Signature policy?

[zulu17]

I agree ... the powers that be clearly wanted to restrict signatures.

[annfen]

To summarise the results of our members' polls:

Charge for signatures? RESULT: 14 in favour, 20 against
Restrict links in signatures to "imutual" ones? RESULT: 8 in favour, 4 against
Allow banners / images in signatures? RESULT: 1 in favour, 10 against
Restrict font size in signatures? RESULT: 14 in favour, 1 against

So our signature policy going forward is as follows:

- Any member can add a signature to their posts
- Signatures should not contain images, links to other sites or non-standard font sizes
- Signatures can contain links to other imutual pages, including linking to forum posts which themselves may include links to other sites (provided such posts abide by the forum rules)
- You can use different colours for the text in your signature

Let's see how this goes - we can make further refinements to the signature policy as necessary

where were all these other polls??? - I have only seen one relating to charging - none of the other points above so ....what gives? when did these arise? not much time to vote!!!

[kevinchess1]

you miss them
They don't stay on the front page long what with all the other posts

[Richard Frost]

I do think this was done as democratically as was practical, but let me reply to a few of the points raised...

Inevitably, it's not going to be easy to get a large number of members involved in each and every poll. But, for a forum this size, I think we got a reasonable snapshot of regular forum contributors (who, after all, are most affected by signatures). The polls ran for a full week, which I think is about the right time frame. And in the most prominent forum - News and Announcements.

In most cases, the votes were fairly overwhelming. The one poll that perhaps could have had a more convincing outcome was the one about external links (8-4); a larger turnout would, admittedly, have been better. Nothing is set in stone and we can always hold a further poll if there is a groundswell of opinion to change it. However, I do think that, as a principle, we shouldn't re-run polls for at least 2-3 months unless there is a very good reason to do so. At the very least, we should give the idea some time to see how it works out in practice + see my response to Denant further down in defence of this policy

I'm guessin it does
It eseems a shame that ALL of the 3 votes on sigs wwere to encourage/allow RY to restrict them
A backward step I feel

It seems a bit unfair to characterise it that way. Given that the previous policy was a complete free-for-all, then any proposal - by definition - was going to involve some kind of restriction

Oh and by the way, I didn't vote on any of them

Does that include mine? For blood donation....something you never know when you may need

Let me try to convince you that this new policy will not detract from your wish to encourage visitors to that site. In fact, I think it will actually help. May I suggest a course of action...

Create a new topic about giving blood, with a prominent link to the blood donation site at the top - and then link to that topic from your signature. Use that topic to explain why blood donation is so important, about the shortage of donors, how easy and painless it is etc. This will hopefully start a conversation about the topic amongst imutual members, which would act as a much better advert for the cause than a simple external link in your signature.

And perhaps, in that thread, ask your fellow members to commit to making a blood donation in the near future, and to reply to the thread once they've done so. You can then update your signature with the number of pledges e.g. "X imutual members have pledged to give blood. Join them!". Signatures that never change can soon get ignored - yours will have a constant point of interest.

In fact, I will be one of the first to make such a pledge, having failed to donate blood for many years

[kevinchess1]

It seems a bit unfair to characterise it that way. Given that the previous policy was a complete free-for-all, then any proposal - by definition - was going to involve some kind of restriction

Not true
If all the polls had gone against the propasal then, nothing would hav changed.
I did vote in all 3 polls and was on the losin side 3 times
But that's what a demorcacy is about
The amount of time I've voted argued and voted in favour of something which turn out to be a V bad idea is embarrisng
I'm certainly not in favour of rerunnin these polls before 3 monthsish has passed

[blythburgh]

If only we had the voting done by Proportional Representation as the LibDems would like for all local council and parliamentary elections then nobody would be able to complain about the result. (Only joking about having PR instead of the current polls in case anyone thinks I am being serious as they cannot see me )

[rayf]

The one poll that perhaps could have had a more convincing outcome was the one about external links (8-4); a larger turnout would, admittedly, have been better. Nothing is set in stone and we can always hold a further poll

If I had seen the poll, I would have voted against!

I think we need a separate Forum for polls - at least 2 weeks to vote (you have to allow for people on holiday) and a distinction between a general poll for interest and one which is aiming at changing policies. Surely any major decisions must be subject to the AGM?



.

[Mel]

Surely any major decisions must be subject to the AGM?

I think that would be a bit over the top when we're talking about a specific aspect of what kind of signature you can have at the bottom of a forum post AGM votes have significant legal consequences and ought to be restricted to major company issues, such as electrion of directors and whether to accept a takeover for £87m

In between times, it's the job of the directors to manage the company as they see fit. That said, I always like to consult and hold polls wherever practical, and this was one such instance

You may have a point about allowing two weeks for polls. Do others agree? Even if we had done that, I suspect that only the decision about 'external links' might have gone the other way. But if you read my comment above re: blood donation example, can you see that, in practice, it shouldn't really affect what you can achieve?

I suspect most people don't really see external links as an issue because, at the moment, there are very few around and they aren't causing a problem. But having managed forums full time for the past 15 years I reckon it's only a matter of time before it does become a problem (spammers etc) and we can avoid a lot of potential acrimony by getting the right policies in place in advance

[kevinchess1]

Whilst RY need room to make hiw own decisions VIZ-a-viz day today stuff and his possibly/probably right about 'to minor for AGM'
You have the right to put forward a motion on this at the AGM if you get enough support.
Just no sure it's woth botherin with
AND
I was on the losin side in all 4 signature votes

[Squire]

Most sites would just chop your signatures, like the moneysavingexpert.com forum draconian mods. So it is courteous of Richards to let us vote and give us warning.

I will not miss my 2 website links in my signature, nor will you, they were/are not much to look at anyway.

So, let us all move on and accept that at least we do not have to put up with some of the monstrosities that were beginning to creep into the signature area of every post made by some members. Giant banners, silly comments suppsoed to be clever, etc...

Kevinchess1 is right, not worth raising this at an AGM, we all have better things to do.