[Discussion] Sigs, new limits and idea's

[Rob Wilson]

So, at the moment, the limit on sigs is 600 characters for everyone. Originally the perk for you guys was to have you keep the limit and reduce everyone elses, but you are here to discuss board policy so...

The original proposal :
Non-Senate members - 100 character limit; This allows them to have a sig pic, or text. They can even have a sig pic and a small amount of text (depending on URL length). This is to stop multi-line huge sigs.

Senate Members - 600 Character Limit; What we have right now.

Sig pic sizes - 500x150. Basically what we have now.

Text Size - nothing over 12-14. To stop the more immature idiots from staging a 'protest' with sigs made up of 75 point text.

Animations - A slow refresh rate so they are not a distraction when viewing threads.

Coloured Text - Having sentences in one colour, but different colours for different sentences is fine, but Every letter being a different colour can hurt the eyes.

So. Everything above is open to discussion. Your idea's are welcome, but be aware we are limited by the board software, so somethings can'tt be done.

After we reach a consensus or the discussion reaches a natural end, a Vote on the New Sig Rules will be held in a new thread and it will be Enacted by Mike and the Admins. So make policy people!

Fixed sig dimensions blunder - Rob the dimensionally confused Chairman

[Admiral Valdemar]

You mean 500x150, unless you want a really tall picture.

I'll stop nitpicking now, guv'nor...

[Rob Wilson]

You mean 500x150, unless you want a really tall picture.

Cheer's, fixed it now.

[RedImperator]

I don't think it's fair to arbitrarily cut non-Senator sigs down to 100 characters. What I think we should do is have stricter enforcement of the existing size limits, and suspend sig privleges for repeat or egregious violators (Trekdestroyer, I'm looking right at you).

On the other hand, I HEARTILY endorse limiting animated sigs in both size and refresh rates. Those spastic little quick cycling animations drive me batshit, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[Rob Wilson]

I don't think it's fair to arbitrarily cut non-Senator sigs down to 100 characters. What I think we should do is have stricter enforcement of the existing size limits, and suspend sig privleges for repeat or egregious violators (Trekdestroyer, I'm looking right at you).

Fair comment though I'm thinking more along the lines that a larger sig is earned not a right. Anyone else?

On the other hand, I HEARTILY endorse limiting animated sigs in both size and refresh rates. Those spastic little quick cycling animations drive me batshit, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

What's your proposal?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I don't think it's fair to arbitrarily cut non-Senator sigs down to 100 characters. What I think we should do is have stricter enforcement of the existing size limits, and suspend sig privleges for repeat or egregious violators (Trekdestroyer, I'm looking right at you).

Fair comment though I'm thinking more along the lines that a larger sig is earned not a right. Anyone else?

I agree with making a larger sig something of a reward for good behavior, sound contributions . . . or at least an unambiguous demonstration that a given poster will not be a tool. However 100 characters is a really drastic diet to put a sig on. I suspect the URL for many sig pics alone would blow that limit. I would suggest something on the order of 250-275 characters, which would allow for one sig picture and about three to four short lines of text, or one long line of text (for reference, my sig takes up 226 characters with spaces, according to Word.) In my mind, a signature should be just that, a signature, and not an enormous manifesto.

On the other hand, I HEARTILY endorse limiting animated sigs in both size and refresh rates. Those spastic little quick cycling animations drive me batshit, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

What's your proposal?

I will guess that multiple proposals will be accepted for discussion, and would suggest that, perhaps, an animated GIF be limited to perhaps 30 frames. This will provide between 2 or 3 seconds of animation at 10-15 FPS. (If one wants to limit it to a really slow animation, one can specify a limit of 10 to 15 frames and a similar refresh time.) Though that refresh time can be upped for a given definition of "spastic."

[Rob Wilson]

I agree with making a larger sig something of a reward for good behavior, sound contributions . . . or at least an unambiguous demonstration that a given poster will not be a tool. However 100 characters is a really drastic diet to put a sig on. I suspect the URL for many sig pics alone would blow that limit. I would suggest something on the order of 250-275 characters, which would allow for one sig picture and about three to four short lines of text, or one long line of text (for reference, my sig takes up 226 characters with spaces, according to Word.) In my mind, a signature should be just that, a signature, and not an enormous manifesto.

That's why we are having a discussion. Don't be afriad to post your own proposed limits.

On the other hand, I HEARTILY endorse limiting animated sigs in both size and refresh rates. Those spastic little quick cycling animations drive me batshit, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

What's your proposal?

I will guess that multiple proposals will be accepted for discussion, and would suggest that, perhaps, an animated GIF be limited to perhaps 30 frames. This will provide between 2 or 3 seconds of animation at 10-15 FPS. (If one wants to limit it to a really slow animation, one can specify a limit of 10 to 15 frames and a similar refresh time.) Though that refresh time can be upped for a given definition of "spastic."

True. Though as you say frames don't necessarily control refresh rate, and we'll need to work out a size in KB's too.

[Rob Wilson]

An interesting point brought to my attention was a possible protest to shorter sigs, by only having 1 character per sentence. Now personally I think this is not only stupid but not much of a protest. Thoughts from the Senate?

The only way I see it working would be if they had 1 sentence per line, therefore making the sigs stupidly long and thereby getting their sig privileges permanently removed for complete and utter stupidity, but other than that?

[phongn]

Perhaps we could enforce a text-size limitation for sigs as well, and encourage use of the left/right attributes of the IMG tag so that all that empty space to the side of sig images are used. I also tend to favor small sig images, but I suspect that this would be unpopular.

[RedImperator]

An interesting point brought to my attention was a possible protest to shorter sigs, by only having 1 character per sentence. Now personally I think this is not only stupid but not much of a protest. Thoughts from the Senate?

The only way I see it working would be if they had 1 sentence per line, therefore making the sigs stupidly long and thereby getting there sigs removed for complete and utter stupidity, but other than that?

I say we don't worry about it until it happens, and if it does, it will be an issue for the moderators.

Though I see why people might be protesting. There's really no good reason to reduce sig sizes at all. The problem of people with gigantic sigs can be dealt with by enforcing the rules we have.

I think we (by which I mean the entire Senate) need to be very careful with all this newfound power. We shouldn't be changing things for the sake of changing them, and we definitely shouldn't be taking away privleges without a good reason, which I just don't see here.

[Rob Wilson]

An interesting point brought to my attention was a possible protest to shorter sigs, by only having 1 character per sentence. Now personally I think this is not only stupid but not much of a protest. Thoughts from the Senate?

The only way I see it working would be if they had 1 sentence per line, therefore making the sigs stupidly long and thereby getting there sigs removed for complete and utter stupidity, but other than that?

I say we don't worry about it until it happens, and if it does, it will be an issue for the moderators.

True, but the Senate should be appraised of any possible protests and might even cme up with a better idea for them.

Though I see why people might be protesting. There's really no good reason to reduce sig sizes at all. The problem of people with gigantic sigs can be dealt with by enforcing the rules we have.

The a proposal to keep the Non-Senate Sigs the same but maybe increase the Senate Sig limit would be in order, don't you think?

I think we (by which I mean the entire Senate) need to be very careful with all this newfound power. We shouldn't be changing things for the sake of changing them, and we definitely shouldn't be taking away privleges without a good reason, which I just don't see here.

Well people seem to think that Sigs are a right, when they are a privilege. Having a low base level of Sig, which is increased by earning it is hardly reactionary. By making it contribution based rather than say post based (as is an alternative I'm sure that will be suggested) precludes someone spamming their way to larger sigs.

This is why it's being discussed.

I'm still waiting for a new proposal.

[Rob Wilson]

Perhaps we could enforce a text-size limitation for sigs as well, and encourage use of the left/right attributes of the IMG tag so that all that empty space to the side of sig images are used. I also tend to favor small sig images, but I suspect that this would be unpopular.

Do people know how to do that (the left/right attributes I mean). If someone is guilty of not doing it, surely a PM from a Mod would be appropriate.

Anyone elses thoughts on Phongs points?

[Zaia]

Do people know how to do that (the left/right attributes I mean). If someone is guilty of not doing it, surely a PM from a Mod would be appropriate.

Considering GR put up the code to do the justification right here in this thread, they know how.

[Rob Wilson]

Do people know how to do that (the left/right attributes I mean). If someone is guilty of not doing it, surely a PM from a Mod would be appropriate.

Considering GR put up the code to do the justification right here in this thread, they know how.

Fantastic. If they didn't know that before they do now.

[RedImperator]

Though I see why people might be protesting. There's really no good reason to reduce sig sizes at all. The problem of people with gigantic sigs can be dealt with by enforcing the rules we have.

The a proposal to keep the Non-Senate Sigs the same but maybe increase the Senate Sig limit would be in order, don't you think?

I'm fine with that. In fact, the Senator from Nova Caesaria proposes we keep the current size limits for regular members, enforce those limits more strongly, and adopt a larger limit for Senators. I know I'm over the current limit, and I think my sig is about as big as good taste would allow.

I think we (by which I mean the entire Senate) need to be very careful with all this newfound power. We shouldn't be changing things for the sake of changing them, and we definitely shouldn't be taking away privleges without a good reason, which I just don't see here.

Well people seem to think that Sigs are a right, when they are a privilege. Having a low base level of Sig, which is increased by earning it is hardly reactionary. By making it contribution based rather than say post based (as is an alternative I'm sure that will be suggested) precludes someone spamming their way to larger sigs.

This is why it's being discussed.

It's a privlege that every member has had since the first day the board was up, unless they're being punished for something. Privlege, right, gift granted on the whim of Mike, it's not fair to restrict or take away sigs from members in good standing for no better reason than to give Senators an extra status symbol.

I'm still waiting for a new proposal.

See above.

EDIT: I'll second the motion to require people to use [left] and [right] tags when combining images and text, when possible. It's a good idea anyway, because the sigs look better that way.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

True. Though as you say frames don't necessarily control refresh rate, and we'll need to work out a size in KB's too.

A quick BOTE calculation for an animated GIF of the currently allowed dimensions (100x100) suggests that a 30 frame GIF at that size would be a ~240 KB download, which might be something of a considerable nuisance for a dial-up user, for whom the file would take ~35-60 seconds to load at the typical range of 56kBps download speeds.

Something in the neighborhood of ~100 KB or less might be a bit more feasible as a limit.

[Rob Wilson]

The a proposal to keep the Non-Senate Sigs the same but maybe increase the Senate Sig limit would be in order, don't you think?

I'm fine with that. In fact, the Senator from Nova Caesaria proposes we keep the current size limits for regular members, enforce those limits more strongly, and adopt a larger limit for Senators. I know I'm over the current limit, and I think my sig is about as big as good taste would allow.

Would you like to put it as a formal proposal as in the OP. The above is rather ephemeral s to limits and such.

[Zaia]

Considering GR put up the code to do the justification right here in this thread, they know how.

Fantastic. If they didn't know that before they do now.

Glad I could help. *tips hat*

[Kuroneko]

Limiting signatures further seems unfair to everyone, although personally I could do without a signature at all. Expanded private message box size would be an interesting perk that might be worthwhile. Do the mods here occasionally get flooded?

[Rob Wilson]

Expanded private message box size would be an interesting perk that might be worthwhile. Do the mods here occasionally get flooded?

Ooh I like, and yes I get far more than I would have expected (and that's sure to increase). It's also something that I feel is a necessity rather than needing discussion, so I'll float this to Mike now. Don't know if an increase is possible, or how big it might be, but I'll inform the Senaate of the results.

[Sea Skimmer]

The limit for signature width should definitely be 550 pixels; my picture has always been that wide and it fits very nicely when viewed in 800x600 resolution.

[Stuart Mackey]

Do people know how to do that (the left/right attributes I mean). If someone is guilty of not doing it, surely a PM from a Mod would be appropriate.

Considering GR put up the code to do the justification right here in this thread, they know how.

Fantastic. If they didn't know that before they do now.

The code should be put in the announcements/FAQ perhaps? that way there are absoulutly no excuses.

[Rob Wilson]

Considering GR put up the code to do the justification right here in this thread, they know how.

The code should be put in the announcements/FAQ perhaps? that way there are absoulutly no excuses.

Doubtless it'll go in the FAQ. With a Relevant question.

[Zaia]

The code should be put in the announcements/FAQ perhaps? that way there are absoulutly no excuses.

Doubtless it'll go in the FAQ. With a Relevant question.

I thought it was there already, but you're right, it's not.

I shall add it pronto.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think the exisiting rules are ok. I dont know what the limits of the software are but when it comes to technical matters I think that there should be one rule for all, however minor, esp if its a bandwidth issue as this site come out of Mikes wallet; Also some are on 56k modems and every advantage helps on older tech.