I’ve never been offended by anyone’s signature. I just hate the long ones with pictures that take up more space than a member’s post.
In order not to see signatures in text format I can suggest (for firefox, but I think it exists also for other browsers) the add-on “Text Rewriter”
When it finds a certain alphanumeric string, it replaces it with another text you choose.
For images use Ublock Origin
As is usual when I’m tempted to weigh in on a controversial subject, ToyKeeper has already said what needed to be said much more eloquently than I could have. I agree with this 100%.
sb56637’s post reminded people of the existing site rules, gave some examples of things that might break the rules, and politely asked everyone to review their own signature. It looks like a few people have had their signatures edited but as far as I can tell sb56637 hasn’t let rip with the ban hammer. This doesn’t seem heavy handed or the start of a slippery slope to me.
I think it’s important to remember that people see your signature at the bottom of every post you make and might have to scroll past it several times on a page if there’s a lot of discussion in a thread. I do most of my BLF browsing on my phone while on the train and I would prefer not to see multi-line or image-heavy signatures. On the other hand, I really appreciate it when people’s signatures contain links to their projects, tests, reviews, and other useful threads they have created.
ToyKeeper
There may be “some” wisdom there …but, then again, for some people there is Shakespeare’s little ditty.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” 
The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia
True.
But who provided the first bait (if any) here? Does that even matter?
You didn’t refute anything you seem to disagree with though.
In a nutshell, it’s about the slippery slope we see on the internet platforms.
But maybe those who oppose that trend reacted with a little too much concern.
That would include taking offence / being triggered by signatures that don’t target people in a negative way.
I think it also includes throwing the book at people.
Either way, yes, we could all use a little more self reflection every now and then.
Restraint will follow from that by itself, if it works.
Or after the fact, like the previous post i just deleted… :person_facepalming:
Sorry…
If you have something you’d like to debate, it can be done in private messages. This public thread is not really an appropriate place though.
Did someone complain about raccoon city’s sig again? lol
There’s an astronomy forum called cloudy nights ,they have a function that lets members not show certain signatures .
So it can be done.
Yes, it’s definitely technically possible, but not with the forum software we have here, unless somebody writes a custom module.
Then why do you post this now?
I don’t want you to fight me.
Well, not per se anyway.
We’re discussing things i.m.o.
But it’s you who fights signatures you don’t like.
(and not just you of course)
Isn’t that why SB chose to post this reminder of the rules?
Or has there been an increase in ‘offensive’ signatures?
Anyway, so we both made a silly post (or more…)
Sorry i quoted this one before you could delete it.
Maybe i should unsub this topic.
All has been said already.
Guys seriously, this is a FLASHLIGHT forum. We talk about flashlights. It’s so oddly specific, I mean, we’ve all tried to explain to someone where we got our bright light—“well, see, I’m on this flashlight forum…” 
Lol. If any group of people should be thought to get along it’s the flashlight nerds. (I mean that in a good way) Come on guys! Spread a little light!
What about befuddling people with it?
I saw the “dog whistle” comment twice, saw your ‘Q’… and I’m still completely lost.
Okay, so what’m I missing?
I take it that it’s not this Q
and the only other thing I can find (like, just now) is “QAnon”.
Hmm, fascinating…
Still… “dog whistle”??
I kinda like “Ich tu dir weh. Tut mir nicht Leid. Das tut dir gut. Hört wie es schreit!”. :smiling_imp:
THIS.
Honestly, I don’t like being on this side of the discussion. It feels wrong. I understand that this forum belongs to SB, so the rules are his, and he may apply them as he wishes. MOST of the time, I’m right there in agreement with him, even debating against others who would disagree. But this time, it’s not defensible.
It is “heavy handed” to suggest that signatures must fall under the general rules of discussion for this forum. Signatures are not discussions. A signature is a way for someone to tell something about their self. That’s it.
I can only think of two legitimate rules for signatures: don’t attack anyone (thanks Jerommel) and don’t have a signature that’s too large. I have not seen ANY signatures that attack anyone, but maybe some have been close to being too large, although that would have to be better defined.
Err… IS it too large…???
The wife doesn’t complain 
I was talking about pictures, not the real thing….lol!
Actually, I use ABP to pretty much get rid of anything I don’t like seeing. Some anigifs in signatures I haven’t seen in so long because I long ago blocked the specific image, that I had no clue even in this thread about what they were referring ’til later and those bells got jingled. Big sig-pix, same thing. I pretty much blocked all of imgur because of the endless “you can’t see this pic ’til you pay up” images that got substituted (still got it blocked, but can unblock per page if someone has a legit pic).
So all this is available, if people want to use it.
Freedom? Freedom? It is a worship word, Yang worship. You will not speak it!
That’s Q.
Certainly. 