Pony99CA wrote:I also don't really understand DavidIQ's comment that signatures will "become that much less useful". I don't find most signatures "useful" at all anyway (although I may find some "interesting").
If you're hiding them then why even have the option to show signatures to begin with?
Remember, this feature wouldn't hide all
signatures; the user can already do that in the UCP today. Depending on how this is implemented, it would hide multiple
signatures from the same user in the topic (except for the first) or it would allow hiding all
signatures for users with signatures that the user decided were annoying.
DavidIQ wrote:Signatures exist as a way to provide additional information without having to retype that information every time you post. If there are rules a moderator lists in their signature and you're letting users hide signatures, or if a user specifically states to not contact them by PM for whatever reason, and you're a user hiding signatures, how are signatures useful then? Just a few reasons as to why I think signatures would "become that much less useful".
That's a fair point. However, if you take the friend/foe approach, and hide signatures of foes, it's not likely that you'd PM them anyway. (I hope people can't/won't hide Moderator's signatures.
Plus, as mentioned above, the UCP already allows hiding all
signatures, so users can already make signatures "useless". The requested feature is making that more granular, which seems to be better than an all-or-nothing approach, doesn't it?
For example, I just turned the Display signatures
option off in the UCP and Callum's signature above didn't display. If he's a moderator on this board/forum, haven't I just made his signature useless (even though I don't consider him a "foe"