Signature length limit

[excal]

No such feature or module exists to moderate the pixel size of signatures. Anyone with a clearly disruptive or offensive signature will be dealt with by a global moderator.

The moderator action line is part of moderator policy. It is not always adhered to, but meh, I have the moderation logs to know if anyone's been abusing the old power. As for more transparency, whenever something significant happens I always make a post about it.

I think there ought to be a limit on number of images - as that's easily (and objectively) measurable at first glance. In my opinion, one image is a suitable limit for this purpose (lots of images in a signature, particularly animated GIFs, tends to distract while reading posts around said images - it also eats up my [tiny] download quota when mobile, as an aside).

I proposed a size limit (with in file size and dimensions), but obviously these will need to be enforced manually due to technical constraints as you mention. Such enforcement is prone to 'turning a blind eye', but as long as a reasonable size (i.e., 400x300?) is set, reasonable moderator discretion will be sufficient.

[dcc]

[cara.mel]

I know you can turn off signatures altogether but a lot of them are helpful to see what subjects people do etc

I would turn sigs off if I could memorise all 1000 of them (or perhaps its 500 or less, I suck at estimating)

[excal]

<snip>

Most sigs are fine - if not useful -to have...it's not exactly beneficial to turn them off due to only a few people's signatures.

[excal]

1. what's the point?
2. who really cares?

1. This is what costa's sig looks like if you use 1024x768 resolution:
(Image removed from quote.)
It is an extreme example yes, but it is the one that made me think 'just what *is* too big here? (I am aware other people also have large sigs, please don't see it as a personal attack. If everyone had sigs that big, how much scrolling would one have to go through to see one line responses in their actual post?

2. I have noticed that you think every post I make recently is rubbish, possibly related to the fact I am one of those people who doesn't understand humans have feelings. If you have a bone to pick with me, do it privately. If you don't have anything constructive to say, I'm not interested in hearing it. I still remember your posts from a month ago.

Most people are up to 1280x1024 now, or should be at it (native resolution)

[cara.mel]

oh ok
My old computer screen the max it can get up to is 1024x768 so I figured that was a good guess

[ninwa]

Any changes will be at enwiabe's discretion of course, but the status quo is like Mao said - if you have a problem with a particular signature, message a moderator about it.
EDIT: or the member themself. people DO have the ability to change their own sigs

I don't think any of us have the time to actively monitor every single signature on this site and check it against some sort of code. Possibly a plausible option when VN just started and there weren't many users - not anymore.

Not to mention the inevitable accusations of favouritism etc. if we happened to miss a few. Too complicated.

[excal]

Any changes will be at enwiabe's discretion of course, but the status quo is like Mao said - if you have a problem with a particular signature, message a moderator about it.

I don't think any of us have the time to actively monitor every single signature on this site and check it against some sort of code. Possibly a plausible option when VN just started and there weren't many users - not anymore.

Not to mention the inevitable accusations of favouritism etc. if we happened to miss a few. Too complicated.

Not saying that a moderator's workload ought to be increased - but at least an official policy or opinion be formed regarding them so that it is known what is acceptable and isn't (and consequently, reportable - meaning that moderators don't exactly have to do any more work).

It's far better than us having to judge what a mod *might* think is unacceptable. Also, it will give the moderation team something objective to work from.

I am merely suggesting possible aspects to any said opinion that enwiabe may form.

[dcc]

<snip>

Most sigs are fine - if not useful -to have...it's not exactly beneficial to turn them off due to only a few people's signatures.

I turned them off due to costas signature, took a ridiculous amount of time to scroll past it.

[excal]

<snip>

Most sigs are fine - if not useful -to have...it's not exactly beneficial to turn them off due to only a few people's signatures.

I turned them off due to costas signature, took a ridiculous amount of time to scroll past it.

Yeah, I prefer to keep them as a lot of people have rather interesting (humourous) or informative signatures. Most of them contain droodles quotes.

Better have the exception, rather than the case, rectified.

I think what caramel wants (and which I agree with) is an official policy be formed regarding this matter with some formalised guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable.

[costargh]

Lol.

[excal]

Heh, I love running at 1920x1200.

[costargh]

it's been smallerfied to a similiar size it would have been at prrior to enlargment

[excal]

it's been smallerfied to a similiar size it would have been at prrior to enlargment

I just thought of the various spam emails I get whilst reading your post...

...that said, to be honest, I think linking to your YouTube profile is sufficient...

[cara.mel]

<snip>

Most sigs are fine - if not useful -to have...it's not exactly beneficial to turn them off due to only a few people's signatures.

I turned them off due to costas signature, took a ridiculous amount of time to scroll past it.

Yeah, I prefer to keep them as a lot of people have rather interesting (humourous) or informative signatures. Most of them contain droodles quotes.

Better have the exception, rather than the case, rectified.

I think what caramel wants (and which I agree with) is an official policy be formed regarding this matter with some formalised guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable.

Yeah
Also I want to make clear that I am not suggesting OMG YOU ARE ONE PIXEL OVER THE LIMIT DIEDIEDIE. I would hate to see a restriction of users personality and freedom. Just guidelines of where abouts the limit is and what exceeds it.

Common sense dictates having 10 1MB images is a problem but asides from that we have nothing to say what is appropriate in terms of size (we have the Code of Conduct to dictate what is appropriate in terms of content)