experiment: you folks write the sig line policy

fellow MOA forum enthusiasts,

i would like to try an experiment. actually two experiments. please let me explain.

headline and my motivation: i want the MOA forums to be awesome for you and the club.

some of you have privately or publicly expressed concern that our sig line policy as it is currently written is pretty dumb and not uniformly enforced. i agree 100% with this assessment. i'm not happy about it, but it is this way because i have devoted my time set aside for the forums to tasks that i have prioritized higher than the .sig line policy.

ordinarily the moderator team would discuss and draft a new .sig policy. we're busy with other discussions and decisions, and i think one guy is even out on a trip riding his bike (weirdo ), so i wanted to do an experiment. i wanted to ask you, the users of the forum to discuss a good .sig policy. we have lots of really smart people here. we have folks that are mods on other sites that are great to visit. let's see what happens.

this thread is to discuss and argue the NEXT .sig policy. this thread is NOT to discuss the past, it is to plan for the future. this leads me to the second experiment, just in this thread. any posts that i decide are too bitchy, or unconstructive, and do not lend themselves to the discussion, i am going to delete. i'm not going to send a nicely worded private message asking for consideration, i'm not going to explain the action, and i'm not going to take the time to point out meticulously what little rule you bent or broke. i'm just going to delete it and type "off topic" or "unconstructive." i want to experiment with being a "judgment driven" moderator and see what it is like, both for me, and for the thread. all of the moderation of this single thread will be solely at my discretion. i'm declaring that my judgment supercedes the official rules and procedures in this thread only. i think we're all adult enough, and intrepid enough to see what happens.

i hope all of you can view this single thread as a big experiment and also get us some excellent input on the next .sig policy. i may also jump in occasionally and summarize where appropriate and to stimulate discussion. later we'll discuss how we all liked the "judgment driven" moderation of the thread.

i'd like to suggest a simple format to express your thoughts, and below is a list of questions that i ask myself when i make a change to things, tailored to the .sig policy. feel free to deviate from this (like i need to tell anyone in here that! ):

1. what is the primary purpose of the .signature lines that are appended at the end of every single post i make on the forum?

2. what benefit(s) does this appended material add to the forums and my posts?

3. in what way(s) could material appended at the end of every post detract from the forum experience?

4. is there anything that should NEVER be in a .sig?

5. is there anything that should ALWAYS be in a .sig?

6. what is the most critical aspect of the .sig policy that is inviolable - it must be in the policy because it is critical to the MOA forums and the way we use it?

7. what is the appropriate penalty for a user that violates the policy?

8. how much of a workload does this place on the moderation team and is it appropriate?

9. can i express my .sig line policy be in three sentences or less?

thanks for being experimental with me.

lee

Excellent.

No form of governance is more effective than self governance.

username said:

1. what is the primary purpose of the .signature lines that are appended at the end of every single post i make on the forum?

2. what benefit(s) does this appended material add to the forums and my posts?

3. in what way(s) could material appended at the end of every post detract from the forum experience?

4. is there anything that should NEVER be in a .sig?

5. is there anything that should ALWAYS be in a .sig?

6. what is the most critical aspect of the .sig policy that is inviolable - it must be in the policy because it is critical to the MOA forums and the way we use it?

7. what is the appropriate penalty for a user that violates the policy?

8. how much of a workload does this place on the moderation team and is it appropriate?

9. can i express my .sig line policy be in three sentences or less?

Click to expand...

1. Humorous, inspirational or something about me.

2. Insight to my "personality".

3. When it is "abusive" or degrading or just plain confrontational.

4. See #3.

5. Users ability to edit it at will.

6. See #3.

7. Have a stock sig that is locked. Such as a link to their profile.

8. That's your call. Volunteers shouldn't bitch.

9. I can, three sentences is liberal. Have a character count. IE: 200 Character limit.
It's a sig, not a blog.

I'll jump in I am a Rounder Mod and I think I have a little insight from a non biased mod perspective.


1. what is the primary purpose of the signature lines that are appended at the end of every single post i make on the forum?

It is my personal stamp that tells you a little about myself and my interests.

2. what benefit(s) does this appended material add to the forums and my posts?

It might show you the way through to a link to a blog or something else of interest to you and it allows me to express myself which I like and is important to me.

3. in what way(s) could material appended at the end of every post detract from the forum experience?

They can get huge with animated gifs and images taking forever to scroll around and load. Personal attacks or inappropriate links can be there

4. is there anything that should NEVER be in a .sig?

Member bashing, vulgarity, URLs to sites that have adult only content and IMO pics and gifs over 70x70.

5. is there anything that should ALWAYS be in a .sig?

No

6. what is the most critical aspect of the .sig policy that is inviolable - it must be in the policy because it is critical to the MOA forums and the way we use it?

Vulgarity and negativity targeted at others, personal attacks against the site and other members

7. what is the appropriate penalty for a user that violates the policy?

Request in a PM to voluntary alter sigline to conform to policy with explanation of reasons for violation in a nice tone.

Escalation or violation against inviolate: Censor sigline to conformity with notification.

Escalation: If signature reestablished with inappropriate content 1 week ban.

Escalation: permanent ban if signature is then consequently reestablished in violation of policy

8. how much of a workload does this place on the moderation team and is it appropriate?

A little but IMO not much really. If the rules are reasonable, reasonable members will abide.

9. can i express my .sig line policy be in three sentences or less?

Signatures will not be allowed with profanity or URLs to adult only content. Personal attacks on the site or other members will not be tolerated. Gifs or pics must be limited to one instnace total with a maximum size of 70x70 pixels

thanks for being experimental with me.

It's always nice to have input

lee[/QUOTE]

grafikfeat said:

1. Humorous, inspirational or something about me.

2. Insight to my "personality".

3. When it is "abusive" or degrading or just plain confrontational.

4. See #3.

5. Users ability to edit it at will.

6. See #3.

7. Have a stock sig that is locked. Such as a link to their profile.

8. That's your call. Volunteers shouldn't bitch.

9. I can, three sentences is liberal. Have a character count. IE: 200 Character limit.
It's a sig, not a blog.

Click to expand...

What he said.

username said:

1. what is the primary purpose of the .signature lines that are appended at the end of every single post i make on the forum?
2. what benefit(s) does this appended material add to the forums and my posts?
3. in what way(s) could material appended at the end of every post detract from the forum experience?
4. is there anything that should NEVER be in a .sig?
5. is there anything that should ALWAYS be in a .sig?
6. what is the most critical aspect of the .sig policy that is inviolable - it must be in the policy because it is critical to the MOA forums and the way we use it?
7. what is the appropriate penalty for a user that violates the policy?
8. how much of a workload does this place on the moderation team and is it appropriate?
9. can i express my .sig line policy be in three sentences or less?
thanks for being experimental with me.
lee

Click to expand...

1. Users should be able to use their sig line for any purpose they wish as long as they don't violate the User conduct & Posting Policy. (http://forums.bmwmoa.org/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_postingguidelines)
2. It gives me a place to list my bikes that are relevant to this forum. It's fairly common for someone to ask a question in the tech forums about their bike but forget to mention which BMW they are talking about.
3. If it takes up too much space, such as pictures larger than the size of the avatar, or is offensive (violates the User conduct & Posting Policy).
4. Anything that violates the User conduct & Posting Policy.
5. No.
6. Contents must adhere to the User conduct & Posting Policy.
7. Suspension of posting privileges as stated in the User conduct & Posting Policy.
8. I wouldn't think that it would take any more time than you are already spending to enforce the rules stated in the UC&PP.
9.
-1. Contents, including the contents of linked pages, must adhere to the rules set forth in the User conduct & Posting Policy.
-2. Pictures displayed must not be larger than XX x XX (about the size of the existing limits on avatar size).
-3. If signature lines adhere to the policy but still annoy you, you have the option not to display them at all. Under User CP/Edit options you may choose not to show signatures.

Note on -3. It would be nice if we had the option to display up to X lines of a signature and anything that didn't fit in that amount of space didn't display.

"Feel free to deviate from this."

At the risk of being call a deviant, here is my response.

Since sig lines can be ignored, I don't see the problem with their size, unless someone can prove that bandwidth is an issue.

Content should follow the normal guidelines: Not profane, offensive, links to adult sites, no personal attacks, no politics etc.

A link to a commercial site in a sig line is of no concern to me.

My number one request: Consistency in application of the NEW policy. No grandfathering in of current sig lines that are inconsistent with the NEW policy. i.e. If the new policy is 3 lines, no smilies, no links then use the forum software to delete all those not in compliance. Notify members of the effective date of the change and if their sig line disappears on that date, they know that it was not in compliance.

I've read all of the posts prior to this one and have no problems with implementation of any of the suggestions made.

I would tell you more, but my sig line prohibits it.

thanks for the experiment- good luck, curious to see how it works out.

Slightly deviant response:

9. can i express my .sig line policy be in three sentences or less?

My Policy: Keep the sigs simple, civil, unobtrusive and polite. The entire .sig should be no taller than {} lines of text. All sigs must adhere to the User Conduct & Posting policy.

Rationale: It's important to be careful making rules. When you make too many rules or make them too complicated, sooner or later you're bound to make a bad rule. Good rules enforce themselves. Bad rules are tough to enforce, and if you have enough bad rules then sooner or later people will start to hold them in contempt. After that, it's a small step for people to start feeling contemptuous about the important ones.

Being a mod looks like a tough job, I think you guys do your best to be fair and use good judgement. I think trying to make any policy too specific just challenges people to find loopholes- I'd rather trust the mods to give it their best shot.


8. how much of a workload does this place on the moderation team and is it appropriate?

Probably no more than moderating the general posting, I would hope.


7. what is the appropriate penalty for a user that violates the policy?

a) friendly nudge
b) specific warning
c) let ME write a sig line for them that they are stuck with forever....

I don't have a problem with commercial sig lines or reasonable images, as long as they're small enough to ignore ("unobtrusive") - if someone is using the forum mainly as free advertising they are already in violation of the main forum guidelines anyhow, I think.

Will be interesting to see what comes of this.

ps- SIBUD stole my old sig. Not sure if he stole it from me or from the person I stole it from first, though. There should be a rule about that somewhere too.

1. what is the primary purpose of the .signature lines that are appended at the end of every single post i make on the forum?

To give a snapshot of the person who posted.

2. what benefit(s) does this appended material add to the forums and my posts?

Sometimes the devil is in the details. So to speak.

3. in what way(s) could material appended at the end of every post detract from the forum experience?

Oversize, flashy, animated, and image siglines detract from the otherwise smooth flow of the forum software and appearance.

4. is there anything that should NEVER be in a .sig?

An image.

5. is there anything that should ALWAYS be in a .sig?

Nope. Free to edit at will.

6. what is the most critical aspect of the .sig policy that is inviolable - it must be in the policy because it is critical to the MOA forums and the way we use it?

(just looked up "inviolable" not sure why I couldn't figure it out) Um, can't think of anything.

7. what is the appropriate penalty for a user that violates the policy?

Warning, time-out, ban. This is a society, and it has rules.

8. how much of a workload does this place on the moderation team and is it appropriate?

I don't know... you tell us.

9. can i express my .sig line policy be in three sentences or less?

No pictures/animations.
Must not violate the terms of use.
External links must be "work safe."

This is my personal opinion; I am not speaking on behalf of anyone on the board besides me

Lee, thank you for your work to return the MOA forum back to awesomeness.

I am not a fan of writing rules for the sake of having a rule.
I like to solve problems.
Sig line policy...what problem are we trying to solve?

If you are not a fan of viewing sig lines, for what ever reason, you can shut them off:
- User CP
- Edit Options
- 3rd section down - Thread display options
- display or hide sigs, avatars , images.

That said, back to the policy.

Without exception, there is not one signature file on this forum (nor was there one prior to the policy) that I would be inclined to write a rule for (against?).
This is our forum; we should feel free to express ourselves.
The administrators of this forum are neither your parents nor the cops.

We already have a general rule regarding profanity and personal attacks; this is important but already covered.

If members want to link to a commercial site, why would I care? It's not taking bread off the MOA plate to do so.

I think the forum needs a simple set of rules of conduct, for which the signature file would fall under such rules of conduct. No committee work is needed to dictate font size, color, tone, grammatical content or philosophical leanings etc.

gail is outside the box, i like it! gail is asking, "is this a solution looking for a problem?"

that really makes us think about the whole thing, doesn't it? (gail has a knack for asking these kinds of questions by the way...)

username said:

gail is outside the box, i like it! gail is asking, "is this a solution looking for a problem?"

that really makes us think about the whole thing, doesn't it? (gail has a knack for asking these kinds of questions by the way...)

Click to expand...

I agree... But... Shutting off sig lines kills all of them of which the majority are great.
The offending few shouldn't be allowed that "ability".

Like saying saying "Ya don't like reading Charles Schultz's Peanuts? Remove the entire comics section"...

My 2 centavos.

Sig lines shall be limited to a maximum of 250 characters and spaces including codes for external links and shall comply with all other forum rules, policies and guidelines.

221 Characters with spaces including the link to SRABÔÇÖs blog

During the great sig wars my main concern was advertising. That issue was resolved.

There is much in SRABÔÇÖs post that I can agree with in terms of freedom of creativity. My concern is the appropriateness of the place and its purpose. Many sig lines large and small bring little or nothing to the conversation that is going on in the thread. In many cases the sig line is the unruly child brought along to a meeting or gathering. You may really like both of them. The child may bring much to the conversation at times. But in most cases if you had been asked you would have paid for their babysitter yourself.

The option turn off sig lines exists but creates an information winter by eliminating well thought out, context providing and creative sig lines along with all others.

Once this great sig line experiment is completed I would urge the profile section be looked at. Can it be expanded to allow for more information and poster creativity? Is there a way to inform people of its value and purpose? As exasperated as some sig lines may leave me I am even more disappointed and frustrated when I look at a members profile and find it empty.

Mika said:

I am even more disappointed and frustrated when I look at a members profile and find it empty.

Click to expand...

I agree...
That's the new neighbor who moves in and proceeds to build a fence around their property.

I would suggest that you can not discuss the next sig line policy if the lessons of the past are not considered. You don't want to discuss it in this thread, but to ignore it in your moderator discussions is foolishness.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment

1. what is the primary purpose of the .signature lines that are appended at the end of every single post i make on the forum?To have fun in self expression; amuse others and share my self expression

2. what benefit(s) does this appended material add to the forums and my posts?

Personifies the user name on a otherwise flat monitor screen (Translation? Have fun with others).

3. in what way(s) could material appended at the end of every post detract from the forum experience?

Commerical in nature, just plain gross in words "fu*# you or the ADV salute in picture Putting an image or word that is truely offensive the the majority of people on line.

4. is there anything that should NEVER be in a .sig?
Profanily or offensive images or anything with commercial intent.

5. is there anything that should ALWAYS be in a .sig?
Self expression


6. what is the most critical aspect of the .sig policy that is inviolable - it must be in the policy because it is critical to the MOA forums and the way we use it?No response

7. what is the appropriate penalty for a user that violates the policy?

Remove it, cut them a email not to do it again; and then MOST IMPORTANT PART THAT IS FOGOTTON IN MANY A REPREMAND: A "big thank you for your cooporation and thank you for your participation on the BMW Forum"

8. how much of a workload does this place on the moderation team and is it appropriate? One for the mods

9. can i express my .sig line policy be in three sentences or less?yes

Numbered questions make my head hurt.

Sig-lines are business cards.
They should not be billboards.
Billboards, as many a town has decided, are big ugly things that detract from the important and pretty stuff. That would be the posts in our forum.
In our case, a little tiny bit of info about someone or link to a place to learn more is GREAT. It helps provide some easy to access context. When they're long and redundant, when they're billboards, they impact the readability of the forum. As such, most every forum has restrictions on their length and content.

SheRidesABeemer said:

If members want to link to a commercial site, why would I care? It's not taking bread off the MOA plate to do so.

Click to expand...

what is the value of hundreds/thousands of links on our web site to a for-profit web site run by a member?

ian

SheRidesABeemer said:

This is my personal opinion; I am not speaking on behalf of anyone on the board besides me

Lee, thank you for your work to return the MOA forum back to awesomeness.

I am not a fan of writing rules for the sake of having a rule.
I like to solve problems.
Sig line policy...what problem are we trying to solve?

....

Click to expand...

Let's get back to the basics. It seemed to many of us that the sig line policy was a solution looking for a problem, and it found (created) one. If the problem is some fear that members with commercial interests might take advantage, then simply prohibit links to commercial sites. That, however, would eliminate many of the most useful posts we've seen.

Tempest in a teapot!

In general I think they should adhere to the general rules of the forum ( specifically the open forums areas ) as many have already suggested too many rules and it comes a nightmare to enforce.

In response to number 8 specifically and speaking as a mod:

Unless there is a way for the forum software to examine all current sig lines and to cull all non-compliant sig lines for content i.e. political, offensive, derogatory, commercial links, pictures etc (depending on what the policy would state), which I seriously doubt, then there is the problem of the amount of time it would take for the mods to go thru every one, that I would imagine would require quite a large level of effort. If we say the new policy goes into effect at such and such a date, we would have to rely on the membership assuming the responsibly of ensuring compliance for each of their own sig lines and rather than the mods going thru each and every one, I would suggest that any non-compliant sig line be dealt with as they arise and again rely on the membership to send a message to the mod team should they see one in question. This would mean that it might take a while for all sig line to become compliant (since some members do not post often) and would ask for patience on the part of the membership. If you see one that is questionable, rather than make an issue of it or comment on it in a post in a thread or the boards in general (as has sometimes been done in the past) simply let the moderation team know and let them act on it.



RM