SIGS

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-04-30 06:30pm

There have been increasing hostilities involving sigs lately. Certain members who I would prefer not to name are even starting to use them as opportunities to take digs at other members or even entire usergroups (you know who you are).

I have asked people to stop this practice. I have asked people to cut down on oversized sigs. This polite approach has had little success. Therefore, I have temporarily disabled all sigs for the entire board. This affects everyone, even me.

If you are unhappy with this decision, talk to the people who have become militant with their sigs (those of you who have been involved know who they are) and ask them to please refrain from using them in a hostile manner in future. A sig should be humourous.

Of course, you can also post feedback here. I will restore sigs once I feel that the flamewars and hostility have died down and people won't try to use them in an obnoxious manner.

EDIT #1: note that your sigs have NOT been deleted. They just don't show up right now.

EDIT #2: the situation with the most offensive sig has been resolved via PM, hence the sigs are back.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-04-30 06:33pm

Kelly's rule is 450x100.

Mine was 300x127.

My width was 150 under the limit, but the height was 27 over

Would that particular sig still be acceptable?

edit : Was my sig partly responsible for this decision you made?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-04-30 06:33pm

Yo, that was completely unexpected.

If it'll make people think strait, then all the better for it.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-04-30 06:35pm

Hamel wrote:Kelly's rule is 450x100.

Mine was 300x127.

My width was 150 under the limit, but the height was 27 over

Would that particular sig still be acceptable?

edit : Was my sig partly responsible for this decision you made?

No. Kelly asked people to limit the size of their sig pics, and she got flamed for it. I find this unacceptable. If mods get flamed for simply doing their jobs, and over something as eminently reasonable as requests to limit the size of sig pics, then nobody gets sigs. Talk to the people responsible if you like; it mostly took place in certain private forums, however. As I said, I would prefer not to publicly name names for now.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-30 06:38pm

Lex Animata in action!

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-04-30 06:48pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:No. Kelly asked people to limit the size of their sig pics, and she got flamed for it. I find this unacceptable. If mods get flamed for simply doing their jobs, and over something as eminently reasonable as requests to limit the size of sig pics, then nobody gets sigs. Talk to the people responsible if you like; it mostly took place in certain private forums, however. As I said, I would prefer not to publicly name names for now.

You know, I did the exact same thing in HAB back when their sig pic phenomenon was starting, but my posts got deleted.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-30 07:26pm

I was perfectly happy to alter my size and did so every time I had a sig picture, of course I can't help those that put insults in them. But I can live without a sig for now anyway.

Stricter guidelines are needed for this action.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-04-30 07:39pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I was perfectly happy to alter my size and did so every time I had a sig picture, of course I can't help those that put insults in them. But I can live without a sig for now anyway.

Stricter guidelines are needed for this action.

It was one person being an arsehole, the rest of the forum in question had come to terms with any changes and some had already complied. Hopefully people will learn that when Mods make a rule, you abide by it. If you have a beef, then PM them and discuss it properly. Acting like an immature, little brat will get you nowhere and effect everyone.

Admittedly I feel punishing everone for one persons disgression is annoying, but if it gets the point across, fair enough. I can live without a sig for a while.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-04-30 07:48pm

I find it extremely disconcerting that it had to come to this. I have no need to ask who caused this, because they already have a history of sig abuse. If this means we cannot have sigs at all, so be it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-30 07:52pm

Well it serves them right, fight the law and they fight back, they're only making themselves less popular to the whole board now by having an action like this occur.

I have no qualms with this.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-04-30 07:57pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Well it serves them right, fight the law and they fight back, they're only making themselves less popular to the whole board now by having an action like this occur.

I have no qualms with this.

No qualms here either.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-04-30 08:37pm

To those that complain about the mods doing their jobs, all I have to say is this:

You guys have it SO easy here. Over at the DBB sigs are limited to 3 lines @ 1024x768. No images are allowed in them. Period. No religious content in them. Period. A couple of members decided to be anal over one member having "JFC" his sig (stands for Jesus Fisting Christ) as a wink and a nod at another member for saying it. After a week, he changed his sig so that when you clicked on JFC, it would take you to a humorous image which had three words in it (take a wild guess what they started with). This went on and on until the admin staff agreed to have everyone's signature disabled and have everyone's rank changed to some form of "Whiner". Mods even got "Nazi Whiner" titles. (The whiner thing was all in jest of course.) It was even made aware that anyone that added in their own sig would get a short vacation from the board. This went on until few weeks ago when the ranks were restored. We still haven't gotten sigs back, and won't for some time. All because a couple of people wouldn't shut up.

You guys have got to remember one simple thing. Its just a fucking message board. I mean, there are bigger things to gripe about than some stupid post on the internet. If you don't like someone, thats fine. Scroll over their posts and MOVE ON. Hell, there are several things that Mike has said that torked me off, but do you see me bitching at him over it? Hell no. Do you guys still see me bitching at Laird for what he did to me six months ago on SB? (and I have a damn good reason to) Grow up people.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-30 08:41pm

I think Vert just became the voice of reason here, by all means have priveleges, but remember they are just that and they can easily be taken away.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-04-30 08:48pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I think Vert just became the voice of reason here, by all means have priveleges, but remember they are just that and they can easily be taken away.

Yeah, shocking isn't it?

I went from Mike's punching bag in the ST vs. SW forum (joking!) to this!

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-04-30 09:13pm

I don't recall punching you recently, but that's OK

In any case, Sea Skimmer said that 50 pixels extra (EDIT: on width, mind you) is no big deal, and I would have no problem with that. However, a certain user's sig contained (and still contains) a large flame directed against another member, and he has been made aware that this is unacceptable before. Moreover, this particular user has a history of refusing to accept edicts regarding sigs, and becoming outraged if someone edits his sig on him.

Therefore, I have only one method of removing the flame from the sig: removing all sigs. When that user removes the flame from his sig, I'll bring the sigs back.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-04-30 09:22pm

I guess we'll have to put the pressure on this certain... individual then

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-04-30 09:23pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:I don't recall punching you recently, but that's OK

In any case, Sea Skimmer said that 50 pixels extra is no big deal, and I would have no problem with that. However, a certain user's sig contained (and still contains) a large flame directed against another member, and he has been made aware that this is unacceptable before. Moreover, this particular user has a history of refusing to accept edicts regarding sigs, and becoming outraged if someone edits his sig on him.

Therefore, I have only one method of removing the flame from the sig: removing all sigs. When that user removes the flame from his sig, I'll bring the sigs back.

Roger that.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-04-30 09:36pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:I don't recall punching you recently, but that's OK

Yeah, if you did that now I'd knock you out.

Only cuz I got scorched after mowing the lawn.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-04-30 11:19pm

I've been doing mine in 400x115, is that bad?

Never mind, seems Rob resized the image for me

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-04-30 11:22pm

Looks like sigs are back, but not sig pics.

EDIT: nevermind about the sig pic part.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-30 11:22pm

Darth Fanboy wrote:I've been doing mine in 400x115, is that bad?

Never mind, seems Rob resized the image for me

I like the current pic. Very nice.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-04-30 11:26pm

I`m surprised Dalton did`nt lock this thread yet.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-04-30 11:26pm

Montcalm wrote:I`m surprised Dalton did`nt lock this thread yet.

I was thinking about it since it's pretty much useless now, but I'll let it go.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-05-01 02:02am

Sigs, one of the last vestiges of free speech.

Seriously, my way of thinking is limited by my dial up modem. I hated longer threads at earthstats.net because everyone had big sigs, (Many had one that took my whole screen, at 1152 by 864 thats not good. So, long live text sigs.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-05-01 02:06am

Gandalf wrote:Sigs, one of the last vestiges of free speech.

Seriously, my way of thinking is limited by my dial up modem. I hated longer threads at earthstats.net because everyone had big sigs, (Many had one that took my whole screen, at 1152 by 864 thats not good. So, long live text sigs.

At the phpBB discussion boards, there are constantly recurring support forum questions about whether it's possible to ban all sig pictures in some automated fashion. There are obviously a lot of forum owners who have problems with the overuse of sig pictures, although we haven't had REALLY obnoxiously large sig pics since Talen's original one. I would rather not go so far as to ban all sig images, but certain auto-restrictions would be nice:

1) Image sizes in the post body
2) Image sizes in the sig
3) Length of URL's