Should travismontoya change his signature?

qphox · Post by **qphox** » 18 Aug 2005 15:06

Some people were discussing his signature in his thread about "A Change of Pace" and he was upset at the hijacking.

Anyway, his signature is a blatant advertisement, and I feel this is not the place for it.

Here's the image:

For some reason I cannot create a poll, so please post your thoughts on the matter.

Note: Nothing will happen if you "Click Here Now."

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 18 Aug 2005 15:11

I think the signature should be whatever one wants.

I'm with t-bone

travismontoya · Post by **travismontoya** » 18 Aug 2005 15:18

lol.... I think everyone has the right to whatever signature they want as long as there is no profanity

Iain · Post by **Iain** » 18 Aug 2005 15:25

i agree, there is nothing making u click his sig. What if he put in his sig just the link? I bet there wouldn't even be this discussion.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 18 Aug 2005 15:28

Hold on... I see nothing wrong with advertising something you like. Example, Damion and the blurryworld sigs (which are leet, by the way =oD). It blatently advertised blurryworld. No discussion there. Bum's advertising (or at least was... I'm too lazy to check) Printer ink things in his sig. I don't see a problem with this. It's not intrusive, not seizure inducing, not annoying, and actually kind of cool. Granted, I don't have a PSP, so the magazine doesn't help me. Therefore I won't click it. Done and done.

fidottio · Post by **fidottio** » 18 Aug 2005 15:29

this is a forum, his signature is fine. at least it's not big and flashy and gives me headaches...... seath.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 18 Aug 2005 15:45

wtf? If I knew everyone was going to say its fine I would have said it needs to go...jesus make up your mind modified!

travismontoya · Post by **travismontoya** » 18 Aug 2005 16:08

shreddaily wrote:wtf? If I knew everyone was going to say its fine I would have said it needs to go...jesus make up your mind modified!

eh??

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 Aug 2005 16:43

yeah there's no rule against it. If we thought he didn't play footbag at all and his only presence on the forum was advertising some geek machine than we would definitly just ban him - but in this case that's not the case.

quadgun · Post by **quadgun** » 18 Aug 2005 17:36

Jeremy wrote:yeah there's no rule against it. If we thought he didn't play footbag at all and his only presence on the forum was advertising some geek machine than we would definitly just ban him - but in this case that's not the case.

please dont ban me ...

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 18 Aug 2005 17:37

STOP THE VIOLENCE PEOPLE!!!!!!

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 18 Aug 2005 18:30

I don't have a very strong opinion either way, but if there were a choice I would prefer not to have pictures in signatures, as I said in the other discussion. It always distracts me from the posts, and makes them choppier. Don't flame me though-- like I said, not a big deal either way.

Please don't hurt me. <8[

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 18 Aug 2005 18:58

I'm not a fan of image sigs, they're a total waste of bandwidth and verticle space. That said, I don't see any reason against Travis' sig other than that it's an odd thing to have there.

I mean, if he were a contributor on the site, or if it were some sort of obscure hobby that he was trying to help promote (like a footbag 'advertisement' sig in a non-footbag forum), it would make more sense.