Suggestions for rules for member signatures

[Reggie]

There has been some issues recently regarding signatures and rather than turning off the signature feature, we would like to create guidelines regarding proper signature use.

Here is a draft of the guidelines:

---------------------

A signature, by definition, is a distinctive mark to indicate one's identity. The following guidelines are to be followed if a member opts to add a signature to his/her user name:
[list=1]
Signatures can only have a maximum of 5 lines.
Since vB code (http://www.cliesource.com/forums/misc.php?action=bbcode) is allowed on signatures, colors and alignments can be used but only font size of up to 3 is allowed.
An image to identify the member or the member's web site is allowed. Images are limited to a maximum 450(W) x 125(H) pixels. No pornographic, sexually offensive, sexually explicit, or objectionable images allowed. ClieSource Staff judgment applies here. It is the site's goal for members and visitors to be able to read anything within the forums at work, and/or home, and share these information with co-workers, friends, family, and the family's children as well.
Links that direct to the member's web site is allowed but may not contain a link to any page that has warez or that spams through commercial advertising.
A quotation or phrase with no foul language (or censored words) is allowed.
[/list=1]
We encourage everyone to report a member violating the signature guildelines. Violation of these guidelines will prompt us to privately email/message a member to change his/her signature. We will manually change a member's signature if he/she fails to comply within 24 hours.

----------------------

We aim to impose these guidelines by Thursday, March 27, 2003. For those who currently have signatures that are not according to the guidelines, we suggest changing them as soon as possible.

These guidelines have been patterened from other sites, and we hope that it would be fair for everyone.

Thanks.

ClieSource Team

[Griff]

Who determines objectionable?

[Reggie]

Edited. Thanks!

[rldunn]

Personally, and this is my opinion as a user, not a moderator, I would like to see all images banned from signatures. You already can have an avatar, so I don't see the need for an additional image in the signature line. I feel that images in the sig line are too distracting when trying to read through a thread, especially animated ones. Plus, (and I realize that since now only smaller images will be allowed, so maybe this isn't as big of a deal) in the past, there have been performance issues in the browser when viewing threads where a lot of the post had images in the sig line.

Not to mention, if you eliminate them, it takes care of Griff's point, as you don't have to deal with a subjective definition of 'objectional'.

[Griff]

I actually agree. To me a signature line is a signature, not a graphic ;-)

I hope that the CS team handles this very carefully. There are signatures and avatars here that offend different groups of people, and you must take care not to alienate one group by not taking action, if you've taken action on behalf of another group.

[TheSpies]

rldunn: I agree with this as well. It is very distracting when someone has an enormous pic in thier signature and they have posted several times to the same thread so you have to scroll through it over and over.

[Willber-Force]

HEY!! I don't wanna get rid of my overly cool sig! *HMPH!*

:D

[Macabre Man]

I agree with the mods on this one!

:)

[Mastervtec]

Maybe quiller could read this, I find his sig very distracting, Also, I hope they don't make rob_squared change his avatar, I find it absolutely hilarious!!!

[fishbulb]

I'd also be in favor of banning images from sigs, for the reasons given already.
Enforcing a size limit would certainly be an improvement, though.

[exiii]

I agree completely.

[kdn102]

Most definitely, the most annoying thing about this site is the graphics in signatures. They take up space on the page and bandwith, so just dump them altogether!

[exiii]

Originally posted by kdn102
Most definitely, the most annoying thing about this site is the graphics in signatures. They take up space on the page and bandwith, so just dump them altogether! kdn102,

Did you know that you can turn them off? You can turn of avatars too. :)

Check it in your profile preferences. A handy feature for dancing babies and dead children. :rolleyes:

[cbulock]

I say keep the images as long as they follow the guidelines Reggie set forth. If they are still problems, why not then remove the images. I think that if just certain people think the sigs are distracting, why not just turn them off.

[fishbulb]

I don't think you can turn off just the images in sigs - you would have to turn off sigs completely.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

You can turn off all images, but then you wouldn't see images in any posts at all.

[tanker_bob]

If we're taking votes, I'd eliminate all images in signatures. I have a broadband connection, but many images within the suggested guidelines take up way too much space on the screen. I can't imagine a dialup having to download all those graphics. As has been said, avatars give plenty of opportunity for individualization. JMHO.

[exiii]

Originally posted by fishbulb
I don't think you can turn off just the images in sigs - you would have to turn off sigs completely.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

You can turn off all images, but then you wouldn't see images in any posts at all. I was talking about turning off signatures altogether - for me, it works.

[L-3]

My Vote: Eliminate images in signatures.

I have a very fast connection at home, but a super slow one at the office (don't ask...) and its really a pain having to wait for all the signature images to load when trying to quickly get through a thread.

[tanker_bob]

Originally posted by fishbulb
I don't think you can turn off just the images in sigs - you would have to turn off sigs completely.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

You can turn off all images, but then you wouldn't see images in any posts at all.
I didn't notice it before tonight, but actually you can turn off the sig images without eliminating the sig itself. In your profile, under "Edit Options", there is an option "Show image attachments and [img] code in Posts?" Set that option to no. Instead of images in the sigs, it puts the hyperlink to the images. I just did this tonight and it works fine for eliminating the bandwidth and page clutter. This does eliminate graphics in posts, but you can always click on the hyperlink if you want to see them. I now find my pages are uniform in width without the large graphics that people occasionally post. It's kind of a shame, because a few had small, clever graphics in their sigs.

[cbulock]

Originally posted by tanker_bob

I didn't notice it before tonight, but actually you can turn off the sig images without eliminating the sig itself. In your profile, under "Edit Options", there is an option "Show image attachments and [img] code in Posts?" Set that option to no. Instead of images in the sigs, it puts the hyperlink to the images. I just did this tonight and it works fine for eliminating the bandwidth and page clutter. This does eliminate graphics in posts, but you can always click on the hyperlink if you want to see them. I now find my pages are uniform in width without the large graphics that people occasionally post. It's kind of a shame, because a few had small, clever graphics in their sigs.

Exactly, anyone who doesn't want images should just do this. I don't mind having them, and I think there should be a choice. No reason to take images away from everyone when it's very simple to shut them off.

[tanker_bob]

Originally posted by cbulock


Exactly, anyone who doesn't want images should just do this. I don't mind having them, and I think there should be a choice. No reason to take images away from everyone when it's very simple to shut them off.

I believe that you miss my core point, though.  I would like to see PDA-related images in posts--screenshots, hardware, etc.  Images in sigs are rarely PDA-related and hence rarely add anything to the core purpose of this board.  When present in sigs, they propagate throughout the board and cannot be ignored without losing all images in all posts.  While I've made that trade to eliminate the physical and mental clutter, I'm not happy about losing images that support the very reason I come here.  I still think that images in sigs should be eliminated.

[Mastervtec]

why are the words: "that" and "are" in red in all of tanker_bobs posts? Just curious~~

[rob_squared]

I can live with these guidelines.

PS: I love the pic in my sig. The dimensions in the avatar are too limiting and it just looks better to read across.

Besides, I have no life and I need people to visit my site. :)

[rob_squared]

I'd be very interested in seeing if tanker_bob ever visits the OT forum. After all its not "core."

[tanker_bob]

Originally posted by rob_squared
I'd be very interested in seeing if tanker_bob ever visits the OT forum. After all its not "core."

I used to visit there last year, but it's a waste of my time.  I come here to help people with their Clies and be helped with mine.  Otherwise, I'd rather spend the time with my family. 

I wouldn't miss it if the owners eliminated the OT forum entirely.  When there, I saw too many people who rarely ever contribute to the PDA portion of the board but post like crazy in OT.  I think that's abusing the bandwidth and disk space, and certainly an abuse of the good graces of our hosts.  If I were king, I'd either eliminate the OT, or limit the space it can take on the disk using a  FIFO scheme for the posts.  Huge threads like the undead thread just drag the performance of the board down.  JMNSHO.

[dstolarski]

I agree with the new guidelines. Some of the pictures in the sigs lately have made it a little dicey to read this board at work.

Thanks.

[j888]

I would like to see a cap on image height and width in signatures (even smaller than the one suggested in the draft) or, ideally, image signatures eliminated altogether. Why? Because I don't want to have to wade through obscenely long images that increase a page's scroll height by x 10. You know who you are ;)

Moreover, if there are images, I would like to see an elaboration of the term "objectionable"; for example, I find anything religious or political "objectionable", by I don't find someone advertising their site "objectionable". Thus, defining objectionable, or allowing a small group of people to define such terms is problematic (see below). I appreciate that the owners of the site can do whatever they like, but still, there is an obligation to the membership who make ClieSource the fantastic resource that it is. It's give and take. ClieSource is nothing without its membership, and the membership does not exist without ClieSource.

I come to ClieSource to discuss my CLIE and the platform's developments. If I wanted to discuss politics, or indeed be exposed to any other person's political or religious view-point either directly in their post, or indirectly via an avatar or signature (which I appreicate they have a right to express in a free society), I would visit an appropriate forum.

However, in my view, this is a PDA site. There is an OT sub-forum. Anything non-PDA related, including signatures, should only appear in the OT forum.

What we have to understand is that one of the greatest qualities of ClieSource is its international membership. What may offend one member may not offend another.

Naked breasts in an image may not offend a liberal European, who either considers it art or titilation (anyone ever seen the UK's biggest selling national newspaper, The Sun?). Anti-Jewish sentiments will offend some, but not others. Pro-war imagery is deemed justified by some, but not others. And so on, and so on.

The point is, given the international membership of ClieSource, the Admins of the site must take into account that the site comprises many religious, ideological, and socio-cultural sensitivities.

To censor some, but not others, is not only potentially hypocritical but it inspires a lot of unecessary flaming by those who believe they are in the right. And ultimately, I don't know who is in the right either: I believe everyone has a right to freedom of speech, regardless of their moderate or extreme stance.

I only see one solution. We all have our differences. Yet, we are united by our common language on this board. A language that consists of the CLIE, Palm OS and related soft and hard technologies.

Given our troubled times, I sincerely hope that the Admins consider restricting the discussion on this boad - especially in the large portion of the board dedicated to the CLIE - including signatures, images and otherwise, to the pure practice of this language.

Thanks

[rob_squared]

I'd like to never hear someone say anything bad about or to anyone else ever again.

It won't happen though.

So I don't seriously expect it to.

[j888]

Originally posted by rob_squared
I'd like to never hear someone say anything bad about or to anyone else ever again.

It won't happen though.

So I don't seriously expect it to.

You are correct, it will never happen.

However, the moderators can try to ensure that discussions in all boards - except the OT board - remain on topic: discussion about CLIE technology, Palm OS software and hardware platforms. At the very least, they can moderate to a level where discussions, images, avatars and signatures remain apolitical, areligious and non-discriminatory. People will make political or religious points in their posts, or have images or signatures etc. that convey their views, but that's what we have moderators for: to moderate. And I'm glad to say that the moderators on this board on the whole seem to do a great job.

Of course, this war, and major event such as this (including 9/11 etc.) will give rise to immense personal and emotional outbursts - derived from the natural human desire to express opinion. It's unavoidable. People with CLIE PDAs aren't robots. They have views on issues other than which CLIE model is best, or which direction Palm OS should go in.

However, the question is, is ClieSource a place where they should air their non-PDA related views and feelings? In the OT board they can do whatever they want. But in the rest of the forum, we should all stick to the topic this entire site is founded upon. There are plenty of online message boards where one can go to express personal opinion about political or social issues.

I visit this site because I want to read about CLIEs and Palm OS related topics - not anything else. I don't want to see political, religious, or quite frankly, any non-CLIE related images, signatures or posts (unless, of course, I decide to venture into the OT board).

Thanks

[Reggie]

Any other suggestions? Currently, we are now gearing towards not allowing images in signatures.

[tanker_bob]

Originally posted by Reggie
Any other suggestions? Currently, we are now gearing towards not allowing images in signatures.

That works for me.

[boomer]

I have the sig's turned off so I DO NOT CARE.

Why did I turn them off?  I found them too much of a distraction.  There were [probably still are, but as I have them turned off so I can't tell] also too many nonsense, junk and stupid things in the sig file.  Before I turned them off there were several folks who had a sig file that took up almost half a screen .  I come here for the content of the messages, not the personal advertising of pet issues.

 

 

 

[exiii]

If you turn signature images off, I'll won't need to turn off the entire signature. Which means I can get some of the personality without all the blinking, screen resizing, dead babies, etc.

I'm all for it - turn images off.

[jedix]

Originally posted by Reggie
Any other suggestions? Currently, we are now gearing towards not allowing images in signatures.

That would be fine with me, especially since at work I use a dial-up service (uggh!) and each page takes forever.

[parmesian]

Originally posted by j888
. . . for example, I find anything religious or political "objectionable", by I don't find someone advertising their site "objectionable". . . i am the pastor of a church and my site is a religious site, so is it "objectionable" for me to advertise my site?;)

in all seriousness (very hard for me) sig graphics are tough on dialup folks and they just don't add enough to make it worth the time. kill 'em.:p

[Punky]

No signature images works for me- but I like signatures. I wish I was computer savvy enough to create some of the amazing avatars I see...

[mikegehl]

No, parmesian - I don't think that's objectionable. :)

[Reggie]

So, here's the final rule:

============================

A signature, by definition, is a distinctive mark to indicate one's identity. The following guidelines are to be followed if a member opts to add a signature to his/her user name:
[list=1]
Signatures can only have a maximum of 5 lines.
Since vB code (http://www.cliesource.com/forums/misc.php?action=bbcode) is allowed on signatures, colors and alignments can be used but only font size of up to 3 is allowed.
Images are not allowed.
Links that direct to the member's web site is allowed but may not contain a link to any page that has warez or that spams through commercial advertising.
A quotation or phrase with no foul language (or censored words) is allowed.
[/list=1]
We encourage everyone to report a member violating the signature guildelines. Violation of these guidelines will prompt us to privately email/message a member to change his/her signature. We will manually change a member's signature if he/she fails to comply within 24 hours.

----------------------

This has been added to FAQ page already: http://www.cliesource.com/forums/misc.php?s=&action=faq&page=1#5

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

[Griff]

One question, what constitutes a line?

On my 1280x1024 display I fit alot more text in one line than someone running 800x600. So my 5 line signature at 1280x1024 may be 8 lines on another persons screen.

I support the removal of pics from signatures...no need for them and they do take up bandwidth.

[j888]

Hehe. Good point :)

Originally posted by parmesian
i am the pastor of a church and my site is a religious site, so is it "objectionable" for me to advertise my site?;)

in all seriousness (very hard for me) sig graphics are tough on dialup folks and they just don't add enough to make it worth the time. kill 'em.:p

[j888]

Hypothetically, within the guidelines below, if a member posted a link to their homepage which supported Al Qaeda or say, the Nazi party, this is acceptable?

I know it's a tough call between freedom of speech and censorship, but these signatures and avatars are the biggest contradiction on the site:

Anything non-PDA/CLIE/software/hardware related is considered off-topic and is moderated towards the OT forum.

Yet, people can freely post (what some deem 'provocative') links, images and quotations in their signatures throughout every board on the site.

If the definition of 'off-topic' is anything that mis-directs the thread of a conversation away from the subject matter of PDAs, CLIEs etc. then surely signatures should also be 'on-topic' and relevant to the core focus of this site?

I agree with all of the below, but would like to see this contradiction resolved: signatures can also be off-topic and as we have already seen, are capable of throwing threads off-topic - people read signatures and react to them within the same thread.

IMHO, signatures should therefore be on topic and only relate to CLIE/PDA matters.

Yes, I could turn off signatures but that to me is censoring people who may have genuinely interesting PDA site links in their signatures. Why should these enthusiasts suffer at the hands of people with non-PDA related motives?

Anyway, that's my 2ps worth :)


Originally posted by Reggie
So, here's the final rule:

============================

A signature, by definition, is a distinctive mark to indicate one's identity. The following guidelines are to be followed if a member opts to add a signature to his/her user name:
[list=1]
Signatures can only have a maximum of 5 lines.
Since vB code (http://www.cliesource.com/forums/misc.php?action=bbcode) is allowed on signatures, colors and alignments can be used but only font size of up to 3 is allowed.
Images are not allowed.
Links that direct to the member's web site is allowed but may not contain a link to any page that has warez or that spams through commercial advertising.
A quotation or phrase with no foul language (or censored words) is allowed.
[/list=1]
We encourage everyone to report a member violating the signature guildelines. Violation of these guidelines will prompt us to privately email/message a member to change his/her signature. We will manually change a member's signature if he/she fails to comply within 24 hours.

----------------------

This has been added to FAQ page already: http://www.cliesource.com/forums/misc.php?s=&action=faq&page=1#5

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

[Sid]

Originally posted by Reggie
Any other suggestions? Currently, we are now gearing towards not allowing images in signatures.

If it hasn't already been suggested:
How about allowing a larger avatar size?
It's currently 80x100, why not 100x100 or 120x120?

[cbulock]

Originally posted by Sid


If it hasn't already been suggested:
How about allowing a larger avatar size?
It's currently 80x100, why not 100x100 or 120x120?

Thats not a bad idea

[Ubik]

How about letting us junior members have an avatar?

[Ubik]

woops, just noticed I am a member and not a junior member

[jedix]

Originally posted by Ubik
woops, just noticed I am a member and not a junior member

Keep up the posting and you'll have an avatar before you know it!

[rob_squared]

Grassroots nazi campaign.

[nx70]

BTW,
I also dislike the quote features, for it is taking up also too much space. Why don't impose a limitation of 3-5 lines for quotation. Instead give for the rest a link to the original.
Not opposed to you j888 but did you recognize your quote beeing very big??

[cbulock]

I say we just ban posting all together. It just wastes bandwith and takes up space on the website.

[nx70]

Ey c'mon.
There are nettiquetes anybody should stick to, if they don't we should give them the guidelines and maybe also just restrict them. About the bandwidth. It is not also about "our" it is also about the complete internet. Remember people saying spam makes about 30-50% of traffic? Or these filesharing sources?
The internet was never meant to be a multimedia net but a text based information web.

[TheSpies]

Originally posted by Reggie
Any other suggestions? Currently, we are now gearing towards not allowing images in signatures.

How about not allowing unregistered posters?

[j888]

Originally posted by nx70
BTW,
I also dislike the quote features, for it is taking up also too much space. Why don't impose a limitation of 3-5 lines for quotation. Instead give for the rest a link to the original.
Not opposed to you j888 but did you recognize your quote beeing very big??

You're right - quotes can be very annoying too (as useful as they are in referencing the person you're replying to) because of the length. I normally try to cut down the quote to the relevant point, but this time (and most of the time) I forget because I post from work and am in a rush! :)

[nx70]

Never mind. See I have cutted my signature for two lines. Isn't that nice?