13 replies to this topic

[ShadowLink64]

http://www.neocodex....eavatar-policy/

Read it, and know it well please. Please note the recent change on the total width, 750 pixels. This has been modernized to deal with the fact that not even 1% of our users use monitor resolutions less than 1000 px in width.

Quote

Signature Restrictions

• No images (or collection of images in a row) in a signature should exceed 750 pixels in width. This includes separation distance between images.
• Considering only images, a signature should not be any taller than 350 pixels. If spoiler/code tags are used, this size reduces to 250 pixels (see below).
• There is no restriction on the number of images you can have in your signature, so long as these size guidelines are met.
• No more than 8 lines of text including what is put inside quote/code tags, at a reasonable size. Quote/code tags count as 2 lines of text, due to their size.
• Friend/Enemy lists are not allowed.
• There are to be absolutely no advertisements without staff consent.
• Mild mature content is acceptable within reason, ADULT content however, is strictly prohibited (see section on Enforcement below for more information).

Failure to follow this policy exactly can and will result in your signature being edited by staff, with notice. Re-offence without consultation with staff will result in an instant 10% warn if sufficient notice was given by staff.


- Neocodex Administration

[Junsu]

Reference:

Edited by Rapist, 30 August 2011 - 09:16 PM.

[Boggart]

Do we hate each other that much that this is actually becoming an issue? o.o

[ShadowLink64]

Boggart, on 30 August 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

Do we hate each other that much that this is actually becoming an issue? o.o

People want consistency, and that is what I am going to deliver. Things have been running a little too loose around here for too long.

[Scot]

So you're giving people more room to advertise in their sigs?

[Junsu]

There are to be absolutely no advertisements without staff consent.


Does this include trading threads

[ShadowLink64]

Scot, on 30 August 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

So you're giving people more room to advertise in their sigs?

Any advertisements need to be cleared with staff beforehand. This is a part of the site rules, and extends to signatures. See:

http://www.neocodex....s-long-version/

Quote

Linking to other websites of the same genre of Neocodex is not allowed. Advertising without staff permission is also not allowed.
There is to be no linking or advertising of any other sites with the same genre as NeoCodex unless explicit permission from the Administration is granted. Any form of advertisement must be approved by Staff, though other Neopets community sites will never be allowed to be advertised here.

.. and:
http://www.neocodex....eavatar-policy/

Quote

Any signatures that violate core rules of the board will be removed immediately, with notice.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Advertisements that are there have to be cleared by staff. Report any that you think are not cleared.

Rapist, on 30 August 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

There are to be absolutely no advertisements without staff consent.


Does this include trading threads

No. Any ads that link internally are fine, so long as they meet the other signature guidelines.

[Scot]

Sorry, I meant be as obnoxious as possible with large images. For some reason my mind equated that with advertising.

Forgive me if I think having a sig dwarf the content of the post many, many times over a little excessive. [1]

[ShadowLink64]

Scot, on 30 August 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

Sorry, I meant be as obnoxious as possible with large images. For some reason my mind equated that with advertising.

What would happen if the same thing were posted in a topic? It would get reported and likely invisibilized, so the same would occur to the signature since it has to follow the board rules.

Scot, on 30 August 2011 - 09:52 PM, said:

Forgive me if I think having a sig dwarf the content of the post many, many times over a little excessive. [1]

A spoiler has since been added to ToxicS's signature that encompasses his second image, so I have no idea what you're on about now.

[Scot]

ShadowLink64, on 30 August 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

A spoiler has since been added to ToxicS's signature that encompasses his second image, so I have no idea what you're on about now.

Really? I had no idea. I have his and half of this forum's signatures on adblock. Really, I shouldn't have to do this sort of thing at all.

[ShadowLink64]

Scot, on 30 August 2011 - 09:58 PM, said:

Really? I had no idea. I have his and half of this forum's signatures on adblock. Really, I shouldn't have to do this sort of thing at all.

Fair enough. And yeah, you really shouldn't have to do that.

[soul__stealer]

For the record, my issue with toxics signature had nothing to do with it's size (normally)... It's that his signature manage to fill my entire screen when his post was only 3 lines long, yet still found it reasonable to warn someone for having a signature that was too large... Even if the user was warned, they would only have been following the example layer out by a staf member. Nothing to do with hate, more to do with the absurdity of that single warning.

Will address other comments made in the other thread when I get home.

PS I think sig size limit is a good thing.

[iargue]

soul__stealer, on 30 August 2011 - 11:13 PM, said:

For the record, my issue with toxics signature had nothing to do with it's size (normally)... It's that his signature manage to fill my entire screen when his post was only 3 lines long, yet still found it reasonable to warn someone for having a signature that was too large... Even if the user was warned, they would only have been following the example layer out by a staf member. Nothing to do with hate, more to do with the absurdity of that single warning.

Will address other comments made in the other thread when I get home.

PS I think sig size limit is a good thing.

Toxic was told by someone else to warn him, given that he had been given over 3 verbal warning before about his signature, and been linked directly to the policy. If he was truly following an example, he would have brought it up. He was blatantly disobeying the rules, without regard to their intentions. Thus he was warned for it. If someone else is breaking the rules, you should speak to a staff member about it and let them resolve the issue. Toxic's old signature did not break the previous policy. That is why the policy has been written to address that concern (Not his signature specifically, but the ability of users to make ridiculously long and annoying signatures)

[Jeb]

When it comes to size limits, that still leaves a hell of a lot of leeway for people. Definitely more reasonable than the gigantor sigs some people were sporting. For the most part I think it should be easy enough to follow, and it will be nice to cull some of the eye sores.