Just looking around I have seen about 10-15 oversized signatures that have been cut off. I am just wondering if there is still a punishment, or if you can just have a signature that is cut off...
No longer a punishment for oversized sigs?
- Thread starter DawnOfXatu
- Start date
I think this works a whole lot better than the old rulings. Most members can't tell if they have a large sig. or not. So if want to include messages and stuff, they have to worry about a large sig. With the new thing, if they include extras out of the sig. size then it shows that by not being there, so members will be able to resize things and not get warned.
I am alright with the cut offs, but what I think is that we should warn people if their sigs are too big. Now they know that their sigs are too big, and this is just a blatant disregard for the rules.
::DF111:: said:
Big sigs are an eyesore. Think if that guy posted ten times on one thread, you'd spend more time scrolling down the sigs than actually reading the posts. Though the cut-off is cool, I still preferred the old-fashioned way
Signatures that exceed the 670 length will still be removable, as will those that exceed the 250 height. The cut-off is there so that pages don't stretch when people do break the rules, but having an image that is too large in your signature still breaks the rules, and is therefore removable... So it's best to keep it to 670x250 maximum.
I'm not sure if all moderators feel this way about it, but I was told to remove the signatures even if they exceeded the 250 height.
I'm not sure if all moderators feel this way about it, but I was told to remove the signatures even if they exceeded the 250 height.
Noobnerd said:
I prefer number 1 myself. Why warn someone because the image is a bit too big. As long as they follow all other rules it is pointless to warn someone abiut an oversized signature because some like me don't know the peramiters. Even though it shows that in the rules with the black box no one is going to remember that when changing banners or adding more words to their signature. I think it is pointless for warning because most don't know how to resize their images and some can't because they don't know how. I don't know how except in word but I don't know how to transfer back. It is not worth warnings for signatures. Ditch the Warnings because the cut offs help now that they are in place.
Thing is, some images do not get cut. So those that don't get cut should get nuked.
I like what Riskbreakers said, but with a grain of salt: Some people can't figure out how big there sig is, therefore they get punished for ignorance, or not understanding.
When you are missing part of your signature then you should be able to realize that your sig is too big. I say we keep the cut off, but we also keep the rule and punish them when the sig is too big. Now instead of having to guess how big their sig is, they have a way to judge.
Riskbreakers said:
If there are some that son't get cut is there away to impliment it on EVERY image? If you guys can find a way to do that then there would be no need for the rule or just get rid of it altogether and put it back the way it was 2 years ago or adjust the size so it is 700 by 250 since some are that high anyway.
The easy way to tell if an image is too big is to right click it and click on properties. That will tell you the pixel dimensions of the object.
