Limits on Signatures

Bucky said:
NUance said:
Bucky said:
NUance said:
If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.
Click to expand...
You're right, there shouldn't be any limits.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we could impose the limits only on the cheeseheads and other assorted shortbus types.

Note: This in response to Bucky humorously making his sig line about 2000 pixels high--which I suspect will be changed soon. :lol:
Click to expand...
I wanted to see if IP had any built in regulators so I made it a huge HD pic of the Eiffel tower, turns out the forum allowed it...took 45 seconds to load a page...still say there shouldn't be rules?
Click to expand...
Rules for *some* people. See post above.

 
zoogies said:
NUance said:
If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.
Click to expand...
I do not think there will be any significant changes. Signatures that were egregious have been addressed in the past. Almost everything I see now is at least, tolerable. At the same time it would be good to set a guideline for people to try and limit themselves to. I don't think we'd ever say, "Hey, your signature is 26px over {arbitrary limit}. Take it off." However, if someone's put up a 1280x1024 wallpaper up there, then we are going to remove it. Additionally, having a youtube embed following every post is egregious -- although I have not noticed any cases of this, either.
Click to expand...
Somebody has a vid in theirs, can't remember who it is, they don't post much.

 
NUance said:
Bucky said:
NUance said:
Bucky said:
NUance said:
If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.
Click to expand...
You're right, there shouldn't be any limits.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we could impose the limits only on the cheeseheads and other assorted shortbus types.

Note: This in response to Bucky humorously making his sig line about 2000 pixels high--which I suspect will be changed soon. :lol:
Click to expand...
I wanted to see if IP had any built in regulators so I made it a huge HD pic of the Eiffel tower, turns out the forum allowed it...took 45 seconds to load a page...still say there shouldn't be rules?
Click to expand...
Rules for *some* people. See post above.
Click to expand...
Sir, please kept your prejudices off my Huskerboard.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way: we have actually discussed this at least twice in the past two years or so, and it's always been handled on a case-by-case basis. Given the lack of serious offenders, I think there's no reason it can't continue that way. If a user signature is outlandishly space-consuming, I think they ought to understand a PM request to tone it down.

And for the most part people are reasonable.

 
No problem, Bucky, I think it's a very reasonable one and I agree that it's sometimes a problem.

To everyone, feel free to flag the ones that are too over-the-top.

 
I'm having trouble shrinking my picture of Burkhead for my sig any tips? I try to size it and when I finish it goes back to the original size I input the picture as.

 
i think public shaming is the only way to handle this situation. only respond with 'what' to people whose sigs. are inappropriate until they change them.

 
Back
Top