We need to come up with a signature policy!

[BloodEclipse]

They're all majic to me. They taste so good, only little elves could have produced them...

Not elves. They grow from the droppings of Rainbow Unicorns. Jeez

 

[Roadie]

Dimensional guidelines seem fine. Put whatever is allowed within a certain sized space. Site and advertising supporters could be given a bit more space or allowed pics vs. text only.

I agree with ATM.

Sounds like a good idea to me too.
Basic text for Registered members,
text and pic within the limit of the size of the sidebar for Site Supporters,
the above, and a little extra room for the Advertising Supporters, maybe?

 

[Rookie]

This thread has gone too far without the obligatory post.

So, with that in mind...

This sucks and I hate you all!!!

 

[Cwood]

I am just thinking what a poor, poor man HandK is since he agrees with ATM.

 

[USMC_0311]

I am just thinking what a poor, poor man HandK is since he agrees with ATM.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Dogman]

For uniformity, I would suggest that all signatures be required to pay homage to me.

If that were to be the requirement for membership, that would be the day INGO and I would part ways.

 

[Jay]

Fenway's house.... Fenway's rules...... It's a compliment to Fenway that discussion on the rules is allowed in the first place. When I'm a guest, I do my best to act like one......

 

[jtmarine1911]

Fenway's house.... Fenway's rules...... It's a compliment to Fenway that discussion on the rules is allowed in the first place. When I'm a guest, I do my best to act like one......

Very true!

 

[jedi]

Sounds like a good idea to me too.
Basic text for Registered members,
text and pic within the limit of the size of the sidebar for Site Supporters,
the above, and a little extra room for the Advertising Supporters, maybe?

You are still going to need to "quantify" the level of text allowed.
As in my previous post. We had to provide a "quanitify" factor for the size of graphics becuase we ran into issues with people using HUGE (read LARGE) sigs.

 

[Roadie]

You are still going to need to "quantify" the level of text allowed.
As in my previous post. We had to provide a "quanitify" factor for the size of graphics becuase we ran into issues with people using HUGE (read LARGE) sigs.

GOOD POINT

 

[BloodEclipse]

You are still going to need to "quantify" the level of text allowed.
As in my previous post. We had to provide a "quanitify" factor for the size of graphics becuase we ran into issues with people using HUGE (read LARGE) sigs.

Are you referring to the one that said.

This makes it easier to find my posts?

 

[wabash]

I would ban that one in a second.

 

[jedi]

Are you referring to the one that said.

This makes it easier to find my posts?

Yes & No.

By just defining it as only text for non-supports you run into 2 things.

1) Your example
2) A sig with only text but one in where the member write say the Declaration of Independence on some 100+ lines of text.

Thus what I meant by "quantity" we have to define **MORE** than just non-support can only have "text". Something along the lines of

SIG TEXT ONLY
Can not exceed 5 lines of text with a font size no larger than size "x".

I guess some new code would have to be done to the sight as well to limit the sig ability of the non-supporters as well.

In essence you would have a tier sig policy.

Non-Supports get the text as shown above

Site Supoorts get the pic + text with would then include the other policy I stated as an example.

 

[jedi]

I would ban that one in a second.

You have to spell it out in policy otherwise there is noting "legally" wrong with the above sig as "policy" would have stated "only text" which the user complied to.

 

[wabash]

You have to spell it out in policy.....

nope. I would ban it on the spot. obvious crap doesn't have to be spelled out.

 

[jedi]

nope. I would ban it on the spot. obvious crap doesn't have to be spelled out.

Then you begin the slippery slope of "I know pron when I see it".
We had that issue in my gaming clan (we have a vague sig policy before) as members kept pushing the limits of what was acceptable (certain members) thus as time has gone by our policy has gotten more and more "in detail" in certain sections so that people can't say "technically" that is not what policy says even though they know "the spirit: of the policy was to prevent stuff like they are trying to do.

 

[esrice]

members kept pushing the limits of what was acceptable (certain members) thus as time has gone by our policy has gotten more and more "in detail" in certain sections so that people can't say "technically" that is not what policy says even though they know "the spirit: of the policy was to prevent stuff like they are trying to do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is INGO in a nutshell!

 

[jedi]

"That" is really everywhere that "humans" are involved in. Case in point look at the laws we currently have and how law makes continue to "update" them since lawyers find ways around them. At the clan I'm in what we have found is that it is impossible to detail every little thing but with a good set of broad policies that are applies across the board by our MODs to everyone (we have 700+ members all over the world playing 21 different games) that no one cries foul for being singled out.

 

[Zoub]

Some of the signatures around here are massive and distracting. I'd like to get some rules in place to keep the board a bit more uniform and avoid signatures that are longer than posts.

Post your comments and suggestions on a new policy here.

Comments: Great idea. Why have you not done it yet? If it exists, it appears to be failing miserably. Or you are saying you have a price and people can buy sig lines. I don't come here to read sig lines.

Suggestion: Create a simple policy and enforce it. Enforcement is easy, limit space available and it becomes self regulating. It then also requires some thought on the members part.

The attention whoring some do with their sigs is nothing more than space hogging, pontificating and a distraction to threads. My sig line is actually a rebuke to one I feel is a great example of this behavior. I think he is a dork and a joke. You could say I indirectky dedicated my sig line to him. Is it a distraction? You tell me.

 

[Joe Williams]

Comments: Great idea. Why have you not done it yet? If it exists, it appears to be failing miserably. Or you are saying you have a price and people can buy sig lines. I don't come here to read sig lines.
snip.

Then, instead of trying to control others and what they do, I would suggest that you simply disable signatures. Go to UserCP, scroll down to the "Thread Display Options" box, and uncheck "show signatures." Bingo, no more signatures to distract you.