UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Signature Images

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

As annoying as it may be, I'm not sure we should be setting a full policy regarding images in signatures. I think it should certainly be seen as not useful, and not desired, but specifically against the rules? I don't think so. In much the same way as extremely long signatures aren't really condemned but are discouraged, we should indicate to sig-image users that sig-images aren't particularly desired, but not punish them for doing so. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 05:23, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Depends on how oestentatious the image is, Mia Kristos' image is easy on the eyes. As opposed to a red-green blob, like the flag was. Regardless, I think there should be size limitations; nothing larger than a certain height and width, AND file size. We don't want a page taking forever to load 'cause everyone's using a 32bit colour image. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 02:10, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Personally I don't see an issue with keeping the whole thing case-by-case, myself. Some images are going to be painful, some aren't, I think that if people are worried about it they can contact the user themself and figure out an arrangement (whether the arrangement is "removing the image" or "fixing the image". -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 08:21, 31 May 2006 (BST)

The problem with making rules is that it limits you to much, the easy on the eyes sig which nobody really has any problem with stayed, the annoying one was removed, Seems like the system worked. Why fix things and codify everything, when simply deciding on the fly works as well?--Vista 15:39, 31 May 2006 (BST)

The file size limitation makes sense, because if they become popular, you don't want a page taking millenia to load. The height and width limitations should be in place to prevent anything like, say, an 40x40 image being used. A 60x20 is not that noticable in comparision, as it's roughly the same height as text currently is. The length is even shorter than some people's plain text signatures. That being said, I reckon' the maximum height should be 25px (this is generous), and width somewhere around 60-80px. File size is my major concern though, how long until some obnoxious dick deliberately makes a PNG with every pixel a different colour? Even a few KBs adds up quickly, in both what the server has to put up with (if the image is not "outsourced"), and what the users have to. Pages load slowly enough with my broadband connection, I pity the poor saps on dial-up. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:36, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Only one user now uses a image right? as long as it's not more I don't It's that big of a problem. As long as self regulation works I don't think a rule is nessersary--Vista 16:43, 31 May 2006 (BST)

The problem with NOT having rules is that we can always have some kind of fucktard who abuses the sistem, based on "there is no rule that says i cant do this or that". We can always set the rules so they fit what we already think its good for the wiki, and limit what isnt. --hagnat ^mod 19:30, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Actually it's easier to deal with fucktards when there aren't any specified rules, because then it falls under the good or bad faith edit rule we got. That rules is way more powerfull then specified rules, as it is adabtable to anything and everything. When we have specified rules if a fucktard abuses the system we can only do something if he actually breakes the rules. And the problem with fucktards is that they always find an exploit in the rules anyway. But because we stated what was bad faith before hand every thing not stated must be considered good faith. That makes dealing with problems we didn't think off before hand much more difficult. When we make to many rules that aren't needed at the time of the making we change the focus of our editers from doing what is right and reasonable to what is and isn't allowed. Why use rules when we can use common sense?--Vista 20:19, 31 May 2006 (BST)

I think the sig images are obnoxious as hell and should be killed with fire, but I'd be content to see a limitation put in place on image and file size. – Nubis ^NWO 15:41, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Of course, an important question, should we decide to place such limitations, is how, precisely, to enforce them. Remember that we can't just go and change the wiki code, and Kevan's unlikely to do so himself. We can't actually stop a user from putting massive images in their sig, any more than we can stop them from putting an entire paragraph of text there. So, the only recourse we have is banning, and I don't think that images in sigs is really dangerous enough to the wiki to be a bannable offense.

Let's just keep it at the way it is - if some loser decides to abuse the privelige, we can deal with it as what will (fairly obviously) be a single case, rather than some large, wide-scale problem, which it isn't. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 23:52, 31 May 2006 (BST)

I, personally, have no problem with restrictions on Signature images. Personally, I think they should be limited to black and white text, like mine is. The only reason I really use my sig image is because I want the font to be visible to those without it. I think that's why so few people have a problem with it. It's really just a font change in image form. Of course, like I said, this is just a personal opinion. *shrug* --Sirens^{T RR} 21:04, 25 June 2006 (BST)