Issue with Signatures

[Andrew]

We've been having some issues with people circumventing the signature control to utilise images that are larger than the set limits. Please note that this is against the forum rules and members in violation of the signature rule will lose their signature privileges. Repeat violations may result in further punishment. Please note we will be moderating against this practice.

Having said that, I take it there are a few people who would like to see the signature limit increased. As I've said before I won't change forum policy unless there is significant demand to do so.

The current signature limit is 450 pixels wide by 100 pixels high. That's this big:



On top of that, the images currently cannot be any larger than 50 kB. I do realise this is a little restrictive for those making sigs but it's done out of interest to our visitors who are still on 56k connections.

Now...

Is there anyone who would like to increase the signature limits and if so, what size do you propose? If there is enough demand for it we'll consider amending the limits to a suitable compromise, but the demand has to be there. While we try to accomodate everyone it would be unfair to change forum policy for two or three people.

So, if you have any input on the signature limits by all means let us know about it, once we've got some feedback we'll take it from there. Please note however that with a lot of people still on dialup we won't be changing the limits to wallpaper size or allow 500 kB animated gifs.

[BIG GREEN]

I vote for leaving it exactly as it is.

[Andreas Dahl]

If anything, increase it from 50kb to 60-70kb, and that's it. The size is just fine as it is (if not too big)..

[J@3]

The only thing I would change it to go from 450x100 to 400x100. Otherwise no changes.

[koberulz]

smaller?

[J@3]

350x100 would be ideal.

[koberulz]

is there a reason you want it shrunk?

[J@3]

One because it looks better, and two because 80% of the sigs on this site are garbage and the less we see of them the better.

[Donatello]

350x100 would be ideal.

/signs name on dotted line

[koberulz]

but you cant do shit on 350x100.....the more room you have, the better the sigs can become.

[Jackal]

I vote for leaving it exactly as it is.

Agreed.

[J@3]

but you cant do shit on 350x100.....the more room you have, the better the sigs can become.

I'm yet to see any proof of that here.

[cklitsie]

I removed my too big sig. How about 450x100 to 350x150?

[shadowgrin]

having some issues with people circumventing the signature control to utilise images that are larger than the set limits

How? Not that I want to violate the rule by knowing how they do it but I'm just curious on how they did it since I assumed that the site (NLSC) doesn't accept a sig that's greater than the set limits.

but you cant do shit on 350x100.....the more room you have, the better the sigs can become.

Instead of considering it as a restriction or limitation of their skills, sig-makers should see it as a challenge to their creativity, having a nicely done quality sig that's limited in size. It can be compared to a haiku writer with great thought in limited words; sig-makers are digital artists with a limited canvass. Ok I'm rambling, but you get the point.

[Andreas Dahl]

How? Not that I want to violate the rule by knowing how they do it but I'm just curious on how they did it since I assumed that the site (NLSC) doesn't accept a sig that's greater than the set limits.

Linking to images hosted by Photobucket..

but you cant do shit on 350x100.....the more room you have, the better the sigs can become.

Well, what makes you think that if you can't do shit with 450x100, why would you be able to do something with 600x300?
By your argument, you'd have to make the limitations way, way, way larger. And that should be out of the question.

[koberulz]

still, i dont see the point in going smaller. most other forums have sigs about 200 high, and its a lot easier to get stuff in there.....or you can choose to have something smaller.

[Donatello]

still, i dont see the point in going smaller. most other forums have sigs about 200 high, and its a lot easier to get stuff in there.....or you can choose to have something smaller.

This is a very active forum with alot of double/triple posting issues as well as 'story' threads (now for multiple games, not just Live). Between the legitimate story threads, the spammers, the double-posters and everything else... it can be alot of clutter. Allowing pictures in signatures (or signatures at all) is not a right, it's quite fortunate that you're able to have one at all.

The smaller the sig= the easier the browsing.

Big sig= ego.

[Num33Baller]

450x100 pixels... 100kb, get a phpbb hack that allows visitors to not view signatures.

Problem solved.

[Pera]

I see on a lot of forums they don't even have sig limits or they have really big sigs.Which isn't really cool to browse on.I'm not really on slow internet,but sometimes the thread loods up really slow,mostly the one with a lot of pictures in them,so if I can experience slow load speeds I can imagine what a dial up user is going to through.And that fact scares a lot of dial up users away in my opinion.

still, i dont see the point in going smaller. most other forums have sigs about 200 high, and its a lot easier to get stuff in there.....or you can choose to have something smaller.

Think of people with slow connection,instead of year sig.I'm not saying you cant have a sig.I'm just saying it takes a lot of time for dial up users.If you ask me the sig limits are fine .

[koberulz]

they certainly dont need to be smaller.

cant we just have a mod allowing people to turn off sigs if they so choose?

[Donatello]

they certainly dont need to be smaller.

cant we just have a mod allowing people to turn off sigs if they so choose?

Yes, but then we wouldn't be able to see the ones that are a proper size and don't clutter the screen. Nobody cares about seeing an inch more of the picture of your favorite rapper. Move along.

[kibaxx7]

If anything, increase it from 50kb to 60-70kb, and that's it. The size is just fine as it is

Couldn't say it better

[cklitsie]

Nobody cares about seeing an inch more of the picture of your favorite rapper. Move along.

I bet they didn't make you a mod because you got such good jokes..

[Ruff Ryder]

they certainly dont need to be smaller.

cant we just have a mod allowing people to turn off sigs if they so choose?

Yes, but then we wouldn't be able to see the ones that are a proper size and don't clutter the screen. Nobody cares about seeing an inch more of the picture of your favorite rapper. Move along.

Well if nobody cares then why mention it?

[BIG GREEN]

One because it looks better, and two because 80% of the sigs on this site are garbage and the less we see of them the better.

lol...jae always manages to crack me up. But i agree