I think people could afford to chill out at times.
There seem to be some essentially cultural differences at issue here, which is understandable given the variety of people and message boards that are out there, from usenet to the ones with one post per page surrounded by animated images. Personally, I sympathize with the no-image camp, since, in my position as a forum-goer, I'd prefer not to deal with them. However, in my position as the forum administrator, I think it's important that this matter be settled in the best way possible, which I'm still searching for.
Since just fewer than half of the people voting don't want to have image signatures, and it would be a significant change, and yet more than half support them at some level, an option I'm considering (please keep in mind that nothing is decided) is to allow signature images on an opt-in basis. That is, guests would not see them, and members with a profile option checked would see them. As he mentioned, Janus has already prepared a mod (including now the guest setting, so those browsing from keylogger-ridden public terminals don't see signature images). Although the decision has not been made, I wanted to make sure it was technically feasible before entering the discussion.
If I have read the posts properly, this resolves all of the no-image-camp objections save two I'll discuss below, though please bring up others if I've missed them. Omissions are not intentional. I'm assuming for instance that the aesthetic/distraction/banner-ad objections made by no-image voters are handled by an opt-in system (please explain why this is not the case if you feel that way). However, even among the image voters, there are likely going to be some images that are objectionable in various ways, and this also implies that there will be images that are borderline against any of those objections. I don't anticipate that the moderation burden will be heavy, but I could be wrong. Assuming image signatures are allowed, we'll just have to see, although I wouldn't mind seeing the pro-image people discuss what they think is acceptable. How do pro-image people feel about "ad" image links to other sites, or animated images, or those meme sigs? Is that what you're signing up for? I'm assuming the votes for image were actually made by a fairly diverse group of people, and that some would like more restrictions than others, beyond the image height we've already voted on. I'll likely need to post some guidelines if images are allowed -- I don't intend to run the entire forum on perpetual majority votes, but I think it's important to hear what people have to say.
Anyway, the two remaining no-image-camp objections that I don't think are addressed specifically by an opt-in system:
(1) the doomsday scenario objection: image signatures lead to overall "internet"-style degeneracy, signature-based elitism and other problems.
The presence or lack of signature images does not change the fact that the majority of people here are already the sort of people that support the use of signature images, whatever that means. In that case, it seems like the doomsday scenario that's being discussed is more a matter of preventing certain of these people from having "internet" tools to act in an "internet" way, or something like that. I think it's the case that there might be occasional disconnects as people refer to signatures that others can't see and so on, but any time over the past few years that I've been threatened with the prospect of causing a "community schism" it simply hasn't happened. For instance, allowing DF init parameters, which people now take for granted, was supposed to destroy the community because people would be playing "different games". This has been a non-issue. I think everything will be pretty cool for the time being, and that, among people that use signature images here, people will generally be pretty cool about them as well.
Whether or not this forum devolves into a meme cesspool is more dependent on the people that come here than the tools available to them, and it depends on how much general moderation there is. People can already post, which is a far more drastic ability than a signature image, and it's been fine so far. So far, I like most of the people that play the game and post here, and I haven't needed to moderate much, though some people want me to moderate more or to take on other moderators. If there's a sudden shift in the player base, whether or not we have signature images simply isn't going to be material with regards to the overall problem.
(2) the full forum experience objection: allowing images signatures to be optional prevents somebody from experiencing the complete content of the forum, if they turn them off because they can't stand them.
You can still see signatures in somebody's profile if you want to check them out. The only thing you'd be missing out on is seeing them in their natural environment, which I gather isn't much of a loss considering the overall non-image preference held by the objector here, and you can flip your profile option for a bit if you want to see a particular signature in the thread (as with the avatar+sig image combination we've seen). You aren't experiencing the forum exactly as a pro-image signature person is, but that's the point of an option, and I don't think the lack of homogeneity should be an issue.
Please let me know if I've missed anything so I can further consider this matter. There's obviously no rush, though I would prefer if people stop picking fights and seeing the worst in people's posts. There's no reason for this to feel like an urgent matter, as I currently understand the situation.
Poll
60 (15.3%)
Author
Topic: Poll on Signatures (Read 59556 times)