Originally Posted by goalie
Im'm not saying it's best not to have signatures if the moderators don't have time to review posts with signatures but if the moderators truly don't have the time, then my question is why and again, if truly not enough time, add more moderators or add more folks to the signature review committee.
We don't have time to 'review posts with signatures' as there are thousands of such posts made everyday.
If there were a system that all posts with signatures got trapped and had to be manually reviewed by mods, then mods would probably spend all their free time reviewing posts and clicking to free them onto the boards. And of course, that would make for terribly disjointed conversations, as posts would be appearing out of sequence.
At the end of the day, are signatures really such a massive problem that we want to effectively stop mods having time to read FT, because all their time is spent approving posts with signatures in them? There are actually very few signatures which cause concern - there are a fair few which get pulled up for formatting breaches but fewer ones are found to be in breach.
It just seems like it's an artificial problem, being promulgated by a very few people, but where the solutions will impact on many more people's enjoyment of FT. Our elected representatives are meant to represent the majority, not the minority, and do things for the benefit of FT, not a few folks who want to exercise control.
(And if mods had to sit and approve thousands of posts everyday, I'm sure there would be complaints about the levels of censorship on FT and frankly, quite rightly too
)