[Poll] Signature Regulation (Unofficial Poll)

[HalfEatenPie]

Hello vpsBoard!

This is just me taking my own initiative to start the conversation on Signatures.  

While I do understand people would love to customize and configure their signatures, It has recently come to my attention several new and creative ways that they're being used might be too distracting to the content at hand.  Therefore, I'm starting this poll to ask the community what their opinions are on this. 

If you would like to add anything else then please feel free to reply to this post with your suggested rule.  The thanks count for that post will be equivalent to one vote.  If you wish to vote against that specific suggested rule then please quote the suggested rule in question and under it write your revised rule. 

I know this sounds a bit confusing, but you'll get the hang of it.  

This post will be automatically closing at 8:00AM July 1st, 2013 (Eastern Time).  

Disclaimer: This poll will play a major role in development of regulations involving Signatures, but I can't guarantee that everything suggested will be added.  Just be reasonable and add your reasoning to everything.  

Thanks!

 

[kaniini]

Frankly I think the WHT signature guidelines basically have it right.  4 lines, no images, no gratuitous colours.

 

[wdq]

Frankly I think the WHT signature guidelines basically have it right.  4 lines, no images, no gratuitous colours.

Also no large font sizes. 

 

[D. Strout]

Frankly I think the WHT signature guidelines basically have it right.  4 lines, no images, no gratuitous colours.

Also no bashing of another provider, and users in the providers forum group should link to their website in their sig so we know which provider they are.

 

[XFS_Duke]

I voted. I'm thinking the WHT signature method is ok, but I think someone should be able to put their "not so flashy" banner on their signature instead of text. Colors, yea I would say limit it to 2 or 3 colors. No bashing other providers in the signature is good as well. 4 lines would be good and not too much and the standard font size is fine as well, nothing bigger.

 

[Magiobiwan]

Please none of that # of colors crap. I say we use a "eye-sore" test. If it hurts anyone's eyes to look at it, it isn't allowed.

 

[HalfEatenPie]

Please none of that # of colors crap. I say we use a "eye-sore" test. If it hurts anyone's eyes to look at it, it isn't allowed.

While that would be preferable, everyone do have to realize that we have to have something in quantifiable units.  Just "don't have an eyesore signature" doesn't really work because it varies from person to person.  When we have a hard set limit in numbers then that's where the clear line is drawn.  

 

[kaniini]

Also no bashing of another provider,

But... but... how will Shovenose be able to have "INCERO SUCKS" in his signature?

Sorry.  Had to.

 

[H4G]

Agree. The WHT rules are pretty good.

 

[GVH-Jon]

I vote for no signature rules.

 

[shovenose]

But... but... how will Shovenose be able to have "INCERO SUCKS" in his signature?

Sorry.  Had to.

I don't anymore.

Will using bold, italics, or underlining, in signatures be limited? I hope not.

 

[Kris]

Too many kids just replying to get their pass-thru server deals up there with eyesores of colors.

Also larger fonts are very annoying.

This will discourage people replying with useless / neutral comments to get their beloved link in the thread.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

Perhaps add an option for signatures, offers postings, and 'verified provider' status to be removed for X amount of weeks at a time for various jackassery.

 

[Chronic]

Perhaps do something about referral links as well? There's nothing wrong with them, but they should be recognizable - those that are hidden behind URL shorteners are immoral and the people doing it are well aware of it. If they want a short URL then there's BBCode, but I want to know what I'm clicking. In fact, I think all links should be direct links.

 

[D. Strout]

Perhaps do something about referral links as well? There's nothing wrong with them, but they should be recognizable - those that are hidden behind URL shorteners are immoral and the people doing it are well aware of it. If they want a short URL then there's BBCode, but I want to know what I'm clicking. In fact, I think all links should be direct links.

While I agree with you, I haven't seen that being an issue in any signature so far. And "immoral" seems a bit strong.

 

[mikho]

Perhaps do something about referral links as well? There's nothing wrong with them, but they should be recognizable - those that are hidden behind URL shorteners are immoral and the people doing it are well aware of it. If they want a short URL then there's BBCode, but I want to know what I'm clicking. In fact, I think all links should be direct links.

It's not that you would loose any money on it. What's wrong with helping someone out?

 

[D. Strout]

It's not that you would loose any money on it. What's wrong with helping someone out?

I think @Chronic is more concerned about transparency. I agree, referral links are fine, but like @Chronic, I want to know about it, not have the referral part behind a link shortener.

 

[WelltodoInformalCattle]

I don't want my eyes to bleed as I'm checking out threads.

 

[D. Strout]

I don't want my eyes to bleed as I'm checking out threads.

Wow, that would be unpleasant. I do hope you never have to undergo that torturous experience. If you don't mind my asking, under what conditions do your eyes start to bleed?

 

[HalfEatenPie]

To those who have yet to view this, please take the time to review this thread and vote.