The OP is proposing that anyone with negative trust cannot have their signature displayed at all. A new user can still display whatever signature they so choose as long as it does not exceed certain size limitations. A new user can still post whatever opinion they have (it does still need to be posed in an appropriate place) regardless of the fact they can only post every so often.
Just because someone is saying something does not mean that I have to listen to them. Someone who chooses to turn off/disable signatures essentially is choosing to not listen to what is being said in signatures. This also is relevant to the first issue as both the signature and posting frequency restrictions are primarily anti-spam measures to prohibit things from being said (posted) that virtually no one wants to hear (read). No freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowed theater when there is not a fire, you cannot say things that is likely to insinuate a fight, you cannot say things that is likely to start a riot, among other things.
Yes theymos does to a small extent limit the free speech of users here, however from what I have seen I believe that he mostly restricts the speech of spam-like messages and refrains from restricting the speech of people attempting to express their viewpoints on issues. I would trust the judgment of theymos to restrict speech in a non-controversial way and to be very conservative as to what speech he prohibits. This is partly because he has proven his ability to do this based on his previous moderation actions and because he has great incentives to not restrict others' free speech to the point that it is abusive.
I would not trust the overwhelming majority of people in the DefaultTrust network with that same amount of power, the DT system is not designed to give people that kind of power. I would certainly not trust the OP with that kind of power as there are a number of instances in which he has given negative trust for no reason other then they disagreed with his viewpoint.
Threads about (and reports outside of the forum) theymos restricting users' free speech are fairly rare, and when they do pop up it is usually fairly clear they are frivolous. On the other hand, threads about someone giving negative trust when such negative trust is unwarranted is almost a daily occurrence.
So we're judging the validity of certain actions by the number of threads created about said actions? Wouldn't butthurt be a major factor skewing such criteria?
No, by the number of people/instances in which people are complaining about said actions, and the evidence they provide to backup that said actions are unjustified. As I mentioned before, the majority of the time when people are complaining about theymos, the complaints are mostly frivolous, while many of the complaints about negative trust, especially recently are not.
By the way the point I was trying to make with theymos is that any red user can create a new account and bypass the hypothetical free speech impediment due to the hypothetical signature removals, if we agree that a restricted signature of a newbie still allows sufficient free speech. The only reason those users are not creating new accounts is because they can post in the areas of the forum where their red trust is not shown AND they can impress with their high rank / fancy signatures. It is not a free speech issue. They can speak. There is no constitutional amendment for "free bbcode enhanced speech without delay".
I would say that signatures are primarily used as a way to advertise in one way or another. The OP's proposal is
explicitly trying to restrict
scammer those that do not agree with him, ability to advertise. Commercial speech (advertising) is a form of protected speech.
This is precisely a free speech issue. The OP has a history of leaving negative trust for no reason other then the person does not agree with him. The OP is now trying to take away the ability of those that do not agree with him ability to advertise.
I think that someone would be pretty naive to trust something that someone says for no reason other then they have a "fancy signature".
I would prefer to see the ratings everywhere because now I end up clicking on usernames anyway. It's not secret information and if someone prefers not to pay attention to the ratings - their business. Perhaps an option similar to hiding signatures could be provided as well.
There is an option to hide signatures both overall and on a subjective basis. If you wish to hide signatures on a subjective basis then see
this thread, and if you so choose you can modify the script so that instead of looking at how annoying a signature is, it will look at how the user views the trust rating of the user.
