New signature requirements? What?

So, I was trying to add a program to my signature, when I found, to my dismay:

Your signature may contain:

• Up to 0 images
• Images up to 0 x 0 pixels
• Up to 3 URLs
• Up to 3 lines

What?
3 lines? The signature guidelines in the stickies allow for 4 lines (plus 1 leniency line).
0 images? That just doesn't make sense.
3 URLs? Just what purpose does that achieve????

Someone please tell me this will be reverted…

RunasSudo, on 22 January 2013 - 11:19 PM said:

So, I was trying to add a program to my signature, when I found, to my dismay:

Your signature may contain:

• Up to 0 images
• Images up to 0 x 0 pixels
• Up to 3 URLs
• Up to 3 lines

What?
3 lines? The signature guidelines in the stickies allow for 4 lines (plus 1 leniency line).
0 images? That just doesn't make sense.
3 URLs? Just what purpose does that achieve????

Someone please tell me this will be reverted…

Well thats different from last time I saw it… o.O

TheOriginalBIT, on 22 January 2013 - 11:21 PM said:

Well thats different from last time I saw it… o.O

Same here! But it's there…

Trying to add PNGNFP to the list:

This better be an accident/mistake/admin was drunk and screwing around with settings.

RunasSudo, on 22 January 2013 - 11:26 PM said:

This better be an accident/mistake/admin was drunk and screwing around with settings.

How long ago u do that? coz about 4 hours ago I changed mine…

TheOriginalBIT, on 22 January 2013 - 11:31 PM said:

RunasSudo, on 22 January 2013 - 11:26 PM said:

This better be an accident/mistake/admin was drunk and screwing around with settings.

How long ago u do that? coz about 4 hours ago I changed mine…

Just then. I saved a copy to my hard disk at… 8:56 PM (ACDT).

RunasSudo, on 22 January 2013 - 11:32 PM said:

Just then. I saved a copy to my hard disk at… 8:56 PM (ACDT).

Odd… I'd try it, but don't wanna risk it :P/>

TheOriginalBIT, on 22 January 2013 - 11:34 PM said:

RunasSudo, on 22 January 2013 - 11:32 PM said:

Just then. I saved a copy to my hard disk at… 8:56 PM (ACDT).

Odd… I'd try it, but don't wanna risk it :P/>

It doesn't change anything so long as you don't try and save your signature. My signature still has an image (GASP!). And 4 URLs (DOUBLE GASP!) It just won't let you change the signature unless it's "valid".

yeh can't change it now… :(/>

This needs to be answered.

zekesonxx, on 23 January 2013 - 04:36 AM said:

This needs to be answered.

Ditto. I personally believe signature requirements are lame. If a signature is unreasonably long, an admin can easily change it or warn the user.

Dlcruz129, on 23 January 2013 - 12:52 PM said:

zekesonxx, on 23 January 2013 - 04:36 AM said:

This needs to be answered.

Ditto. I personally believe signature requirements are lame. If a signature is unreasonably long, an admin can easily change it or warn the user.

I agree, for example I don't like the massive ones, like "Ender OS" and the similar…

I believe this is in an attempt to quell some spam. Not sure, but just a guess.

These seem like quite reasonable signature guidelines to me.

Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 02:33 PM said:

I believe this is in an attempt to quell some spam. Not sure, but just a guess.

o_O Since when were you Mod? Congrats!

Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 02:33 PM said:

I believe this is in an attempt to quell some spam. Not sure, but just a guess.

Lyqyd, on 23 January 2013 - 02:47 PM said:

These seem like quite reasonable signature guidelines to me.

In my opinion, they are unreasonable and contradictory. The signature guidelines sticky in General still has the "4+1 lines" guideline.
0 images is pointless. 5-ish^? images with a maximum size would make far more sense.
The 3 URLs rule is just 110% completely stupid. How on earth does limiting the number of URLs in your signature help to combat spam???

In any way, how many "spam" signatures have you ever seen? Even counting the ones that infringe on the rules (but aren't spam), I've only seen 2 or 3.

OFF TOPIC: Congratulations, Cranium!

There, I updated it for accuracy! :)/>

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 03:14 PM said:

In my opinion, they are unreasonable and contradictory. The signature guidelines sticky in General still has the "4+1 lines" guideline.
0 images is pointless. 5-ish^? images with a maximum size would make far more sense.
The 3 URLs rule is just 110% completely stupid. How on earth does limiting the number of URLs in your signature help to combat spam???

In any way, how many "spam" signatures have you ever seen? Even counting the ones that infringe on the rules (but aren't spam), I've only seen 2 or 3.

OFF TOPIC: Congratulations, Cranium!

Well, I know that dan200 has added some new methods to prevent spam today, such as having to approve the first 3 posts for new users. This may be one of those changes.

Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 03:18 PM said:

Well, I know that dan200 has added some new methods to prevent spam today, such as having to approve the first 3 posts for new users. This may be one of those changes.

Members on the forum with the most posts (first page):
Cranium (1,928) - Signature Infringes
TheOriginalBIT (1,471) - Signature Infringes
MysticT (1,451) - Signature Infringes
PixelToast (1,282) - Signature Infringes
Orwell (809) - Signature Infringes
BigSHinyToys (806) - Signature Infringes
ComputerCraftFan11 (757) - Signature Infringes
Sammich Lord (701) - Signature Infringes
Kingdaro (626) - Signature Infringes
Dlcruz129 (618) - Signature Infringes

That is way too high a percentage (50%) to be reasonable. If you're going to ban something that 50% of the most respected people of the forum participate in…

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 03:14 PM said:

In any way, how many "spam" signatures have you ever seen? Even counting the ones that infringe on the rules (but aren't spam), I've only seen 2 or 3.

Depends how you define spam ;}

By the "uggboots" comparison, yes I agree I have never seen a spammer with a signature at all.

But by some peoples definition (mine included) 75-90% of the forum regulars have spammy signatures. You can't even find a topic post without it (unless there's only one post by someone that just signed up to ask a question ;P )
A signature used to be just that, your name and/or nick, and possibly a piece of contact info. One-two lines of text.

While I wouldn't want to impose such a rule on others simply to not offend me, when I can disable signatures or just scroll past them, all other things being equal I too would prefer a zero image policy.

The images + urls get to a point where unless you write out 3+ paragraphs of text in a post, over 3/4ths of the topic page is nothing but signature spam with less than a quarter being content.

I've just gotten used to mentally ignoring it, and it's so wide spread (on the whole internet, not just here) that it's obvious to me I'm in the minority opinion there ;}

dissy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:29 PM said:

But by some peoples definition (mine included) 75-90% of the forum regulars have spammy signatures.

Tell me which signatures in this thread are "spammy" under your definition.

dissy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:29 PM said:

A signature used to be just that, your name and/or nick, and possibly a piece of contact info. One-two lines of text.

Yes… Except we have a profile page for that. This is a forum, not usenet…

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 03:28 PM said:

Members on the forum with the most posts (first page):
Cranium (1,928) - Signature Infringes
TheOriginalBIT (1,471) - Signature Infringes
MysticT (1,451) - Signature Infringes
PixelToast (1,282) - Signature Infringes
Orwell (809) - Signature Infringes
BigSHinyToys (806) - Signature Infringes
ComputerCraftFan11 (757) - Signature Infringes
Sammich Lord (701) - Signature Infringes
Kingdaro (626) - Signature Infringes
Dlcruz129 (618) - Signature Infringes

That is way too high a percentage (50%) to be reasonable. If you're going to ban something that 50% of the most respected people of the forum participate in…

You can see that nobody's signatures have been altered at this time, unless it is a blatant violation of the rules. Large images, and really long sigs have been changed, but existing signatures that have been kept to a reasonable size have not been changed. This includes yours. I don't see any reason you should be complaining, as the new rules are not unreasonable in my opinion.

Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 03:38 PM said:

You can see that nobody's signatures have been altered at this time, unless it is a blatant violation of the rules. Large images, and really long sigs have been changed, but existing signatures that have been kept to a reasonable size have not been changed. This includes yours. I don't see any reason you should be complaining, as the new rules are not unreasonable in my opinion.

Yes, it is nice that the forum is engine is badly-designed enough to not re-verify everyone's signatures.

However, notice that your name is at the top of that infringement list. What if you were to create a new program, and you wanted to add it to your signature. But noooooooooooo. You have to pick 3 of your best to put there, or do one of those "Click for a list of my programs" things.

I just don't see the point.
Make signatures have a scroll bar if they're too big. That would make sense.
Limit the number of URLs? That doesn't.

EDIT: Oh, it looks like my signature has been updated to conform to the new requirements. Now can I complain? whinewhinewhinewhinewhine

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 03:32 PM said:

Tell me which signatures in this thread are "spammy" under your definition.

Err.. I really Really don't mean to offend. Honestly! I wasn't intending to mention anything at all… But your sig is only just below my threshold of mentally ignoring for being too flashy.
When I saw the topic updated and scrolled really fast to the bottom, that was the main and only thing that was catching my eyes, while all the text was just a blur. Now yes, this isn't SPAM in the traditional (or new traditional? ofc not the lunch meat ;)/> way, the same as spam email or the ugg posts or junk flyers in the mailbox. Only spammy in the flashy and seemingly trying to grab my attention sort of way, like a commercial on TV or a bright distracting billboard (Everyone still hates commercials I hope)

And please don't take this or my other post the wrong way, I'm not at all saying you are at all wrong here, or should stop, or be offended at being asked/expected to stop. Only that we have a difference of opinion in what we would prefer not to see. In fact for that same reason, it being an opinion, is why I would never ask you or anyone else to change or remove or ban them. Nor am I even siding with or endorsing the new rules against it just because it happens to match my opinion.

Like I said, most people not only don't mind, but feel it's perfectly acceptable as well as do it themselves. Most people are this way, not just these forums but everywhere. Perhaps it's just a sign I'm just getting old ;}
Even if I was in charge (I'm not in any way here, but even in the places where I am) I would not and do not enforce or request a signature/post/email/whatever must match my opinion what it should be. And until you asked, I wasn't even intending to mention anything.

All I'm really hoping is that you at least understand that some of us out there don't like it when things seem to try and grab our attention, and after being awash in it for so long in pretty much all aspects of life, the annoyance isn't invalid.


But I actually do feel even stronger against people forcing their will upon others, and feel that is more important than what amounts to me not being annoyed. That's why I never complained or even brought it up before, and why I still don't want or expect anyone to change just due to my most likely arbitrary threshold of what I personally find annoying.

Now I don't at all know the reasons for the new rules, and assume (hope) there are actually some good reasons behind it. I too am pretty sick of the real spam around here, as are we all, and likely not nearly as much as Cloudy and Dan…
But I really do hope that is why the rule change.

I just don't want you to think I'm supporting it for the wrong reasons, and hope this at least helps explain my comment in the previous post, and you don't see it as a personal attack or anything.

dissy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:05 PM said:

-snip-

Oh it's fine. I have opinions too. Preeetttyyyyy "controversial" ones too……
Of course, the only thing this has forced me to do is to manually paste my signature at the end of every post I make. (I won't but if I was determined enough to have an internetometer link at the end of each of my posts, I could).

Well, good news. Enforcement is on the way. Any signatures that are out of compliance will be changed. As an act of solidarity, I have changed my own.

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 03:43 PM said:

Make signatures have a scroll bar if they're too big. That would make sense.

I realize I just posted a wall-o-text you are probably still reading, but I wanted to say I 100% agree with this. It would take care of both issues at the same time.

Personally I'd be happy with an option in my profile to hide signatures so each person can choose what they prefer to see, but your suggestion would even solve any potential (real)spam problems with sigs at the same time.

dissy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:11 PM said:

Personally I'd be happy with an option in my profile to hide signatures so each person can choose what they prefer to see

You can already hide signatures. There is an 'X' to hide signatures and change your signature settings.

dissy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:11 PM said:

Personally I'd be happy with an option in my profile to hide signatures so each person can choose what they prefer to see, but your suggestion would even solve any potential (real)spam problems with sigs at the same time.

This option already exists. See the Ignore Preferences page.

In reply to the last two posts, I just checked the ignore prefs (in fact all the sections in the settings page) and don't see any such options.
My ignore preference page only lets me add individual users and what of theirs to ignore (and yes, I have some people on it already)

I also don't see any X or icons next to signatures

Wonder if they are hiding out with the mobile/full site button…

Edit: I also just checked to make sure the whole computercraft.info domain was in my noscript white list. The only domain I'm currently blocking scripts from is gogglesyndication.com

Oh, look. Those rules were amazingly effective. Now, it's just slightly less flashy.

Changes are here. Changes are here to stay. Get over it. Images in signatures are annoying and pointless. Links are rightly limited. Link to a page of your programs - done.

The use of formatting to make your three lines larger than three standard lines will also get your signature edited.

Lyqyd, on 23 January 2013 - 04:21 PM said:

The use of formatting to make your three lines larger than three standard lines will also get your signature edited.

There was no need to get rid of the other formatting.

EDIT: There. Approximately the same size as 3 standard lines.

There's also no need to try and sidestep the rules.

Cloudy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:24 PM said:

There's also no need to try and sidestep the rules.

Sorry if you interpreted it that way. I was actually trying to "get around" the "no images" rule rather than the "3 lines" rule.

And that makes a difference why?

Cloudy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:26 PM said:

And that makes a difference why?

I wasn't aware, nor was I attempting to, sidestep the rules. It was my intention to add an internetometer link without using any images, and so focused was I on that task, it slipped my mind that my signature might end up over 3 "standard lines" long.

Accident isn't quite the same (mostly, but not quite the same) as sidestepping the rules.

EDIT: Seriously. I'm going to keep reverting my signature, because it definitely is within 3 standard lines. I'll post a size comparison if you need more evidence.

As a clarification, it is the size of each line that matters, not the total size of the signature. You may use smaller font size for some lines, but no line should use a font size larger than twelve.

Ok this is exceptionally wierd, and my apologizes about the hiding signatures option bit.

I just signed in with IE and sure enough there is a check box and text at the top to do just that. It took a few minutes to find the "X" Cranium mentioned, as you have to mouse-over the signature for a second, but then it pops up.

My Firefox however doesn't, and in a way that makes the page not even look broken! It's like it's trying to make a liar out of me ;}
I even clicked ieTab to change rendering engines, and it isn't there. But with the real IE it is.

It looks like everything else on that page is there, and nothing special about a normal check box.
I have no idea what is wrong. Now I wonder what else it's not showing elsewhere :/

Just tinypic'ed a screenshot in case anyone was curious to see.

Edit: Gah, so the edit box sure looks/works differently between the two browsers, but at least in this case it seems firefox is only hiding the broken, and IE is gouging on it. IE shows a resize corner dragy thingy, but dragging it actually froze up IE heh

Alright. I concede. As silly as all of these new rules are (It's the size of each line? The size of each line??!), it's clearly not going to matter what anyone apart from the admins think.

Seeing as my signature now doesn't infringe of any of these new rules, unless the admins have a sudden change of heart and decide to hold a referendum, I'm going to stop now.

At least Cloudy didn't hard delete everyone's signatures. And I doubt we'll be holding any mentioned referendum of any sorts - I mean, the last time we had an, er, "image swap"…..

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 06:17 PM said:

At least Cloudy didn't hard delete everyone's signatures.

No just a subset of people…

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 03:28 PM said:

Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 03:18 PM said:

Well, I know that dan200 has added some new methods to prevent spam today, such as having to approve the first 3 posts for new users. This may be one of those changes.

Members on the forum with the most posts (first page):
Cranium (1,928) - Signature Infringes
TheOriginalBIT (1,471) - Signature Infringes
MysticT (1,451) - Signature Infringes
PixelToast (1,282) - Signature Infringes
Orwell (809) - Signature Infringes
BigSHinyToys (806) - Signature Infringes
ComputerCraftFan11 (757) - Signature Infringes
Sammich Lord (701) - Signature Infringes
Kingdaro (626) - Signature Infringes
Dlcruz129 (618) - Signature Infringes

That is way too high a percentage (50%) to be reasonable. If you're going to ban something that 50% of the most respected people of the forum participate in…

:D/>/> I'm on the first page for most posts?

On-Topic: Now I'm pissed. This will obviously serve no purpose, as I haven't seen one spam signature. And now you're gonna change everyone's signature? Even my tiny, 8x8 up arrow. This serves no purpose, and if we ever start seeing spam signatures, I see plenty of alternatives.

Dlcruz129, on 23 January 2013 - 06:35 PM said:

:D/> I'm on the first page for most posts?

Only just… you're #20…

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 06:17 PM said:

At least Cloudy didn't hard delete everyone's signatures. And I doubt we'll be holding any mentioned referendum of any sorts - I mean, the last time we had an, er, "image swap"…..

To be fair though, it was done in a spectacular manner. I commend Mk in his dirty and underhanded tactics.

In regards to the signatures, it's not too bad really in my opinion.

I think they broke changing display images while changing the signatures… I get "[left]Failed to set a new photo[/left]"… Tried it on multiple browsers… All to the same effect…

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 06:54 PM said:

I think they broke changing display images while changing the signatures… I get "
[left]Failed to set a new photo[/left]
"… Tried it on multiple browsers… All to the same effect…

You now have a different avatar than you had, as far as I can tell.

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 06:54 PM said:

I think they broke changing display images while changing the signatures… I get "[left]Failed to set a new photo[/left]"… Tried it on multiple browsers… All to the same effect…

It seems to be set to Gravatar…

EDIT:
Group: Signature abuser? Really?
Your rules changed and you conveniently forgot to mention that the maximum font size is 12.
Yeah, real "abuser".

Lyqyd, on 23 January 2013 - 06:58 PM said:

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 06:54 PM said:

I think they broke changing display images while changing the signatures… I get "
Failed to set a new photo
"… Tried it on multiple browsers… All to the same effect…

You now have a different avatar than you had, as far as I can tell.

True, but it is now set to the default Gravatar logo.

Lyqyd, on 23 January 2013 - 06:58 PM said:

You now have a different avatar than you had, as far as I can tell.

Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 07:03 PM said:

True, but it is now set to the default Gravatar logo.

As Cranium said Lyqyd… its the default Gravatar and its only because it was the only thing it would let me set it to… if I had it the way the system wanted it, it was a broken link image…

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:01 PM said:

Group: Signature abuser? Really?
Your rules changed and you conveniently forgot to mention that the maximum font size is 12.
Yeah, real "abuser".

What? o.O

They changed his user rank to Signature Abuser. How extremely pointless and rude…

Dlcruz129, on 23 January 2013 - 07:08 PM said:

They changed his user rank to Signature Abuser. How extremely pointless and rude…

Ahhh I see that now… Was looking in the wrong spot…

You change the signature requirements without warning.
You do not update the signature section of the stickies until pestered to do so.
You do not include all of the necessary information about the new signature requirements. Anywhere.
You repeatedly revert my signature for

The use of formatting to make your three lines larger than three standard lines

^ You conveniently forget to mention that the meaning of that isn't actually what it means, and that it means a completely different thing.
^ ^ Oh, and you still conveniently haven't added that to the sticky.
You then change my rank to "Signature Abuser", after I had made my signature conform to the new standards and I had stated that I had conceeded defeat and would stop arguing.
And you still haven't told us the purpose of these new restrictions.
^ Unless you count "Cloudy doesn't like image signatures", which is a silly explanation, and only covers part of the problem.

Seriously? I hope you never get to run anything larger than a forum with this management system.

And we still haven't been told what purpose this serves. What the hell can be accomplished by this?

Dlcruz129, on 23 January 2013 - 07:18 PM said:

And we still haven't been told what purpose this serves. What the hell can be accomplished by this?

Yes, I should add that to my rant.

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:19 PM said:

Seriously? I hope you never get to run anything larger than a forum with this management system.

Was that aimed at all the mods? 'cause its only Lyqyd thats doing it all…

Dlcruz129, on 23 January 2013 - 07:18 PM said:

And we still haven't been told what purpose this serves. What the hell can be accomplished by this?

Very VERY true…

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 07:20 PM said:

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:19 PM said:

Seriously? I hope you never get to run anything larger than a forum with this management system.

Was that aimed at all the mods? 'cause its only Lyqyd thats doing it all…

If all the mods are in on it. Yes (though I doubt they all are). Of course, I have no idea who is behind this all (I suspect it is Lyqyd, but it could be others). The different "you"s in my rant refer to different people/groups.

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:15 PM said:

You change the signature requirements without warning.
You do not update the signature section of the stickies until pestered to do so.
You do not include all of the necessary information about the new signature requirements. Anywhere.
You repeatedly revert my signature for

The use of formatting to make your three lines larger than three standard lines

^ You conveniently forget to mention that the meaning of that isn't actually what it means, and that it means a completely different thing.
^ ^ Oh, and you still conveniently haven't added that to the sticky.
You then change my rank to "Signature Abuser", after I had made my signature conform to the new standards and I had stated that I had conceeded defeat and would stop arguing.
And you still haven't told us the purpose of these new restrictions.
^ Unless you count "Cloudy doesn't like image signatures", which is a silly explanation, and only covers part of the problem.

Seriously? I hope you never get to run anything larger than a forum with this management system.

Well, considering this:

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 04:25 PM said:

I was actually trying to "get around" the "no images" rule rather than the "3 lines" rule.

And this:

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 04:29 PM said:

Seriously. I'm going to keep reverting my signature.

You getting around rules, and arguing that you are going to change it again prompted this change.

Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 07:23 PM said:

You getting around rules, and arguing that you are going to change it again prompted this change.

You know what, I feel like switching to a larger font, because 12 just doesn't cut it right now. But I won't.

I was arguing that I was going to change it again because I was unaware that there was a maximum size of each line.
Under my (and I suspect, everyone elses) understanding at the time, my signature was being needlessly reverted as the total length did not exceed "3 standard lines".
It was only afterwards that Lyqyd announced that there was a maximum font size of 12 as well, which, of course, had not previously been mentioned.

After that, I stopped doing that, updated my signature to conform, and stopped arguing. Until you changed my rank.
And here I was, thinking that we were all mature enough here to not revert to needless name-calling. Evidently, I was mistaken.

Also, I used the words "get around" in quotation marks, because I did not mean it literally. I meant "I was actually trying to insert an internetometer link into my signature without using an image, therefore not breaking the rules."

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:23 PM said:

I have no idea who is behind this all (I suspect it is Lyqyd, but it could be others).

Easiest way to tell…… have a look at who viewed your profile (since the mods have to go to your profile) around the time in question…

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 07:33 PM said:

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:23 PM said:

I have no idea who is behind this all (I suspect it is Lyqyd, but it could be others).

Easiest way to tell…… have a look at who viewed your profile (since the mods have to go to your profile) around the time in question…

I've been visited by both Lyqyd (most recently) and Cranium (5 hours ago). It was probably Lyqyd.

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:35 PM said:

I've been visited by both Lyqyd (most recently) and Cranium (5 hours ago). It was probably Lyqyd.

I was visited by Lyqyd when mine was removed too…

EDIT: This is where I want to know if this is the time that we all start going around reporting people for their signatures ( especially if they have images ) because they are "annoying and pointless"…

Yep, definitely Lyqyd.

Excuse me while I disperse this flame war.

Firstly - we can change user profiles without appearing having visited your profile. Please don't go on a witch-hunt screaming "HE DID IT GET HIM". It's just no, so much no

Secondly - the signature limits are definitely acceptable by any standard. I have, for a long time, endorsed limiting all signatures to a maximum height of 250 pixels - regardless of content - and I have removed many, many obese-size signatures - I'm not naming names, but a few people in this thread, even, have had signatures well and truly worthy of obliteration. Signatures that take up a third of a 1280-high monitor are just all sorts of no - can you imagine browsing that on a tablet, or phone? The simple fact of the matter is, it's not a space to flaunt and fill with stuff - it's something short and concise, and if you can't use the space efficiently and smart-ly, don't complain.

tl;dr: don't complain - it'll more than likely do you more harm than good.

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 08:18 PM said:

can you imagine browsing that on a tablet, or phone?

ALL signatures are removed on the mobile version, so………………………

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:26 PM said:

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 08:18 PM said:

can you imagine browsing that on a tablet, or phone?

ALL signatures are removed on the mobile version, so………………………

Unless you're on a tablet which forces non-mobile sites - which I am. Regardless, my point still stands - you don't need a ridiculously large signature to have the same effect. They're signatures, not billboards.

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 08:29 PM said:

They're signatures, not billboards.

Then why allow signatures at all? or links at all?

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:01 PM said:

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 06:54 PM said:

I think they broke changing display images while changing the signatures… I get "[left]Failed to set a new photo[/left]"… Tried it on multiple browsers… All to the same effect…

It seems to be set to Gravatar…

EDIT:
Group: Signature abuser? Really?
Your rules changed and you conveniently forgot to mention that the maximum font size is 12.
Yeah, real "abuser".

I lack imagination when it comes to group names. You kept reverting your signature whenever we changed it - so I revoked your signature privileges. You can't do that without a new group - simple as that really.

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:35 PM said:

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 08:29 PM said:

They're signatures, not billboards.

Then why allow signatures at all? or links at all?

You REALLY don't want to go down that road.

So Cloudy… thoughts on restoring the profile picture ability? yay or nay?

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:39 PM said:

So Cloudy… thoughts on restoring the profile picture ability? yay or nay?

Have you tried going here, and then pressing "Change your photo"?

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 08:41 PM said:

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:39 PM said:

So Cloudy… thoughts on restoring the profile picture ability? yay or nay?

Have you tried going here, and then pressing "Change your photo"?

Yep same thing… tried all the ways to change it, from multiple browsers, from multiple OSes, from multiple IP addresses…

I kept reverting my signature because I had not been informed of why it was being reverted. No-one was informed of the new rules regarding signatures. I was not informed of any of the new rules until I infringed upon one of them, and only then was I told one rule at a time, and only then after asking why my (to the best of my knowledge) non-rule-infringing signature was being changed.

There's nothing I can do now, but hope that someone will either move me back into Members or change my group name to something reflecting my current position ("Signature Privileges Revoked") rather than thinly-disguised pointless name-calling ("Signature Abuser"). Or at least remove my signature for me.

We haven't done anything to profile images - that feature seems to only work when it wants to. I for instance can't set mine - so I got round it by using gravatar.

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:43 PM said:

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 08:41 PM said:

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:39 PM said:

So Cloudy… thoughts on restoring the profile picture ability? yay or nay?

Have you tried going here, and then pressing "Change your photo"?

Yep same thing… tried all the ways to change it, from multiple browsers, from multiple OSes, from multiple IP addresses…

You have permissions to change your avatar - so unless the server is broken, I have no idea what is going on.

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 08:47 PM said:

You have permissions to change your avatar - so unless the server is broken, I have no idea what is going on.

Well it only seems to be recently… maybe you guys inadvertently broke something when you were changing the signature requirements?

RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 08:44 PM said:

…rather than thinly-disguised pointless name-calling ("Signature Abuser").

Trust me, if I was calling you names you'd know about it.

You abused the signature facility multiple times - including reverting mod changes. In my mind the name is very apt. I am actually being very patient right now. Don't test my patience any further.

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:49 PM said:

AfterLifeLochie, on 23 January 2013 - 08:47 PM said:

You have permissions to change your avatar - so unless the server is broken, I have no idea what is going on.

Well it only seems to be recently… maybe you guys inadvertently broke something when you were changing the signature requirements?

No. There is no connection. I couldn't change my profile picture weeks ago.

Cloudy, on 23 January 2013 - 08:51 PM said:

No. There is no connection. I couldn't change my profile picture weeks ago.

remiX changed his this morning/last night… so maybe its some kind of update error that happens every time something is updated for a short amount of time … a bit like when you visit a site right after you push changes and sometimes the browser still loads the old one ( only obviously not this simple, that was a basic example )…

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:56 PM said:

Cloudy, on 23 January 2013 - 08:51 PM said:

No. There is no connection. I couldn't change my profile picture weeks ago.

remiX changed his this morning/last night… so maybe its some kind of update error that happens every time something is updated for a short amount of time … a bit like when you visit a site right after you push changes and sometimes the browser still loads the old one ( only obviously not this simple, that was a basic example )…

No. Just no.

TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 08:56 PM said:

NO MORE SIGNATURE. WANT TO SEE THE PROGRAMS I'VE MADE. USE SEARCH. OR WAIT FOR MY WEBSITE.

If you have found me helpful please consider pressing this +1 and have a nice day / night.

you don't need a web site to hold a link gallery of your programs I use my profile page for this and it works well I think.
Example : http://www.computerc...2-bigshinytoys/
You edit the about me section in your preferences.

If profile page bout me size / content is going to be limited It would be nice to know in advance.

The only change to the signatures that I am not so happy about is no pictures. I think one picture can be a great sig and look more professional than three lines of text.

This was my old sig on the minecraft forums.

Spoiler

while we are on the subject of forum problems what happened to all the custom titles for example mine was "script amateur" witch is a more accurate measure of my abilities than "Lua God" .

BigSHinyToys, on 23 January 2013 - 10:32 PM said:

you don't need a web site to hold a link gallery of your programs I use my profile page for this and it works well I think.

Well if my signature was still intact you would have noticed that I am working on LightTube. which for future plans needs a website anyways. I already have a server and registered with a DDNS…

I was the one who set this. Signature images make the forums really ugly.

dan200, on 24 January 2013 - 01:20 AM said:

I was the one who set this. Signature images make the forums really ugly.

What? They're signatures! Every forums have them, and it's a great way to share your programs.

dan200, on 24 January 2013 - 01:20 AM said:

I was the one who set this. Signature images make the forums really ugly.

The ONLY one I've seen making the forum ugly, and made me want to puke, was a explicit one. It was removed quite promptly.

I have indeed been doing most of the enforcement thus far, but as dan pointed out, I was not the one who started the policy. I'm in agreement with dan wholeheartedly on this one–signature images (and tall signatures) are ugly! You can vilify me all you like, but it'll just make you look silly.

If you don't like them, there's a button to hide them. Why ruin things for the rest of us?

People, really… This forum is a gift to us; we don't pay for hosting and we don't put time into managing it. Please have some respect for those who do put effort into our pleasure. No need to call for referenda or start a revolution. This forums are not a democracy, they are a service that has been given to us. I'm happy to follow some simple rules that are set, whether I do or don't agree with them. If you believe these rules aren't worth using the forums, you can always start your own ComputerCraft forums (I'm curious how well that would work out).

Orwell, on 24 January 2013 - 07:26 AM said:

People, really… This forum is a gift to us; we don't pay for hosting and we don't put time into managing it. Please have some respect for those who do put effort into our pleasure. No need to call for referenda or start a revolution. This forums are not a democracy, they are a service that has been given to us. I'm happy to follow some simple rules that are set, whether I do or don't agree with them. If you believe these rules aren't worth using the forums, you can always start your own ComputerCraft forums (I'm curious how well that would work out).

I couldn't agree more. I too would like an increase in leniency when it comes to images (limit size maybe?) but I must respect the choices of those who are in charge. if they chose to close the forums tomorrow I'm sure many would be upset but that does not matter.

they are the admins, they make the rules. if logical appeal fails then arguing is likely to be even less effective

EDIT: I just couldn't resist adding that I find ChunLing's signature hilarious and amazing. that is how one should use a sig :)/>

I hate to join a flame war, and I personally never used a sig, but I think without signatures the posts look, I don't know, kinda bland. Just my two cents. ;)/>

MudkipTheEpic, on 24 January 2013 - 08:55 AM said:

I hate to join a flame war, and I personally never used a sig, but I think without signatures the posts look, I don't know, kinda bland. Just my two cents. ;)/>

I too agree, the forums look worse without that bit of dancing color at the bottom of a users post. I mean some signatures needed to be stabbed violent for their ill use of space, consuming many 100s of pixels. But a lot of them, were not that bad.

Orwell, on 24 January 2013 - 07:26 AM said:

People, really… This forum is a gift to us; we don't pay for hosting and we don't put time into managing it. Please have some respect for those who do put effort into our pleasure. No need to call for referenda or start a revolution. This forums are not a democracy, they are a service that has been given to us. I'm happy to follow some simple rules that are set, whether I do or don't agree with them. If you believe these rules aren't worth using the forums, you can always start your own ComputerCraft forums (I'm curious how well that would work out).

This is it in summary, the fact is these forums are indeed a service, and as users, we've no rights. Because we don't own even a piece of anything here. This is no different to how IRC works, or any other moderated free service. There are those in charge, and their decisions are definitive. What they say goes, If they choose to place a ban on every member for 2 weeks for our insolence and uproar, I'm pretty damn certain they have a batch ban feature in the ACP just for that feature.

Oh that would make them un-popular you say? So what? This is a dan200 owned and backed domain and forums. So regardless of how much we try to push against what the people in control choose, we will gain no traction. Just look at how many people FlowerChild pissed off because he wanted to do things HIS way ( Which is fair enough, he is entitled to do so, though I do think Child is a perfect suffix for him ), In the end he still has many players that use the BTW mod. This is no attack at dan, lyqyd or any of the enforcing staff members. They are keeping this service at bay from spammers and managing the place, and paying the bill to have it here.

I guess what I'm saying is, not having signatures suck! I didn't have one yet, but I was unable to find one I would find acceptable use of my signature space, and having a modest 80px high link to my website or a forum topic with my programs, is now out of the question and out of reach. BUT This topic, is so useless. If it was discussed calmly and rationally with those in charge it might have been feasible.. in an alternate reality.. to have the restrictions lifted. But this topic offers 0% of that chance, so this topic is really, a waste of time. I mean I doubt most people will read this large wall of text it's so pointless.

How about we all go back to what're good at, writing code and placing blocks. Move along now people, your opinion is invalid on the internet!

- NeverCast.

I have to remark that, if I recall correctly, the hosting space for the website has been donated (it's a vague memory I have). So some of the arguments don't hold. But still, the amount of effort developers/admins/mods put in this is huge and counts as a form of payment in my eyes.

It's also quite ironically to participate in a discussion you find pointless. :)/> But I understand that. :P/>

Orwell, on 24 January 2013 - 09:57 AM said:

I have to remark that, if I recall correctly, the hosting space for the website has been donated (it's a vague memory I have).

We also buy ShapeWays turtles and click adverts.. but still mostly irrelevant.

Orwell, on 24 January 2013 - 09:57 AM said:

It's also quite ironically to participate in a discussion you find pointless. :)/> But I understand that. :P/>

Glad you understand it, I don't :P/>

Dlcruz129, on 24 January 2013 - 04:09 AM said:

dan200, on 24 January 2013 - 01:20 AM said:

I was the one who set this. Signature images make the forums really ugly.

What? They're signatures! Every forums have them, and it's a great way to share your programs.

Yes, it is a great way to share programs. And this change does not limit that in the slightest. Images are not programs.

zekesonxx, on 24 January 2013 - 05:34 AM said:

The ONLY one I've seen making the forum ugly, and made me want to puke, was a explicit one. It was removed quite promptly.

Yet another reason why they should not be allowed.

Dlcruz129, on 24 January 2013 - 06:25 AM said:

If you don't like them, there's a button to hide them. Why ruin things for the rest of us?

Oh, sure - I'll go and hide every single persons signature every time I visit a thread, shall I?

This is a change that is made to make the forums look better - signature images are inconsistent person to person, you get idiots who post animated gifs and then do a bait and switch. There is just no need for them. The 90's called, and they want signature images back - which is where I think they should be contained to.

Oh and spreading something in your signature for us to lift the restrictions - ain't gonna work.

Orwell, on 24 January 2013 - 07:26 AM said:

People, really… This forum is a gift to us; we don't pay for hosting and we don't put time into managing it. Please have some respect for those who do put effort into our pleasure. No need to call for referenda or start a revolution. This forums are not a democracy, they are a service that has been given to us. I'm happy to follow some simple rules that are set, whether I do or don't agree with them. If you believe these rules aren't worth using the forums, you can always start your own ComputerCraft forums (I'm curious how well that would work out).

Thank you.

KaoS, on 24 January 2013 - 08:14 AM said:

I couldn't agree more. I too would like an increase in leniency when it comes to images (limit size maybe?) but I must respect the choices of those who are in charge. if they chose to close the forums tomorrow I'm sure many would be upset but that does not matter.

Thank you.

KaoS, on 24 January 2013 - 08:14 AM said:

they are the admins, they make the rules. if logical appeal fails then arguing is likely to be even less effective

There has not been any "logical appeal". Signatures are based on vanity, and as such a logical argument may not even be possible. If someone can provide a logical argument - please do - but I fail to see how this change will affect anyone, other than "OH NOES NO IMAGES, WHERE WILL I SHOW OFF MY MS PAINT SKILLS NOW".

MudkipTheEpic, on 24 January 2013 - 08:55 AM said:

I hate to join a flame war, and I personally never used a sig, but I think without signatures the posts look, I don't know, kinda bland. Just my two cents. ;)/>

Why does a post need to look anything other than bland? A post is to get your view point across. Not to spam people with images over and over again. If I wanted to be spammed with images I'd use google image search.

All in all, I am extremely disappointed with the reaction and frankly insulting behaviour which has gone on, and I've rarely seen such a display of entitlement in my life.

Thanks for replying Cloudy :)/>

There is a button to hide ALL signatures.

Dlcruz129, on 24 January 2013 - 02:47 PM said:

There is a button to hide ALL signatures.

local Cloudy = {}
Cloudy.care = false
assert(not Cloudy.care, "Cloudy doesn't care!")

My other point still stands.

Dlcruz129, on 24 January 2013 - 02:47 PM said:

There is a button to hide ALL signatures.

Unfortunately, Admins can't do that. They need to make sure we're not putting distasteful content in the signatures, so they can't hide them.

Cloudy, on 24 January 2013 - 02:50 PM said:

Dlcruz129, on 24 January 2013 - 02:47 PM said:

There is a button to hide ALL signatures.

local Cloudy = {}
Cloudy.care = false
asset(not Cloudy.care, "Cloudy doesn't care!")

My other point still stands.

I know you don't care.. but *assert :P/>

NeverCast, on 24 January 2013 - 02:51 PM said:

Unfortunately, Admins can't do that. They need to make sure we're not putting distasteful content in the signatures, so they can't hide them.

Precisely.

NeverCast, on 24 January 2013 - 02:51 PM said:

I know you don't care.. but *assert :P/>

You saw nothing! :P/>

Cloudy, on 24 January 2013 - 02:52 PM said:

You saw nothing! :P/>

Also isn't the message thrown as an error when the assertion fails, so it should be

assert(Cloudy.care, "Cloudy doesn't care!")

As the assertion will fail, throwing the message :D/>

Cloudy, on 24 January 2013 - 02:52 PM said:

You saw nothing! :P/>

I can see it here :P/>

NeverCast, on 24 January 2013 - 02:51 PM said:

Cloudy, on 24 January 2013 - 02:50 PM said:

local Cloudy = {}
Cloudy.care = false
asset(not Cloudy.care, "Cloudy doesn't care!")

Argh… I give up. That's what I get for posting at 2 AM :P/>

2 AM you say…

* Me starts to estimate Cloudy's location but gives up cause NeverCast is lazy! *

NeverCast, on 24 January 2013 - 03:29 PM said:

2 AM you say…

* Me starts to estimate Cloudy's location but gives up cause NeverCast is lazy! *

I estimate the Moscow/Dubai timezone

Some reason I don't find it likely..
Like, 30%!

KaoS, on 24 January 2013 - 03:47 PM said:

I estimate the Moscow/Dubai timezone

Based off my calculations, 2AM there, posted 1PM here… thats 11 hours… Australia is GMT+10 ( currently +11 with daylight savings )… meaning that he would either need to be GMT+0 or GMT+22… since GMT+22 doesn't exists we can assume GMT+0 … which according to this site http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com London is that time half the year… so this is my assumption… :)/>

I would have made that assumption also, being +13 ( daylight savings ) I would've calculated him to be 13 hours behind as it was 3pm here at the time.
I believe your calculations are spot on.

It's no surprise though, dan200 and Cloudy being in the same country makes high probably sense.

This went from stupid new signature rules to stalking admins. I'm scared…

Agreed. I think this topic has run its course.

This went from stupid new signature rules to stalking admins. I'm scared…

So long as I don't get strange letters or people hiding in the bushes in my yard…