[VOTED] Sig limits

[Rob Wilson]

There have been 2 proposals from the discussion, so here they are for you to vote on.

The original proposal has been edited slightly due to points raised in the discussion so read it here before voting.

1.
Non-Senate members - 250 character limit; This allows them to have a sig pic, or text. They can even have a sig pic and a small amount of text (depending on URL length). This is to stop multi-line huge sigs.

Senate Members - 600 Character Limit; What we have right now.

Sig pic sizes - 500x150. Basically what we have now. With a max of 100kb file size for Non-senate members, and 160 kb for Senate members

Text Size - nothing over 12-14. To stop the more immature idiots from staging a 'protest' with sigs made up of 75 point text.

Animations - A slow refresh rate so they are not a distraction when viewing threads.

Coloured Text - Having sentences in one colour, but different colours for different sentences is fine, but Every letter being a different colour can hurt the eyes.

---

2.
All members: 600 character
Senators Members: 750 character
Text Size: maximum 14
Formating: One color per line, excepting color changes for emphasis and only in limited use.

Sig pic sizes: 500x150
Picture file size: max 160kB (including animated)

Sigs exceeding any of the above criteria by 10% or more would be subject to immediate removal/editing. Those exceeding by 5% or more subject to a warning prior to removal/editing. Those utilizing improper formatting would be subject to a warning before removal/editing.

---

3.
Stay exactly the same as they are now.

---

The poll is open until 15 votes are made for a particular option, or 2 days have passed.

So get voting people.

[Dalton]

I'm voting 3. I think the sig thing isn't really worth restricting if it's unrestrictable except manually.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

As the 250 character limit was along the lines of what I'd suggested during my contribution to the previous discussion, my vote on these matters is straightforward:

Option #1.

[Chris OFarrell]

Option 3. I think its just fine.

[RedImperator]

Two isn't actually a restriction on anyone, just an increase in the character limit for Senators. I voted for that one, though three is acceptable. I believe I made my opposition to any proposal which would restrict sig sizes for regular members very clear in the discussion thread.

[Broomstick]

I just don't see a pressing need for a change. #3.

[phongn]

2.

[Stravo]

No change neccessary

[LadyTevar]

I voted for 2.

[CmdrWilkens]

Just to reiterate why I proposed 2 and why I added it I'll offer this:

1) It essentially maintains the current status quo yet also provides a perk for Senate membership so yay us. (It also provides a small incentive to non-senators to reach a point where you might be considered for membership)

2) It places into clearly defined rules what degree of violation will recieve what response, I think the biggest problem with the current system is there is little definition to the nature of enforcement.

[Edi]

I'm abstaining from this one.

Edi

[Admiral Valdemar]

I see no reason to change the current system.

[Rob Wilson]

The poll is now closed.

1. = 5
2. = 7
3. = 11

Therefore the Senate has rather unselfishly voted to keep things as they are.
Despite having the opportunity to extend their own sig limits without encroaching on the non-senate members limits (option 2). Can anyone imagine the real governments NOT voting in an increase to their own perks or wages?

So much for the nay sayers waffling on about elitism!