[Pete Svarrior]

I'd like to have a discussion about this. I just noticed Lord Dave's sig consists of a post from CN, which would normally likely not be allowed to be posted in the upper fora. However, since it's been quoted in a member's sig, it can now appear prominently throughout the site, including the pages accessible to unregistered users.

Of course, as it stands, doing so is not in breach of the rules, but perhaps we should do something to restrict sigs just a bit? To me, it looks like the lack of regulation in signatures is an oversight which allows for some rules to be partially circumvented. I'd be curious to see what others think.

[Rama Set]

Links no quotes to material otherwise forbidden in any forum makes sense to me.

[Rushy]

I've never actually thought about it, but it makes sense to disallow it since the purpose of hiding CN/AR is just that, hiding it. Allowing people to dredge posts out of it defeats that purpose.

[Lord Dave]

Wow... I had forgotten what I put there.

I'ma gonna take it off.

And yes, yes we should.
Sigs should follow the same rules as all posts.  If it's CN/AR worthy, then if the sig is anywhere else, (which it will be) then disallow.

[Vongeo]

Is this being pushed for because the quotes are silly or to hide the depths of child boards?

[Pete Svarrior]

Is this being pushed for because the quotes are silly or to hide the depths of child boards?

No.

[Pete Svarrior]

Since this appears to be a fairly uncontroversial proposal, perhaps we could have a response from the admins now?

[Blanko]

Seems reasonable to me.

[Pete Svarrior]

Since this appears to be fairly uncontroversial among users and admins alike, can we perhaps move on to the implementation?

[Benjamin Franklin]

I don't see the point in not allowing signatures unless the content of that signature violate the forum rules. All this does is change the helpful quote box, which can be clicked to see the context of the quote, to a generic quote box that makes it harder for me to find the quote origin.

[Lord Dave]

I don't see the point in not allowing signatures unless the content of that signature violate the forum rules. All this does is change the helpful quote box, which can be clicked to see the context of the quote, to a generic quote box that makes it harder for me to find the quote origin.

I think that's the whole point.
The context/wording of the message is bad, not that it was linked.

[xasop]

Since this appears to be fairly uncontroversial among users and admins alike, can we perhaps move on to the implementation?

I'm still unclear on precisely what is being proposed. We have two different reasons given for disallowing such signatures, which merit different solutions:

Links no quotes to material otherwise forbidden in any forum makes sense to me.

I've never actually thought about it, but it makes sense to disallow it since the purpose of hiding CN/AR is just that, hiding it. Allowing people to dredge posts out of it defeats that purpose.

If we are doing this for the sake of keeping rule violations out of signatures, then we only need to prohibit material which violates rules in any forum -- quotes from CN/AR are fine provided that they do not violate such rules. On the other hand, if we are doing it for the sake of upholding user privacy in non-public fora, then we should ban all posts from CN/AR, as well as The Lounge, from being included in sigs.

Which approach do people prefer?

[Rushy]

Isn't the reason the forums are hidden to keep them from the prying eyes of guests or search engine spiders? It seems like letting anyone quote any of the material from those forums makes that attempt at hiding the material null.

I'm going to go with banning all posts from CN/AR or The Lounge.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'd call that an implementation detail, but I agree that it merits a discussion at this stage.

Personally, I'd be in favour of banning posts which break the rules. A post quote accessed by an outsider or search engine has no more value than an entirely fake quote unless the viewer chooses to set up an account... and at that point they can view CN anyway. From my point of view, it shouldn't matter whether I quoted someone's post in CN or made a quote up entirely.

[Vongeo]

Is this being pushed for because the quotes are silly or to hide the depths of child boards?

I'd call that an implementation detail, but I agree that it merits a discussion at this stage.

Personally, I'd be in favour of banning posts which break the rules. A post quote accessed by an outsider or search engine has no more value than an entirely fake quote unless the viewer chooses to set up an account... and at that point they can view CN anyway. From my point of view, it shouldn't matter whether I quoted someone's post in CN or made a quote up entirely.

So posts that are silly, silly being defined as breaking the rules?

[Pete Svarrior]

So posts that are silly, silly being defined as breaking the rules?

Yes. Alternatively, if we define "chair" as "breaking the rules", then this proposal is to restrict chair posts.

[rooster]

Isn't the reason the forums are hidden to keep them from the prying eyes of guests or search engine spiders? It seems like letting anyone quote any of the material from those forums makes that attempt at hiding the material null.

I'm going to go with banning all posts from CN/AR or The Lounge.

This is the reasoning I'd go with. I don't want anything I post in the relative privacy of CN/AR to be in someone's sig.