Enable Signatures plugin on Meta for fundraising links

[Moin]

I don’t think the signature plugin makes it easier.
The signatures are hidden by default. Users have to activate them in their preferences; otherwise, they won’t see them. So it is likely most people would never see the link.

[pfaffman (Jay Pfaffman)]

@anon48433008

all the reasons where they may be helpful?

As someone who might stand to benefit from signatures, I hate signatures too and think that the profile popup is good enough. I wouldn’t use a signature if one were available. I suppose a user custom field and a theme component that added a tips link to the profile could help, but I mostly doubt it.

[JammyDodger]

@anon48433008

You made it moot by moving it, the inability to get votes diminishes the voice of the people who may wish to be heard, I know Jeff hates signatures, but has Jeff heard all the reasons where they may be helpful?

I didn’t push a broad brush allow, rather a narrow stroke to allow for a practical purpose, to support those who support Discourse, so I ask you please move it back, let those who will speak up to speak up, this is more of the arbitrary decision making I’d like you to be considerate of, it is a community remember.

You made it a suggestion for a change to meta, not a feature request for the product itself. As such, the topic belongs in site feedback rather than feature, and we don’t have votes on site feedback.

Though even if we did, as I said, we’re not going to be enabling Signatures on meta.

[anon48433008]

@pfaffman

I mostly doubt it.

I do as well, I rarely view them

@Moin

I don’t think

Yes, that’s the issue, we all have very narrow world views, and narrow thinking, we can so easily war with one another, where it becomes difficult is to listen and care for one another.

So hidden by default, why?

They are often cluttered with arbitrary opinions that don’t serve a purpose

If they have a sole purpose, and this could be a flagship example, then would you hide them by default?

Where’s the harm in giving it a year, activate a group with permission, allow specific types of members into the group, then have them offer feedback in keeping or modifying?

@pfaffman

I wouldn’t use a signature if one were available

lol, we must be related, I resist and resist, until I don’t, then realize the harm I only caused myself, examples are huge and many.

I hate you guys make me feel like a union rep trying to advocate for better wages too as I believe in right to work ideals, so…one more item resisted soon to be removed?

@JammyDodger

we’re not going to be enabling Signatures on meta.

Oh I don’t doubt your ability to resist the idea, I doubt your ability to embrace it, I put it forward to help, how does a preferred pronoun help anyhow?

Its for third party discussion, to keep from repeating a name, if we looked at the need for it what would we find?

How does changing master/slave or white list/black list help when they’re not even viewed often? Are coders ripe with a supremacy complex, ohh wait… bad example, are they known or targeted as intolerant to minorities?

Why put so much effort out for no reward, maybe a bit of self gratification on being politically correct for the moment?

Yet serious discussion for true reward won’t be had?

What truly make’s a place civilized?

Seriously, where are the priorities?

People need to be paid, they need to be appreciated, there’s wonderful people here, where will they be when the next software solution comes out and gives people what they need?

Loyal to history or loyal to the future?

[JammyDodger]

I think this is going off-topic.

But the question has been raised, and I’m afraid it’s a hard pass.

Even if the plugin could be limited to groups (which it currently isn’t), having a fund-raising link attached to every post that person makes is not something we want. It’s noisy, and a little spammy.

I’m going to close this topic off now.