[dazzla]

Originally posted by ironknee:


28,760 bytes....or better yet do something creative

Really?

Originally posted by ironknee:

oh wait....i saw the web site....nevermind about creative

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

[Worst. Episode. Ever.]

Dammit, Zimphire... your new sig... that's exactly what I was planning on changing mine to.

[MacManMikeOSX]

like my new sig text......hehehe

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Worst. Episode. Ever.:
Dammit, Zimphire... your new sig... that's exactly what I was planning on changing mine to.

Demon allready informated me it had been done before.

Make a 141x41 sig.

[Ca$h68]

Demonhood is cool, but the sig guidelines are way outdated.

- Ca$h

[ringo]

[MindFad]

Good post, Ringo. Beat me to it. Why not just comply? Or let Demonhood remove your sig privileges or something.

Mine was only a few pixels off, but.... There you have it.

[MacAgent]

Mine is all nice and small.

[iNub]

Who would dare to put an image in his/her/its sig?! It's so non-leet! Everybody should be posting on this board via a telnet connection to port 80 of this site! Now go! Alone you leave me!

[invisibleX]

Demon axed my sig Of course I put it right back up

No one has ever complained about my sig so I see no reason why its such a problem for him. Obtrusive, lol. I'll tell ya whats obtrusive: the fact that posting usually doesn't work the first time!

Sorry if I went little wacko, but the dude should loosen up. I personally don't see many sigs around here that are insanely huge and obtrusive. Personally, I say we all either make our sigs giant in protest or remove them altogether.

So here's the new guidelines:

1400x40

[jcadam]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Alright, time for a little revolution here.

In today's world of increasingly large displays and insane resolutions, these sig guidelines are just outdated. Take for instance, my signature. Does this look too big to ANYONE? ANYONE? No. It doesn't. Neither does 90% of the signatures here. So I present a 4th option: Change the sig guidelines a TAD. I think a LITTLE bit larger sigs would be fine, not everyone will use the extra space anyway.

Agree?

Good. Slightly larger sigs should now be fine.

- Ca$h

yes. I have a 21" Trinitron monitor running at 1600x1200 and a broadband connection. Many people have a similiar setup. I can handle large sigs (within reason) just fine.

I feel it is safe to assume that most people run at 1024x768 or greater resolution (the native resolution of Apple's smallest display, the 12.1" iBook). Therefore, 300-400 pixel-wide sigs should be perfectly okay.

[Nile]

I had to shrink my sig. did it work?

[ReggieX]

Yay stickie's back.

[IceEnclosure]

do i have a new sig? lemme see...

[tooki]

A line of text is a "standard" 80-character line.

To the guy that said that demonhood's sig was 32K... I assume you dragged the file from IE onto the desktop? Well remember that IE creates a custom icon (which the OS stores uncompressed), which you have to delete to see the actual image file size.

As for relaxing the size restrictions: I don't think so. Yes, it is true that tons of people have big displays nowadays, but we want to be mindful of, say, users of 800x600 displays. Even so, a sig is not supposed to stand out like a sore thumb, it should be a subtle little tag. Finally, the primary reason for restricting size is that MOST internet users still access the net using dialup modem, which means that the images actually take appreciable amounts of time to download (many mobile data services charge by the MB, and in many countries, internet access is metered by the minute, so every second spent in downloading costs money!). We want the pages to load quickly enough that people will actually return to the site.

tooki

[philzilla]

Originally posted by jcadam:
I feel it is safe to assume that most people run at 1024x768 or greater resolution (the native resolution of Apple's smallest display, the 12.1" iBook). Therefore, 300-400 pixel-wide sigs should be perfectly okay.

uhh... how about 800x600? on the original iBook?

[file]

Dear all Signature complainers:


Yor complaints are pathetic. This is a messageboard.

[G4ME]

Originally posted by philzilla:

uhh... how about 800x600? on the original iBook?

you don't count, get a real laptop.

just kidding I also think they should be an additional reminder of what kind of person they are.

[arrested502]

Does this thread ever die? It's been going for what? 2 yrs now?

[sek929]

Originally posted by arrested502:
Does this thread ever die? It's been going for what? 2 yrs now?

And you've been here for what? 3 months now?

[arrested502]

Originally posted by sek929:
nd you've been here for what? 3 months now?

Try 2 yrs moron.

Have a "nice" day

[el lindo]

I don't know, it looks a lot like three months from where I'm sitting. (We can all see when you registered)

[ReggieX]

Originally posted by arrested502:
Does this thread ever die? It's been going for what? 2 yrs now?

10 months. And why, you ask?

Originally posted by Demonhood:

This is an image of the old regulations inlayed within the new one. As you can see, the new regulations are a fair bit larger. No one seemed to notice this. People instead decided to attack me for "taking away their freedoms." It was partly my idea to increase the accepted dimensions. Some sig images had been getting out of control, so I threw this thread up to clarify what our position was. Nevermind that everyone glosses over the fact that it's bigger than Misha's stipulated size. When Misha instituted the 35x110 regulation, only a few people complained. You know why? Because he had shut off sig images for a few weeks (might have been a month, i forget) due to abuse. People were happy to get the ability back, they didn't worry as much about the size restrictions. But now we're all a bit spoiled, aren't we.

No matter what the size restrictions are, some people will complain. Why? Because they like to complain. They like to "fight the power" in the name of their constitutional right to do whatever they damn well please. This is not to say everyone that complains about this is believes that. There are many well reasoned responses above. But even if I changed the restrictions to 100x500 tomorrow, someone would scream out "censorhip! let the sigs be free! you dirty nazi!" That's another thing. Those that lump the pixel restrictions of their forum signature image in with the same category as the slaughter of millions of people aren't helping their cause. I find it offensive and absurd. We ask people politely to change their sigs if we find them outside the acceptable range (or indecent). Yet people still cry fowl and reserve their right to post any image they want to. You know what, you don't have that right. We've been pretty nice about all this. Some of you have just blown it out of proportions in an attempt to cause a fuss and draw attention to yourself. Cuz hey, who doesn't want to be a "fight the power" rebel?

Does this sound familiar to any of you idiots?


So would you whiny bitches please do one of two things:
1) Get your sigs in line with the guidelines, or
2) Leave

I mean, jeez, look at the first page of this thread.
Demonhood: 140x40, under 10K, static
Random Idiot: duh, mines much bigger, is that OK?
Demonhood: 140x40, under 10K, static
Random Idiot 2: duh, mines slightly bigger, is that OK?
Demonhood: 140x40, under 10K, static
Random Idiot 2: duh, mines slightly smaller, but animated, is that OK?

Oh, PS to the admins: the guidelines aren't in the User Centre since the vB switch.

[file]

i think you need to just turn off sigs again then.

i have no idea why "invisibleX" and his fellow crusaders just resize.

takes you 30-45 seconds to post. spend 2 minutes and change your sig. demonhood has every right and you have absolutely none. change it or get out.

it's not an insult, it's a matter of following simple guidelines.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by arrested502:

Try 2 yrs moron.

Have a "nice" day

Mike calling someone a moron. that's comedy gold, right there!

[The Dude]

substance removed.

[el lindo]

Hahaha. How long till that gets removed?

[l'ignorante]

Originally posted by ringo:

may I add

[l'ignorante]

Sticky fingers, anybody?

[G4ME]

No don't look their "sigs" are to Big

[Demonhood]

this isn't picture association, btw.

if certain members want to continually assert their right to sigs of all sizes, we could always turn sigs off and use avatars instead. then everyone would have nice square images (i think it was 75x75 or something like that).

[philzilla]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
(i think it was 75x75 or something like that).

75x75? WHY NOT 120x120!? that is SO unfair! i HATE you!!!

:slams door:

[G4ME]

"Well . . . Well . . . I Drive a Dodge Straus" one of the many great SNL skits with the former Will Farrel

[el lindo]

You guys do realize that if a user doesn't want to see sigs, they can just turn sigs off in their user preferences. So if an iBook user has a problem, why don't they just turn sigs off instead of making everyone get rid of their sigs. This way, everyone's happy all while preserving the first ammendment.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by el lindo:
You guys do realize that if a user doesn't want to see sigs, they can just turn sigs off in their user preferences. So if an iBook user has a problem, why don't they just turn sigs off instead of making everyone get rid of their sigs. This way, everyone's happy all while preserving the first ammendment.

I thought that too. If you don't have the bandwidth, turn them suckers off.

[Too Much Coffee Woman]

the problem with the above theory is that:

some people like sigs. Normal sized sigs. they help us distinguish from who is who and although i may forget a User name, i know a "person" from his sig.

when people use non-regulation, am i supposed to give up all sigs just becuase a few can't simply resize?

[The Dude]

My Idea:

First, put the Sig rules back in the User Agreement, that'll make sure your ass is covered.

Second, if anyone breaks the rule, change their title to "I am an illiterate waste of my Dad's two minutes."

Third, there is no third step. NO THIRD STEP!!! hahahHAHhhAHhaHAA

Of course this is just my idea, you never can tell, I might just be wrong.

EDIT: Ha, spelling error. Oh, the irony.

[Brien]

Hey demonhood, can you go through and edit out all this bad HTML code? It hurts the eyes .

[Sealobo]

OK... i changed my sig... this is final

[climber]

I quess the offending sigs are being changed by the admins.

[Zimphire]

Yeah I got home, got a pvt message telling me to change my sig or it would be changed, looked and it was allready changed.

It was off by what 9 pixels?

Nice short warnings there tards.

:-)

[Zimphire]

BTW, I just saw a bunch of people with offending sigs. Was only certain people singled out?

:o

[invisibleX]

:looks around, creeps by demonhood:

Well, my little baby is still here. I'm in favor of losing sigs altogether... mainly cause I'll just add a [img] tag to the end of all my posts. Therefore I'll have sig but demonhood won't be able to stop it.

I think this has gone a little bit nuts. People with sigs that have nothing more than their name complaining that without sigs they can't easily identify people.

If someone has a sig thats only marginally over the guidelines any admin should just let it go. Don't condone the size, just ignore it. Crack down on ones that are taking too long to load due to immense size.

Like sheesh, I think demonhood should grow up and stop being a nit-pick

[edit] seems like my sig has been replaced and I no longer can access my profile. Oh well. Oh, whats this? An img tag? Lets just insert that down there...

[file]

People with sigs that have nothing more than their name complaining that without sigs they can't easily identify people.

thay don't abuse the system like you do.

they use sigs the way they were intended.

also they are inobtrusive with their own sigs.

[ReggieX]

HAHAHAHAHAH

I just saw Cipher's new sig.

*sniff*

I love you mods.

Carry on.

[invisibleX]

Actually, I'd shrink my sig if I could. But I can't. My original sig is in a .psd. No PhotoShop anymore.

So, anyone want to resize it for me?

[Brien]

Originally posted by invisibleX:
Actually, I'd shrink my sig if I could. But I can't. My original sig is in a .psd. No PhotoShop anymore.

So, anyone want to resize it for me?

I will! I will!

[scaught]

Originally posted by invisibleX:
:looks around, creeps by demonhood:

Well, my little baby is still here. I'm in favor of losing sigs altogether... mainly cause I'll just add a [img] tag to the end of all my posts. Therefore I'll have sig but demonhood won't be able to stop it.

ya. therell be absolutely no way for him to stop you.

I think this has gone a little bit nuts. People with sigs that have nothing more than their name complaining that without sigs they can't easily identify people.

If someone has a sig thats only marginally over the guidelines any admin should just let it go. Don't condone the size, just ignore it. Crack down on ones that are taking too long to load due to immense size.

so have guidelines, but dont follow them. ok.

Like sheesh, I think demonhood should grow up and stop being a nit-pick

nitpick? the sum of his nitpicking has been linking people to this thread and making it "sticky" a couple days ago. what is your main problem with following the guideline other than trying to enthuse your boredom by carrying on about sig guidelines on a damned messageboard?

ban em. ban em all i say.

[chris_h]

much ado about nothing, methinks.

[xi_hyperon]

Reuters - Sept. 17, 2002
In a surprise move, xi_hyperon, long-time macnn'r, apparently decided earlier this year to build what may be the world's largest signature. The motivation is not clear, but appears to be a desire to be banned in spectacular fashion by defying macnn guidelines.

Although the new signature had been in production for later introduction, a recent development in the Lounge gave xi what he feels to be a just cause. The suicide banning is purportedly a protest against the sticky thread at the top of the lounge, which xi believes is a defilement to an otherwise sacred place.

Sources have revealed that work began last spring and is apparently in an advanced state of construction. The images below, provided by anonymous sources, depict various stages of the effort.



Two potential sites where signature construction is reported to be taking place



Photo taken in April, where signature assembly facility was constructed



The signature is being built with pre-fabricated sections which are shipped to the assembly point

No official response has been given by macnn administrators, who are reported to be in a "wait and see" mode.