# Signature Rules Needed



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I just wanted to put a poll up to ask the members what they feel about on this particular issue. Some of us have noticed that many signatures are getting very long and require a lot of scrolling per page just to get by them. Still some others have huge banners in them, etc....

Now currently the only unofficial rule that governs sigs is that we dont allow images that are too large (dimensions or file size).

So to satisfy this dilemma I wanted to ask the members what they think, and give everyone an opportunity to get their word in on a potential change to the site rules.

If you vote Yes, you will be asking staff to think up new rules regarding sigs and enforce them. These will most likely consist on a limit to the number of lines per sig, and the dimensions of images displayed.

If you vote No, you will be asking staff to just keep it as it is.

If you Abstain, that means you just dont give a f$%& either way. :smile:

Let us know what you think.









X


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I think they should be limited...I do get tired of scrolling half a page or more just to get to the next post.


----------



## tecknik (Jul 18, 2003)

I honestly dont see a problem with how it is now.


----------



## Bigkrup444 (Oct 6, 2003)

There are a few that are very large it could be a pain sometimes, But it doesnt bother me much.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

tecknik said:


> I honestly dont see a problem with how it is now.


 and this is why I made this post, I wanna hear what you guys think, and whatever you decide, I will implement. Its your site.


----------



## MR HARLEY (Aug 12, 2003)

No problems here......









Mike.....


----------



## Black-Phoenix (Oct 21, 2003)

If a person has 100 tanks dose he need to list them all and all there inhabatants, no. I don't think there is too many members that have obnoxiouse sigs but there are a few.


----------



## jimbo (Feb 5, 2003)

I think they should be limited to a certain amount of space, thats my opinion/


----------



## Winkyee (Feb 17, 2003)

We could limit sigs to what many sites do at like 500 x120 or something close to that . 
Here's 550x120 pixels and it's a decent size, I'd rather it was self policed.
Those of use with rather large sigs know who we are , let's cut it back a bit..
it's nice to be able to cheat a bit once in a while for a special occasion . 
Let's not ruin it

550x120 pixels


----------



## 521 1N5 (Apr 25, 2003)

verticle sigs yes..horizontal sigs no. as long as they don't go down to far...

Don't take Jim away.


----------



## upt1me (Jun 26, 2003)

There is also the option of not displaying members signatures. This option can be found in your control panel.


----------



## mr_meanor (Nov 5, 2003)

I think if you are gonna limit that a reply to a picture should noit contain the picture because scrolling through the same pic 10 times is way more annoying than a long signature to me


----------



## KingJeff (Jul 22, 2003)

yes it should definalty limited. Some of them are way too long. Limit it to maybe an in or 2.


----------



## sweet lu (Oct 3, 2003)

i dont have a problem with mine or Jim or any bodes really

but for those who do ahve a ton of tanks and enhabtants i think maybe if they put them in a long sentance instead of having it vertical to maek it shorter

but i dont like the ones where is maeks the post really long and you have to scroll back and forth to read it


----------



## losts0ul916 (Nov 19, 2003)

sweet lu said:


> i dont have a problem with mine or Jim or any bodes really
> 
> but for those who do ahve a ton of tanks and enhabtants i think maybe if they put them in a long sentance instead of having it vertical to maek it shorter
> 
> but i dont like the ones where is maeks the post really long and you have to scroll back and forth to read it


 Like yours.


----------



## 521 1N5 (Apr 25, 2003)

I just wanna know when everyone is gonna stop bitching around here....

just come here and make posts! there is always people who will bitch about something that is perfectly fine.

i mean come on...people should know if it takes up half of someones screen they shouldn't put it as their sigs..but I don't notice anyones sig that is out of hand....

honestly i just think people ran out of stuff to complain about, because this board is so good..so they though hmmmm let's compalin about sig pics...

that's crap.


----------



## losts0ul916 (Nov 19, 2003)

521 1N5 said:


> I just wanna know when everyone is gonna stop bitching around here....
> 
> just come here and make posts! there is always people who will bitch about something that is perfectly fine.
> 
> ...


 Uh, you do know who posted this right?


----------



## sweet lu (Oct 3, 2003)

losts0ul916 said:


> 521 1N5 said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanna know when everyone is gonna stop bitching around here....
> ...


 who?









mine isnt that big but there are biggers


----------



## MR HARLEY (Aug 12, 2003)

losts0ul916 said:


> 521 1N5 said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanna know when everyone is gonna stop bitching around here....
> ...


 He knows Doode. :smile: ......chunks was just voiceing an opinion..
I thought that , that was what mike was looking for 


> I wanna hear what you guys think,


No disrespect......


----------



## Winkyee (Feb 17, 2003)

In some cases scrolling through a page long sig isn't enough , combined size of sig and avatar has been over 1mb and that' far more irritating than a half page of sig.
on this page alone, there's over 1mb of animated Jim.(nothing personal against Jim or anyone else.)


----------



## MR.FREEZ (Jan 26, 2004)

winkyee said:


> We could limit sigs to what many sites do at like 500 x120 or something close to that .
> Here's 550x120 pixels and it's a decent size, I'd rather it was self policed.
> Those of use with rather large sigs know who we are , let's cut it back a bit..
> it's nice to be able to cheat a bit once in a while for a special occasion .
> ...


 i like this ideal its not a whole lot but people would still be able to experss them selves


----------



## MR.FREEZ (Jan 26, 2004)

those huge pictures are a pain though cant it be sized down automaticly like the avartars


----------



## hays98 (Mar 8, 2003)

i dont think there needs to be but if there is i dont have a problem looseing mine


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

upt1me said:


> There is also the option of not displaying members signatures. This option can be found in your control panel.


 I agree! If you have a problem you should use this option. That is what it is for.


----------



## MyFishEatStrayCatz (Feb 5, 2004)

I think its fine the way it is, but I won't put up a fight for it either...


----------



## vanz (Sep 11, 2003)

no problem here...
I'm sometimes on a slow ass internet connection, but I don't complain about how long it takes to load up images. Like upt1me said, use the sig block option.

Is my sig too big?? It's like 27 KB


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

521 1N5 said:


> I just wanna know when everyone is gonna stop bitching around here....
> 
> just come here and make posts! there is always people who will bitch about something that is perfectly fine.
> 
> ...


 dont worry, Jim is definatly not going anywhere. We would still allow images anyway. I was just seeing what the members thought before I change any rules or anything.... ya know......


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Atlanta Braves Baby! said:


> upt1me said:
> 
> 
> > There is also the option of not displaying members signatures. This option can be found in your control panel.
> ...


 I enjoy reading some of the signatures so for me this is not a valid option. The problem is not rampid on the site however the issue for me becomes where do we draw the line? If someone wants to have a 3 page signature, should that be allowed? I believe some are thinking we are going limit the signatures to a very small level, that is not the intention at all, it is just to get a grasp on those that are very very very long.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

I think no, but thay if they are way over the top they should be removed.

but no set amount, just common sence.


----------



## fishofury (May 10, 2003)

I think it's fine the way it is, but people "should" know exactly what is excessive.


----------



## camotekid (Sep 21, 2003)

i voted yes. somtimes some images get some time to load. No offense to those who have some. But maybe a small image will do. Thanks.


----------



## Honda99_300ex (Apr 18, 2003)

I do think that the banners in the sigs are annoying sometimes, but I also have a lot of Text in mine, so I say we leave it as it is


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

Ive always thought signatures are way of people expressing their self, interests, or what they're all about. I can honestly say that some members are known for their signatures (like mines) and Ill be damned if I ever had to take out my flaming signature.

But there is a line between a decent sized signature, to one that would require scrolling down to see the next post. Also there are folks like me who still run a jurrasic comp. Its my own prob, but pls think about other like myself.


----------



## crazyklown89 (Aug 28, 2003)

I really don't care actually....I just use mine for funny quotes from shows, mainly funny cartoons.

Example below from Beavis and Butthead...eheh


----------



## BoomerSub (Jun 23, 2003)

I think it should be limited to no more than seven or eight lines of normal-sized text and no images.

-PK


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

fishofury said:


> I think it's fine the way it is, but people "should" know exactly what is excessive.


 When we first started, that idealogy worked. People knew common sense. Now as we grow and gain more members that common sense is lost as our community is getting "younger."



Innes said:


> I think no, but thay if they are way over the top they should be removed.
> 
> but no set amount, just common sence.


If you do not have a set amount members will take advantage of it and state that its okay because there is no limit. In order to "enforce" something like this, you need a set rule. That way it doesnt look like a particular staff member is playing favorism when they tell you to shorten your sig.


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

It seems we are making a problem out of something that isnt currently a problem.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Atlanta Braves Baby! said:


> It seems we are making a problem out of something that isnt currently a problem.


 You just dont want to have to take down the sig that took you 3 weeks to figure out how to put it up.


----------



## mr_meanor (Nov 5, 2003)

mr_meanor said:


> I think if you are gonna limit that a reply to a picture should noit contain the picture because scrolling through the same pic 10 times is way more annoying than a long signature to me


 what about pics in replys???


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

lol this is a great poll. Right now the mandate is to just keep it as it is, but let some of the few that have it as excessive know...


----------



## piranha 13 (Feb 16, 2003)

It doesn't bother me either way. :smile:


----------



## DiXoN (Jan 31, 2003)

i voted yes if its needed i dont actually see any problems myself but i have broadband.
dixon


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

What annoys me is those sigs that look like someone puked them up. Multiple colors of text, images galore (some of which are animated, which hurts my brain at times), HUGE text, all of that. Those are horrible.

A single image or small set of images is not bad, imo. Especially if it's tasteful and eye pleasing. Of course that's entirely subjective and hard to enforce. But I'm sure it's something to go on as well.

As for the line limits, that COULD possibly be bad... Some people like to list their tanks and the contents on different lines. If you have a lot of tanks, that could go beyond the 'line limitations'.

I think regulations should focus primarily around image type/size and text size.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

i hate long sigs 
just put a limit on it


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Atlanta Braves Baby! said:
> 
> 
> > It seems we are making a problem out of something that isnt currently a problem.
> ...


 I know i love my signature! Thankyou so much for your help!


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Very close guys.....Any members that have not voted, please do!


----------



## Chimaira (Jan 13, 2004)

I just did.

I believe someone had complained about my signature too .. and its not even that big.

Come on now. Make the right choice, if something is wayyyy out of hand, advise them and let them know, if it is a single image (like mine) let it go.


----------

