuss it publically? You certainly cannot go off and start a separate thread as that is a callout.

These are statements that the poster purposely expresses out to the forums at large. If they are inflammatory or controversial then I think that the forums should be allowed to have some kind of avenue on discussing them openly as well.

There is an avenue, you can bring it up for mod discussion under Personal Forum Issues, Moderator Discussions, or via a PM to the mods to ask them to look at it. There are three avenues for you to use which should be more than ample for anyone should they feel the need to pursue further discussion of a member's signature.

KT

 

[JEDIYoda]

I don't quite like the idea of only being able to talk about it via PMs. The signature is displayed publically but the PMs forces any discussion of that privately. Obviously it would be derailing to completely try to shift the topic onto the signature, but shouldn't there be a possibility to discuss it publically? You certainly cannot go off and start a separate thread as that is a callout.

These are statements that the poster purposely expresses out to the forums at large. If they are inflammatory or controversial then I think that the forums should be allowed to have some kind of avenue on discussing them openly as well.

Did you bother to read this thread beforew commenting???

Fern -- Super moderator stated -- Publicly rebutting another member's sig? I'd be careful to avoid a 'call-out', but since his is politcs-related it should be done in P&N. perhaps you use that same quote to start a thread in P&N (w/o mentioning him by name) and PM him to join your thread.

 

[shortylickens]

shortylickens should be banned for trying to turn this thread into a babe thread with his sig. We have already have a babe thread in L&R.

Talking about wimins is OK so long as you dont post pics.
Talking about sex and relationships is best for the L&R forums. If my sig said "I wanna sex up Anne Frank" then I'd have to delete all my posts from OT and only stay in L&R from that point on.
OR, I could just take away my message about sex because EVERYBODY can see the damn thing EVERY time I post and it might not always go unnoticed.

I repeat my previous argument because no one has directly refuted it. Your sig is something you are saying every time you post, and many people will read it every time you post. The thread derailment argument is bullshit because Social threads get derailed all the time and mods never do anything unless it turns violent.

Ferns argument was nice but untrue for me. I am not equating sigs to posts, but I do equate them to something being stated every time you make another statement.
Since no one else can see the logic in this I withdraw my previous petition to change said rule.

 

[Keysplayr]

Talking about wimins is OK so long as you dont post pics.
Talking about sex and relationships is best for the L&R forums. If my sig said "I wanna sex up Anne Frank" then I'd have to delete all my posts from OT and only stay in L&R from that point on.
OR, I could just take away my message about sex because EVERYBODY can see the damn thing EVERY time I post and it might not always go unnoticed.

I repeat my previous argument because no one has directly refuted it. Your sig is something you are saying every time you post, and many people will read it every time you post. The thread derailment argument is bullshit because Social threads get derailed all the time and mods never do anything unless it turns violent.

Ferns argument was nice but untrue for me. I am not equating sigs to posts, but I do equate them to something being stated every time you make another statement.
Since no one else can see the logic in this I withdraw my previous petition to change said rule.

Incorrect, or at least I disagree. Signatures are used by members to convey a personal saying, quoting another member with that members permission, something humorous, something sad, etc. As long as it isn't inflammatory, or used to call out/degrade another member, a members sig is a "personal" tidbit that the member would like to share with the community. Shows a bit of what that person is about.
Now, in the middle of a technical thread, to suddenly look at a members sig and include it in an argument shows us a sign that the particular member has an interest in turning the argument "personal" and that really isn't something we want.
Sigs are allowed, and it is up to the member sporting that sig if he/she wants to discuss that sig in public. PM's seem to be the most diplomatic route for this. If everybody called out each others sigs, eventually no sigs will be allowed. Is this what you're after? Extreme censorship FTW?
Think about this argument you are presenting. Ask yourself why you are presenting it. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's a sig. It may, or may not pertain to a thread discussion. Usually it doesn't. Leave it alone else you will be zeroed in on as someone "jonesing" to get personal when you use it in an argument that has nothing to do with the thread content.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Since no one else can see the logic in this I withdraw my previous petition to change said rule.

Define logic....
I once had an employee tell me I was not being fair...I said define the word fair....
sure your arguments to you are logical, but to everyone else you might as well be pissing in the wind!!

 

[Born2bwire]

Did you bother to read this thread beforew commenting???

Fern -- Super moderator stated -- Publicly rebutting another member's sig? I'd be careful to avoid a 'call-out', but since his is politcs-related it should be done in P&N. perhaps you use that same quote to start a thread in P&N (w/o mentioning him by name) and PM him to join your thread.

Why yes I did:

So you are saying people should be able to go in any and all threads and just starting talking about everyone's sigs? Talk about derailing threads.

My belief is you discuss the posts posted in the thread for discussion. If you would like to discuss other things, like signatures and whatnot, then take it to PMs.

KT

And more recently:

There is an avenue, you can bring it up for mod discussion under Personal Forum Issues, Moderator Discussions, or via a PM to the mods to ask them to look at it. There are three avenues for you to use which should be more than ample for anyone should they feel the need to pursue further discussion of a member's signature.

KT

Fern's quote is superficial if there is continued disagreement by other mods. It is easy to see that certain mods normally stick to moderating specific forums. What one mod may feel is not necessarily how another may moderate and matters of oversight can slip through the cracks. Many people have felt that consistency in the moderating has been an issue of late. Should I then just assume that despite KeithTalent's indications to the opposite that I should take Fern's opinion to be how every single moderator is going to act in such a situation? I do agree with Fern's post, am I forbidden to express agreement or similar ideas as others in a thread about forum policy? God forbid if we were to take a sampling of the forum's feelings as a whole on such matters.

In regards to KeithTalent's last post, I would only consider that appropriate if the signature itself is inappropriate. Just because a person would like to discuss what is stated in another's signature does not mean that such a discussion deals solely with the validity for them to display the signature. I am merely expressing concern with dismissing any attempts to discuss a signature and relegating it to solely to private venues. I do not like the idea of people being able to publically displaying thoughts and opinions while being able to prevent any public discussion or rebuttal. As long as there remains a possible recurse within the confines of the forum rules I would be content. I do not think that the given example in the OP is a valid method for doing so and have no problems with Fern's ideas.

 

[Vette73]

shortylickens should be banned for trying to turn this thread into a babe thread with his sig. We have already have a babe thread in L&R.

Ha! says the idiot that uses Fedora. I mean come on, its almost 2010, get with it.

 

[Red Dawn]

FYI this is the proper forum to discuss it.

 

[Perknose]

Fern got to the heart of this matter: Don't derail a thread with OT comments about another user's sig.

Keith T was simply trying to be helpful. His suggestion to take your opposition to any other member's sig to pm's is right on target as an extremely sane way to go . . . but if you absolutely, positively have to do so publicly and personally in direct response to the sig's author, then do it respectfully in a dedicated thread in the proper forum.

Otherwise,if you really, really need to involve others besides you and the sig's author in your dispute, there are other, better avenues for challenging same, as KT outlined: Personal Forum Issues, Moderator Discussions, or via a PM to the mods.

Shorty, your suggestion that all this be reflected in our posted rules is not a bad one, and we will attempt to do so.

Folks, in general, these forums are and always will be to some extent a work in progress. As extremely highly paid as we mods are (giggle), we are not all-seeing nor all-perfect, and so we do and will require your enlightened cooperation going forward in clarifying rules and making whatever adjustments are needed.

Won't you help? 😀

Finally, thank to everyone for bringing this subject to our attention, we love you (in a manly and non-fluids-exchanging way), and it IS a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

 

[shortylickens]

Incorrect, or at least I disagree. Signatures are used by members to convey a personal saying, quoting another member with that members permission, something humorous, something sad, etc. As long as it isn't inflammatory, or used to call out/degrade another member, a members sig is a "personal" tidbit that the member would like to share with the community. Shows a bit of what that person is about.
Now, in the middle of a technical thread, to suddenly look at a members sig and include it in an argument shows us a sign that the particular member has an interest in turning the argument "personal" and that really isn't something we want.
Sigs are allowed, and it is up to the member sporting that sig if he/she wants to discuss that sig in public. PM's seem to be the most diplomatic route for this. If everybody called out each others sigs, eventually no sigs will be allowed. Is this what you're after? Extreme censorship FTW?
Think about this argument you are presenting. Ask yourself why you are presenting it. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's a sig. It may, or may not pertain to a thread discussion. Usually it doesn't. Leave it alone else you will be zeroed in on as someone "jonesing" to get personal when you use it in an argument that has nothing to do with the thread content.

We already have extreme censorship in the forums.
I'm not even allowed to post a PG-13 girl link in my sig, because all babes go in the babe thread.
Why?
BECAUSE PEOPLE READ SIGS IN ALL FORUMS EVERY TIME YOU POST!
I wish I could find a polite way to express my disgust at the lack of thinking & consistancy concerning this subject.

 

[KeithTalent]

BECAUSE PEOPLE READ SIGS IN ALL FORUMS EVERY TIME YOU POST!

Not true at all. I rarely read signatures even though I have them enabled. I may be the exception, but I imagine there are a lot of people that are similar to me.

KT

 

[mindless1]

Can't we just tar and feather everyone who has a sig line? How about a user voting system where sigs that rate -1 are automatically hidden? Then again, there are those who abuse such features for petty reasons.