I don't know that it was all that vibrant. I got rather annoyed by the number of what were effectively duplicate threads, particularly about Trump. One such thread would have been quite enough, the same way that we have just one thread about religion and one about Windows. I never understood why the same logic was not applied to politics.

No Political communication is allowed in <General> since reopening and that rule will be enforced without question.

Are you saying that unless you agree with it, then one should not be allowed to post it, and/or should have to remove it?

If you posted something that I disagree with, does that mean you either shouldn't be allowed to post it in the first place, and/or should have to remove it? I think we both know the answer to that would be no. Or am I wrong on that? You can't have it both ways - that's called double standards.

There is also the point that you don't respond to someone's posting signature, you respond to their post, like this one, not the signature attached to it.

In any event, it's up to Jeremy to decide what's permitted and what isn't, not anyone else.

My posting signature predates Jeremy's decision to ban political discussion, so there was nothing "underhanded" about it. Or are you seriously suggesting that I somehow knew ahead of time that Jeremy was going to ban political discussion here? Seriously? And how exactly would I somehow know ahead of time? Please explain that.

Not to mention the fact I was opposed to political discussion being banned, or any other subject for that matter, and don't believe that it solves much, if anything. Well, guess what? I'm still opposed to it, but it's Jeremy's site and not mine, so it doesn't matter what I think, anymore than it matters what you or anyone else thinks.

Dude, let it go.

Let what go?

You made a ridiculous allegation and have now been called out for it, take responsibility for what you post. Your the one that made the allegation in the first place, not me.

Are you saying that this isn't Jeremy's site? I believe it is, and I would think that he would agree, don't you?

In a very old discussion thread, signature content was discussed, I know the conclusion that was people can have whatever content in there signatures as concluded by the site leader, Jeremy.

I also forget though:

1. If people can turn off seeing signatures as part of their settings
2. If there was a particular forum where signatures would not be displayed
3. If the chosen not display forum was General or New Member Intro

All that said, I do feel if someone has something in their signature which contends with site rules, then it should not be permitted.

A rule here is no politics. An LQ site rule is:I will not choose to get involved with any cross discussion involving timing. This is simply stating my opinion on the matter.

Dude, please. This is a good site to use the unofficial rules: "don't be rude, don't be stupid, don't keep stupid stuff going on forever". That is kinda what "let it go" means as well.

@all - Let's drop the discussion of member signatures, and discussion about the discussion of member signatures, in this thread.

Member signatures are subject to some constraints but are not at this time subject to the same rules as forum posts and do not constitute "political discussion", even though they may often express ideas some consider political. Think of them as a form of personalization of our digital presence.

If you think that a member signature violates LQ rules then use the Report button to submit it for moderation. Otherwise, please ignore those you disagree with.

Sundialsvcs, the faith and religion megathread is currently halfway down the first page.

Sorry, but why are people continuing to accuse me of things I've not done? Is this "welcome" to be expected here? If so, I'm surprised anyone wants to participate here.

I've not done any those things, the only thing I've done is being direct, and there is a big difference between being "rude" for one thing, and simply being direct.

The rules are outlined in the LQ Rules page and are defined by Jeremy and Jeremy alone, not you, me, or anyone else here. If you think that someone has broken them, then you need to take that up with either the relevant moderator or Jeremy directly. So the only rules I'm going to take any notice of would be the rules outlined in the linked LQ Rules page, along with whatever directives Jeremy decides to issue, not yours.

In any case, it's pretty clear that some simply don't agree with certain views, and that's why they complaining, where if I had different views, they would have no issue and wouldn't be complaining. So I think I'll just follow astrogeek's advice and simply ignore any further complaints, and therefore once again suggest you take it up with either the relevant moderator or Jeremy himself. And if need be, I'll discuss it with them, and not you - although I don't have enough posts to my name to be able to PM anyone, which only leaves email, that said.

Private messages are postcount gated? That explains why I couldn't find a way to do that...

So it's like a sword of orc slaying that you get as a reward after you've slain 100 or so orcs.
Less pointful than it could be.

Where is that requirement explained? Cause I did look for something like that...

When I first joined this forum, all posts counted towards your totals. However there were some people who took advantage of this and posted almost exclusively in General. They showed no interest in presenting their own Linux problems or providing any help to others. This was felt to be contrary to the spirit of the forum, so Jeremy made the decision that General posts would not count towards anyone's total.

You may have noticed that there is no button for "helpfulness" either.

It's explained in the site FAQ, and it tells you how many posts you need to have before you can enable PM's.

Although, really not sure how someone who joined in 2016 (if I'm not mistaken) was here when Jeremy changed the incrementing of members post counts, since the sticky explaining that at the very top of this same forum was posted in 2004, just over 20 years ago now - it literally doesn't add up.

Not 100% sure, but I think posts in general were counted in 2014 and users were still receiving rep from posting in general.
It could be the post was originally made in 2004 but edited later.