amuck-landowner

[Poll] Signature Regulation (Unofficial Poll)

Status
Not open for further replies.

HalfEatenPie

The Irrational One
Retired Staff
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

XFS_Duke

XFuse Solutions, LLC
Verified Provider
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

Insert Witty Statement Here
Verified Provider
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

The Irrational One
Retired Staff
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.  
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shovenose

New Member
Verified Provider
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kris

New Member
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.
 

Chronic

New Member
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

D. Strout

Resident IPv6 Proponent
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

Not to be taken seriously, ever!
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
amuck-landowner