Sig Guideline Petition
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=174968
Printed Date: 11 February 2026 at 8:50pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sig Guideline Petition
Posted By: Snake6
Subject: Sig Guideline Petition
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:02am
|
So it has come to my attention as of late that the sig rules are outdated. These rules were designed when dial-up was the norm, and broadband was for rich people. In this day and age if you don't have a broadband connection there is something wrong. Therefore I petition that the sig guidelines be changed to something that better reflects the current times. I believe we should still have some sort of cap, especially on the height of the image as a sig that is to tall takes up a lot of page space. However The cap should defiantly not be 350 x 150 anymore. I would say something like 600 x 200 would be a lot more reasonable. To give you an example of what it would look like:  Who agrees? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: xteam
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:03am
|
Aye
-------------  |
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:05am
|
500 x 350 is a totally reasonable size. I say we go for it and if there's a significant clamor from 56kers we can consider changing it back. ------------- 
|
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:07am
|
-------------
|
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:07am
|
I never had a real issue when I had dial-up with big pictures or sigs. If anyone has problems with dial-up, get a better computer or stop looking at pron. |
Posted By: White o Light
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:09am
|
AGREED
------------- 
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:10am
|
I for one, oppose. On the grounds I'm too anti-conformist to support this. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:11am
| I oppose. |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:14am
|
Agent Whale? Did I miss something? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:16am
Yes you did. -------------
|
SSOK wrote:Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:17am
|
what's wrong with keeping sigs small? i'm sorry, but i don't want to see giant ass pictures every time i scroll down in a thread. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:18am
|
That sig size is annoying.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:19am
|
Oppose and Support. I see nothing wrong with allowing increased width of signatures to no more than 700 pixels. However, an increased height by any significance gets annoying when it comes to scrolling down pages. Push it up to no more than 180 if you think it's alright to push it up at all. ------------- 
|
Posted By: NotDaveEllis
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:20am
|
I agree with Tolgak, a 500x350 image is annoyingly big and will.
Increase the width. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:24am
|
Yes, increase the width.
Not the height too much though, 350 is gigantic. ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:26am
|
Tolgak, I tossed the idea around a bit of having a hieght of like 200, but then most 4:3 images end up really small. I honestly think common sense should dictate what is to big. Now that I think of it maybe 250 is all we should go on height.
-------------
|
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:26am
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:26am
| If that's the scae they would have to add software to only have one sig show up per thread. |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:29am
|
Can someone fill me in?(on agent whale) -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:30am
You don't want to know. |
Posted By: Zata
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:30am
| 500 x 350 is outrageous. I say keep it the way it is, or only increase the width. I hate to have to scroll and scroll just because of stupid giant man eating sigs. In fact, I'm a member of a forum that doesn't allow sigs at all, and I love it. |
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:31am
|
Can't we meet somewhere in between? (250?) -------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:32am
|
Yes I do. Enlighten me! -------------
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:37am
He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you. As for the rest of us... we might just be looking away at the time. -------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:38am
This is almost as bad as the super chromium. I wonder if this has anything to do with the date. -------------
|
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:40am
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:47am
You have me to thank for getting you unbanned... -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:48am
| Sigs are dumb. I don't like scrolling more than I have to. |
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:49am
-------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:52am
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 10:36am
|
I'm with the 'anti-huge sig' crowd. The bigger the pictures, the more annoying it becomes when people with large sigs post multiple times in one thread. It becomes a webshots page more than a forum thread. I like personalizing and seeing personalized signatures as much as the next man, but having it become all pictures for a three word post, it just doesn't seem worth it for me. Truly, the times have changed and the upload for pictures is different, but I think there's more to it than the ability to see larger pictures. The question in my mind is 'do we WANT to?' I for one, am in favor of current sig standards. You get to personalize it, and it's not intrusive or annoying to find 8 words buried between two unnecessarily big images. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 10:42am
|
Is 600x200 really that big? Its only 50 pixels taller than the current limit. The problem is height not width, as long as your sig isn't so big you have to scroll the page over to see a post I don't see a problem. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 10:46am
|
I guess 200 is workable, I'm just old and don't like change. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 10:48am
Your old? I wonder what the OMHW farts will say? -------------
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:01pm
|
I figure there are two issues with larger sigs. First is file size. While dial-up has faded, it has been replaced by mobile devices. Several users, including myself, regularly read and/or post using PDAs or phones. And while these have gotten faster, they are still quite a bit slower than "real" computers. Second is the scrolling bit. Scrolling past tall sigs is a real pain. Your sigs are never as cool as you think they are, and we don't want to spend that much time looking at them. Is there something magic about the current limits? No. Are there good reasons to generally keep the sigs small? Yes. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 12:43pm
Nothing, I didn't yell anything loud enough for them to hear in the first place. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 1:43pm
|
Rambs, I feel for you and I am in the same situation sometimes. With my sprint card when in a 1xRTT area I only get about 100kbps up and down. However the solution to this problem is not to restrict the whole forum because a few of us use cell phones/wireless cards. What I do when I am in an area with limited speeds is simply turn off images in my browser. You can do that or use one of those "speedbooster" programs that compress the traffic being downloaded to the computer. Sure image quality isn't great but its better than nothing. There are very few people who have this issue, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. -------------
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 1:46pm
| I personally see sigs as just annoying. I don't need to see the same image or link all the time, once per thread is enough if that. I wish we could turn the display of sigs off. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 1:47pm
You can. Just disable images in your browser... -------------
|
Posted By: xteam
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 1:59pm
|
OH NO. SCROLLING HURTS MY FINGERSES.
------------- |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 2:01pm
|
lol
-------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 2:09pm
|
I wouldn't mind increasing to around 200 tall, but much more than that is too much.
-------------
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 2:43pm
| Good point snake. I'll just use RIP to remove images from sigs as I see them. Eventually they'll all be gone. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 2:54pm
|
WGP - did you just Godwin your own sig? ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: ¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:07pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:28pm
|
The sig rule has never been strict. It always HAS been moderator judgment. If I see a sig that 'seems' too big, Ill check it. If its ludicrously big, Ill axe it then and there. But someones sig that clocks in 50 pixels 'too big', I dont give a crap. Pointless thread is pointless. And unstickied. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:36pm
| If a sig is too big it just looks bad. |
Posted By: Zata
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:43pm
Who honestly needs a bigger sig? This is a forum, not photobucket. |
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:45pm
|
Anyone else remember Koolit's gigantic domo-kun sig? How long did that last? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:47pm
|
This is a pretty dumb thread.
------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:52pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:56pm
|
Yeah. There should be concrete rules on it. Either we have concrete rules or we don't have a rule at all and the whole thing should be mod discretion. Because the way it is, what is fine to enos might be to big to rambs or vis-versa.
-------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 4:58pm
|
There are concrete rules. Follow them. If it's little bit big, then they probably won't notice. Too large and they may check. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 5:15pm
|
Enos just said that those rules are not concrete. If I were to put up a 500x150 sig, even though it takes up no more space than a 350x150 sig it would get axed.
-------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 5:26pm
|
Meh. I've had many sigs over the "guidelines", as long as they were within reason, I've never had a mod say anything to me.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: -ProDigY-
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 5:50pm
Until yesterday, of course. -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 5:52pm
|
Bawwwwwwww
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 6:02pm
|
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 6:02pm
To calculate the area of a rectangle, the formula is
Interestingly enough, this works with pixel sizes too. So lets check the math on this 'Takes up no more space' argument. 350x150 = 52,500 square pixels. 500x150 = 75,000 square pixels. Last time I checked, 52,500 != 75,000. So they are nowhere near 'taking up no more space' Fine. The people have spoken, stand by for new improved sig rules. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 6:12pm
|
Yeah, I was wondering about Snake's "maths" on that one.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 6:26pm
I'm sure he was talking about the height of the signature. As he previously stated - now days the main issue is the amount one has to scroll down, not the size slowing one's computer/PDA down, as it used to be. |
Posted By: .357 Magnum
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 6:32pm
|
The sig size is fine where it is. It doesn't need to be any bigger.
------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 12:08am
| New rules appear to be up guys |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 1:14am
|
orly??
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 1:17am
|
where are all these "Dead" forumers coming from? if were bringing people back from the Dead... any chance we can get Dreadly to come back? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kingtiger
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 3:47am
| I don't really care, you can have my unused sig space. |
Posted By: MeanMan
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 3:00pm
|
Exactly, it will turn into paintball.com, or atleast the last time I was there a few years ago. Half of the page is taken up by sigs. ------------- 
hybrid-sniper~"To be honest, if I see a player still using an Impulse I'm going to question their motives." |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 22 April 2008 at 7:54pm
| i say remove the sig pictures completely. they are unnecessary. wana be different? add them to your facebook or myspace. |