Signature Rules

Hagar

I raised these questions a few days ago but I think it was "lost" in the general Sigpo Thread.

Can someone please clarify the official position on multiple small images coupled with multiple small texts (links usually) in sigs. Fair enough a few small 28*28 images don't take up as much bandwith as a single 300*125 image but the rules make no allowance for this. There are a number of mods with this type of sig.

Some posters now have Usebars in their sigs. The width of these is greater than 125 pixels but they are not tall. Some users have several of these bars stacked. What's the position on usebars?

Thanks.

Vikings

I think theyre fine as long as they arent too big, which none of them are. It would be inside the rules if they took a screenshot of their sig and used that as an image so I dont see why its not allowed the way it is now.

Raphael

IncredibleBulk wrote:

It would be inside the rules if they took a screenshot of their sig and used that as an image

I like your logic

Hagar

Good answer. Now all we have to do is persuade them to do it.
Until they do they are breaking the rules as they stand.

CuLT

Well, I know I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Hagar

No disrespect intended Cult but that amounts to an acceptance by you that your sig breaches the rules but you feel you can ignore them.

Did I miss something there?

Cabelo

I'm not bothered either and I'm in 56k land normally

GoneShootin

cloud wrote:

you can't have both text and images.

Funny thing is that EVERYONE flaunts that rule - including myself. Why? It's a stupid rule.

Glass houses Hagar...glass houses

CuLT

Hagar wrote:

No disrespect intended Cult but that amounts to an acceptance by you that your sig breaches the rules but you feel you can ignore them.

Did I miss something there?

I don't feel I can ignore them; the extra items in my signature are public service messages for boards.ie and have been there for years.

What I'm saying is that, quite generally, I personally couldn't care less whether someone slightly breaches the rules. Maybe it's a good thing that I'm not the one making those decisions, but I have more pressing things to be concerned about on boards.ie (let's not even touch real life here), than signatures.

People have the option of turning them off, which I would assume anyone on 56k would do. Anything else is just being petty (unless of course the sigs are ridiculous).

RuggieBear

CuLT wrote:

Anything else is just being petty (unless of course the sigs are ridiculous).

But what's petty to you might be ridiculous to me and vice versa.:)

If everyone follows the rules there are no issues at all

CuLT

RuggieBear wrote:

But what's petty to you might be ridiculous to me and vice versa.:)

If everyone follows the rules there are no issues at all

Need I repeat my tagline? The Internet is not serious business. Chillax a bit .

Hagar

GoneShootin wrote:

Funny thing is that EVERYONE flaunts that rule - including myself. Why? It's a stupid rule.

Glass houses Hagar...glass houses

I don't knowingly break the rules around here.
Sometimes I may take the mick a bit, but not maliciously.

I believe my sig to be within the rules.

It's 300* 125 pixels
It's 20465 bytes which is 15 bytes below the 20k (20480 bytes) limit
I have one small line of text under the image as per http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3412825&postcount=413

I can't actually find the post Shabadu refers to but I'm assuming as it wasn't questioned it is a sanctioned exception. If it isn't I will amend my sig immediately.

*/Edit I'll take the line out either way so there can be no doubt.

Just so that there is no mis-understanding here, tone of voice does not come across in type.
I am using an "inquisitive looking for enlightenment" tone, not an "argumentative spoiling for a fight" tone.

Nukem

If ya dont the sigs turn them off->Control Panel

CuLT

Hagar wrote:

Just so that there is no mis-understanding here, tone of voice does not come across in type.
I am using an "inquisitive looking for enlightenment" tone, not an "argumentative spoiling for a fight" tone.

Ditto here btw, I've been trying to cut down on smilies recently ( except for my old pal :v: ) so any tone is less obvious.

GoneShootin

Hagar wrote:

"inquisitive looking for enlightenment"

dems fighting words around these parts!

But you are breaking the rules by using both images and text in the same signature.

WizZard

:rolleyes:

RuggieBear

CuLT wrote:

Need I repeat my tagline? The Internet is not serious business. Chillax a bit .

Just as well you put that smiley in there or else I'd have been forced to withold my hug this Friday!

CuLT

RuggieBear wrote:

Just as well you put that smiley in there or else I'd have been forced to withold my hug this Friday!

I didn't know you could be so cruel ;_;

Hagar

*cough* Where? *cough*

Read last my post again, please.

TerrorFirmer

Bet noone PM'd you mods....you're just too frightening. I've been PM'd several times in the past regarding sigs, once about six months ago for being something like 50 pixels over the limit. :cool:

But ah well, I personally think the whole malarky is gone overboard totally, as long as it's not visibly irritating or defying common sense I don't see why it should be enforced too strictly.

But I suppose it should be either the same rules for everyone, or no rules for anyone.

GoneShootin

I tend to pm ppl directly particularly in the forums that I mod regarding their sig image. Ive only ever had one person give me any lip about it.

DeVore

I'll explain my thinking on this in terms of a graph from left to right where acceptible is on the left and unacceptible is on the right.

v

---

Here is completely acceptible.
...........v

---

here is where the rules say is the limit
................v

---

here is where the admins/etc will eventually get narked enough to smack you.
v

---

here is where you get smacked back to if they do.
.......v

---

here is about all you'll get to in the future if you have been smacked.

This goes for just about everything. We dont have rules we have guidelines. They are bendable, they arent rigid and they are completely and utterly unbinding to me because I'll simply rewrite them on the spot if someone gets lippy with me.

There has to be *some* perks to this job.

DeV.

Hagar

That's fair enough. Thanks DeV.