>I don't see how restricting freedom of speech and expression that doesn't violate any forum policy is a good thing. There is nothing forcing anyone to click on any links in a signature... it can be ignored. Aren't signatures meant to be personalized? I'm not sure that if there were more restrictions on speech here -- especially in signatures -- (other than the typical no threats against another member, no trolling, no obscene language, etc) that I would participate. It goes against the entire idea of freedom and democracy.

The main feature of UT, in this regard, is that the signature is not quoted in the message, as it is at Foxite. Actually, apart from awkward navigation (i.e. whole page refresh on each click, which wasn't instantaneous), that's the main reason I don't visit there anymore. I don't like my signature to stand below the same religious propaganda quoted in the message over and over, and I found it very bothersome to go up and delete it from the quoted text, specially when quotes were several levels deep, so I voted with my feet.

So as long as signatures stay at single message level, I'm fine with that. Anyone with an offensive or intrusive signature will soon be either warned or shunned by other members. IOW, this is where anarchy will set things straight, no need to pull moderators in.