PublicImage wrote:If somebody makes a post that has nothing more than a smiley, it's going to be shit and annoying whether signatures are enabled or not.
henno wrote:and as to the argument of 'you can just turn them off'.... i would argue, sure, 'you can just not have them in the first place'.....
The majority of voters actually want them, yet because a few people find them aesthetically displeasing, they won't be allowed. In spite of that feature being enabled.
If there are more people in favour of them than against it, then I fail to see how that argument holds any relevance. It just favours the minority, which I find ridiculous if there is a higher demand for them to be allowed. I don't understand WHY anybody would vote for 'no' if they can turn it off other than just to spite those who do want signatures to be enabled. It's not like it takes any effort whatsoever to disable them. So 'you can have them in the first place' because there are more people that do want them than there are who don't, and if they can be disabled, it is impossible for them to bug the people who don't. It's very, very simple and I cannot see any logic behind the 'no' vote.
But the whole issue is actually trivial, so I'm not going to debate it any more.
PublicImage wrote:If somebody makes a post that has nothing more than a smiley, it's going to be shit and annoying whether signatures are enabled or not.
The majority of voters actually want them, yet because a few people find them aesthetically displeasing, they won't be allowed. In spite of that feature being enabled.
If there are more people in favour of them than against it, then I fail to see how that argument holds any relevance. It just favours the minority, which I find ridiculous if there is a higher demand for them to be allowed. I don't understand WHY anybody would vote for 'no' if they can turn it off other than just to spite those who do want signatures to be enabled. It's not like it takes any effort whatsoever to disable them. So 'you can have them in the first place' because there are more people that do want them than there are who don't, and if they can be disabled, it is impossible for them to bug the people who don't. It's very, very simple and I cannot see any logic behind the 'no' vote.
But the whole issue is actually trivial, so I'm not going to debate it any more.
