Spoilers in signatures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kk.

so basically we should just get rid of the youtube feature all together, i mean, it is just one extra click away in a thread anyway...

---

Don't see why not, I was never for implementing it anyway and as far as I'm aware it's only on here because it came with vb4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oli

will just look ugly, there's absolutely no point for this to be honest. In reference to you saying "its annoying finding an image thats 700x303", sorry but we aren't the third reich, I'm pretty sure any Super Moderator in the right mind would let three pixels slip, 3 pixels arent even gonna be noticable to the human eye.

---

That shouldn't be the case at all, obviously most people don't go around checking that every sig is exactly within the limits but if one does rightly get reported for being too large it ought to be acted on as I thought was the way it worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kk.

we get PMd to remove it in 24 hours yeh. But you cant say that some moderators will let it slide, its either a rule or not, you cant say, 'oh well, you can go to 703x303 if you like.' then another moderator comes along and says remove it. How can you define rules if youre gonna let things slide everytime it gets broken just a tiny bit. and i hope you like my signature :rolleyes:

---

Sorry? People moan at us for being too strict? Now you are saying if some moderators are lenient with something such as 3 pixels that's wrong? I really don't see your point here?

All I'm saying is 3 pixels are less likely to get noticed... and if they don't get noticed a moderator isn't going to send you a PM?

Edit:

To illustrate:
http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/ima...410595_303.png

http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/ima...410587_300.png


The point is our mods are familiar with signature sizes, 3 pixels are hardly visible so it's less likely to get found, it's all I was saying.

Anyway, to expand on my point earlier, look at the size of the above image, isn't that big enough for a signature? Why would you need a spoiler with a larger image in it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oli

Sorry? People moan at us for being too strict? Now you are saying if some moderators are lenient with something such as 3 pixels that's wrong? I really don't see your point here?

All I'm saying is 3 pixels are less likely to get noticed... and if they don't get noticed a moderator isn't going to send you a PM?

Edit:

To illustrate:
http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/ima...410595_303.png

http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/ima...410587_300.png


The point is our mods are familiar with signature sizes, 3 pixels are hardly visible so it's less likely to get found, it's all I was saying.

Anyway, to expand on my point earlier, look at the size of the above image, isn't that big enough for a signature? Why would you need a spoiler with a larger image in it?

---

im saying that you cant have some moderators following one set of rules, and others following another set of rules. As far as i know, and this is what i would do anyway, you would be checking the image size by right clicking and clicking properties. That way it tells you the size. Id do that if an image looked close to teh 700x150 barrier.

As for them being large enough, yes, they are quite large, but if people wanted a squarer image, they have to have 300x300, or even 150x150 for non VIPs.


As for youtube being disabled, the forum voted 2:1 in favour of the feature..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kk.

im saying that you cant have some moderators following one set of rules, and others following another set of rules. As far as i know, and this is what i would do anyway, you would be checking the image size by right clicking and clicking properties. That way it tells you the size. Id do that if an image looked close to teh 700x150 barrier.

As for them being large enough, yes, they are quite large, but if people wanted a squarer image, they have to have 300x300, or even 150x150 for non VIPs.


As for youtube being disabled, the forum voted 2:1 in favour of the feature..

---

Most images are checked, depends on the moderator, but you're more likely to get away with a 700x303 than a 700x380 etc

If you want a more "square" image you could cut down to 500x300, which isn't exactly square but it's a pretty reasonable size, 500x500 is too big for this forum, especially for users with horizontal postbits.

If we get a PM saying our avatar / signatures are too big, do they get put in the usernote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oli

Most images are checked, depends on the moderator, but you're more likely to get away with a 700x303 than a 700x380 etc

If you want a more "square" image you could cut down to 500x300, which isn't exactly square but it's a pretty reasonable size, 500x500 is too big for this forum, especially for users with horizontal postbits.

---

youre beginning to say contradict yourself. You said moderators are less likely to notice, then say moderators check it. Im not agreeing with you on this one sorry, you cant specify 700x300, and then let it slide if someone has a 700x303. It goes completely against what its there for.

Would i get told to remove it if i go and put a 700x303 image in my sig right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saurav

If we get a PM saying our avatar / signatures are too big, do they get put in the usernote?

---

As a usernote is a record of a conversation between a Moderator and a member, yes. Again, I feel the need to highlight the point that a usernote is a record of communication. If we didn't record the PM, if a moderator came along an hour after a moderator had sent a PM, you could end up with another PM? And that would be messy :P

@ Josh, if you had a 700x303 image in your signature and a moderator came across it, you would be PM'd and asked to resize it, afterall it takes nothing to chop 3 pixels off an image. If a moderator didn't come across it, you wouldn't get asked to do anything, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kk.

im saying that you cant have some moderators following one set of rules, and others following another set of rules. As far as i know, and this is what i would do anyway, you would be checking the image size by right clicking and clicking properties. That way it tells you the size. Id do that if an image looked close to teh 700x150 barrier.

As for them being large enough, yes, they are quite large, but if people wanted a squarer image, they have to have 300x300, or even 150x150 for non VIPs.


As for youtube being disabled, the forum voted 2:1 in favour of the feature..

---

No all signatures over the limit are reported and Super Moderators can use their discretion for the odd pixel here or there. If there wasn't any discretion in moderation members would be accusing us of being somewhat anally retentive.
In any event I thought the new video rules said that videos weren't allowed in signatures. :S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oli

@ Josh, if you had a 700x303 image in your signature and a moderator came across it, you would be PM'd and asked to resize it, afterall it takes nothing to chop 3 pixels off an image. If a moderator didn't come across it, you wouldn't get asked to do anything, obviously.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry? People moan at us for being too strict? Now you are saying if some moderators are lenient with something such as 3 pixels that's wrong? I really don't see your point here?

---

So first you say you'd be lenient and let 3 pixels slide, then say that we'd get a PM. k cus this is making sense..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

In any event I thought the new video rules said that videos weren't allowed in signatures. :S

---

Which is why i was suggesting being able to use the spoiler feature to display videos in signatures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oli

Sorry? People moan at us for being too strict? Now you are saying if some moderators are lenient with something such as 3 pixels that's wrong? I really don't see your point here?

All I'm saying is 3 pixels are less likely to get noticed... and if they don't get noticed a moderator isn't going to send you a PM?

Edit:

To illustrate:
http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/ima...410595_303.png

http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/ima...410587_300.png


The point is our mods are familiar with signature sizes, 3 pixels are hardly visible so it's less likely to get found, it's all I was saying.

Anyway, to expand on my point earlier, look at the size of the above image, isn't that big enough for a signature? Why would you need a spoiler with a larger image in it?

---

Maybe its the red but top image really does look bigger. Usually I check all big images as 300px is huge so I can PM a super mod.

And even if someone goes 1px over the limit, it shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise a super mod might think "meh, its only 3px" and then a different user might get a pm for just 1px.