[starman]

Ok, so here's my problem...

Ever since I created my Xbox gamertag sig a year or so ago, I keep having to fight my host and its PHP rules every once in a while to figure out exactly what's wrong with it. It's a lot of work for a sig. It crapped out again and I'm in no mood to fix it for the umpteenth time.

There's this Microsoft site called Your Xbox 360 GamerCard In MySpace, Forums, and More! -- MyGamerCard.net which allows users to create their own sigs based on certain sizes. However, 200x50 is not one of them.

Ever since the new design, there's a lot of whitespace to the left of our sigs. The closest I came to 200x50 from their site is this one, 300x40:



So it's 100 pixels wider, but 10 pixels shorter.

If you could allow this, I'd appreciate it.

*

[Peter]

<off otpic>added you on xbl
<- Hejog1

</offtopic>

[Mastrap]

Too damn large.

Nothing personal starman, but one of the things I really like about macnn are the strict sig rules. Large sigs are distracting. And you allow one, you will have to allow all.

[Cold Warrior]

Why not host a correctly-sized sig somewhere else free?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Why not host a correctly-sized sig somewhere else free?

I think I already explained the reason why.

Mas: there's a LOT of white space on the new forum design. That's why I think one that's slightly wider won't matter.

[starman]

I found a smaller one. 220x55

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

I think that a 300 x 40 pixel change in the forum rules would be pretty cool, not necessarily gamer tags, but regular images. It would be nice to bring more variety to the forum. how 'bout 200 x 50 and 300 x 40 pixel sig sizes with 1 line of text under them?

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by starman 

I found a smaller one. 220x55

I don't have a problem with that one at all. Go for it! Then again, I'm not a mod.

[Peter]

me neither
/paging demonhood, demonhood to the feedback forum.

[Dakarʒ]

Just change all sig requirements to 220x55 and be done with it.

[Mastrap]

A slippery slope. We all know that marihuana leads to heroin.

[Randman]

This is the silliest request. You want an exception to a rule for a video game? Well, I want a World of Warcraft sig to break the site guidelines as well, just 'cuz.

[starman]

Obviously you don't understand the problem.

The sig is dynamic, not static. I have little control over a variety of factors which generates the sig on my server and I'm tired of chasing little upgrades every few weeks. I also don't want my domain anymore which is another reason why I'd have to go to an outside source.

And it's not for "a videogame", it's for my Xbox Live gamertag. This is more than "just cuz", I think I explained my problem well enough. I used to change my sig every few weeks. If I can keep it for over a year, I think that means that it's quite important to me.

[residentEvil]

i see your point starman.

but look on the other side too.

you are expressing a change that benefits you (and so far you alone) for a hobby of yours: xbox live gamertags. how many would this be helpful to?

now, what if my hobby had a hosted tag site and they were 320 x 50. should i then be able to have the rules changed for my hobby? how many would this be helpful to?

so maybe instead of making your request so darn specific; you should have just asked for a size change to make better use of the new white space. gave a few examples (that happened to fit your gamertag). win win. it isn't WHAT you are asking for, it is HOW you are asking for it: me me me, so my tag works.

just saying.

[Demonhood]

220x55 is not nearly as easy to remember as 200x50. i'm not convinced.

[Dakarʒ]

Wait a sec, our sig guidelines are based on how easy they are to remember?

[mac128k-1984]

I see little need in having a video sig, but I why not increase the size of the sigs globally so this change wouldn't benefit just starman but everyone. I think a 300 x 50 isn't asking too much.

[Lateralus]

I'm also against making any exceptions to the signature size rule.

Sure, 200x55 is barely any larger than 200x50, but it is still larger. And makaing a single exception for a gamer tag wouldn't fly because then we'd start getting the same request from people who want to use their distributed computing sigs followed by complaints after we decline to allow them to.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

I see little need in having a video sig, but I why not increase the size of the sigs globally so this change wouldn't benefit just starman but everyone. I think a 300 x 50 isn't asking too much.

We're already up from 150x40 not too long ago.

When we agreed to move up to 200x50 it was with the perception that anything larger began to push the constraints of what looked tasteful and went flush with the forum as a whole. 300x50 is a certainly a large increase and it is also very disproprotionate.

[Dakarʒ]

starman doesn't need 300x50 and it too obnoxiously wide so let's not even bother discussing it.

While agree with Lateralus' comment that 200x50 was a good size that went with the forum, it should be noted that was the old forum. We've got a new one with a different feel, and that would allow this 10% increase (220x55) to occur with a negligible effect.

If the admins don't see a reason to change this, I understand. There's no real compelling reason to do so.

[brassplayersrock²]

how about this? we try out the asked sig size for a couple weeks and see how it goes. if all is good, it stays, if not, it goes. fair to all

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock 

...

Your signature is 14 pixels too tall. Change it.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Your signature is 14 pixels too tall. Change it.

His last sig got changed to the sig violator one for being too big too

[starman]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

I see little need in having a video sig, but I why not increase the size of the sigs globally so this change wouldn't benefit just starman but everyone. I think a 300 x 50 isn't asking too much.

Lat's text sig is wider than the image itself. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Kevin]

In the day and age of being able to block any image from a page (I often do this with Safariblock on other forums) I don't think it's that big of deal.

For example Ibanez's forums has no sig guidelines. There are some LARGE ASS sigs on that forum. I just right click and block them. That way that person gets to use his obnoxious sig, and I don't have to see it. Everyone is happy.

Having said that, there NEEDS to be a guideline regardless.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Having said that, there NEEDS to be a guideline regardless.

1024 x768?

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by starman 

Lat's text sig is wider than the image itself.

...so is the text in every post. Are you proposing that we create a script that widens a user's sig image to the displayed post width?

[Dakarʒ]

Stylistically, I object to it being on top of the sig rather than below, but honestly, who cares?

[Peter]

300x50 and no text?

[Dakarʒ]

Let's see how it looks.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000

Edit: It should be noted I'm viewing this on a 1600 pix screen.

[Dakarʒ]

Too wide. Go with the 220.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

220x55 is not nearly as easy to remember as 200x50. i'm not convinced.

555x555 would be far easier than either of those. I'm not sure mnemonic ease is really a good criterion for something that people will have to look up to know about anyway.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

...so is the text in every post. Are you proposing that we create a script that widens a user's sig image to the displayed post width?

Look, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. I'm just making an observation. We have these rules about sigs but nothing about how wide the text can be. I just find it amusing that the text is 2-3x wider than the sig, that's all.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Too wide. Go with the 220.

At the time I didn't know of the other site that allows the smaller image. I'd be happy with that, so long as it's dynamic.

I tried putting my php code on another server and it's even worse. All these sites are paranoid about security.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by starman 

At the time I didn't know of the other site that allows the smaller image.

Yeah, I don't why people keep bringing up the larger one instead. Wishful thinking, maybe.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

His last sig got changed to the sig violator one for being too big too

that was my own doing.

[brassplayersrock²]

i actually like "my" new signature. might keep it

edit: do I lose my stars for being naughty?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock 

that was my own doing.

That and the removal of your Mac Elite stars?

[brassplayersrock²]

the sons-of b*tches must have eluded me. besides, it makes me unique. "ya know that brassplayersrock guy?" "the ones without the user stars that everyone else has?" "yeah him"

[Dakarʒ]

You can say bitch without fear of censorship.

[brassplayersrock²]

just like Pearl

[brassplayersrock²]

or maybe they're thinking of something special to replace the stars.

from an OLD tooki post:

Apr 23, 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by phillryu:
Actually, he gets it because he's a super mod, and they can do whatever they want.

Originally posted by tooki:
Indeed! But I try to remain benevolent. In any case, at the moment, we only give mods and admins special stars if they want them. We are considering special stars for members who have made unusually good contributions or otherwise merit reward, but this is at the concept stage at the moment.

tooki


http://forums.macnn.com/85/macnn-lou...gic-mushrooms/


Alex

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock 

the sons-of b*tches must have eluded me. besides, it makes me unique. "ya know that brassplayersrock guy?" "the ones without the user stars that everyone else has?" "yeah him"

Hm...that's not how I usually refer to you.

[Kevin]

I had "special status" before once. It's not all it's cracked up to be.

But yeah, slightly larger sigs would be cool.

Chicks would dig it.

[starman]

Well, it took a few days but I fixed it. The Xbox web site changed their <img> tag for the gamertile image so that it had "alt" tags, so the way I had my php set up it would search for the </a>, but at the time I wrote it, there were no "alt" tags in the URL, so the request was

"http://tiles.xbox.com/someguid.jpg" alt="Madden06"

Which was wrong.

I still think sigs should be a little wider, though.

[Kevin]

Someone stole mine.