Signatures

[James]

Already one member on the forums has lost their signature rights due to abuse of another member through this feature. Certain other members are treading a fine line here also.

We would like to take this opportunity to remind all members that it is not acceptable to contravene any of the general forum rules (i.e flaming, baiting or trolling) in your signature. This can include quotes and text. Members that break this rule may have their signature rights removed without notice.

We would suggest everyone takes the opportunity to remove anything that may break the flaming, baiting or trolling rules on the forum before you have your signature rights removed.

By the end of next week, we would expect that all members should have clean signatures that are in line with the forum rules. If this does not happen, members run the risk of having their signature rights removed.

If anyone is unsure about whether their signature breaks the rules, you can email the moderation team at moderators@cricketweb.net

Cricket Web Moderation Team.

 

[sledger]

 

[Athlai]

Her mouth is awfully square inside.

 

[cpr]

Thought it was meant to be a square peg in a round hole, not vice versa

 

[Richard]

A round peg in a square hole? ITSTL.

I'm reminded of seeing an 8 with a square round it - a quadruple-bogey.

 

[Somerset]

Just out of curiosity, why are images not permitted to be in signatures? Is it solely due to reducing the loading time of each page or something else?

 

[NZTailender]

Mainly that I think, yeah. Also it's a pain to have signature images (or signatures, for that matter) that extends the post size to be bigger than the post if it had no signature.

 

[Langeveldt]

Just out of curiosity, why are images not permitted to be in signatures? Is it solely due to reducing the loading time of each page or something else?

Images were permitted in signitures but I think this ended about five years ago.. Seem to remember Cloete specialising in producing them.. Shame, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have them at a limited size like we used to be able to..

 

[rimi]

signature

this is my 1 signature........lil bit excited.....

 

[rimi]

signature

nothing is impossible in dis world.......n m tryin for possible.........

 

[James]

Yes, images in signatures were disabled due to loading times. Most members at the time were in favour of us doing down that route.

 

[GIMH]

Indeed, when a couple of staff/mods were able to do it for a short while last year, I seem to remember there was quite a stir

 

[luffy]

this is my 1 signature........lil bit excited.....

Good to see it's in English.

 

[Richard]

Indeed, when a couple of staff/mods were able to do it for a short while last year, I seem to remember there was quite a stir

Think that was more a "how come they're allowed and we're not" case than anything TBH, but maybe not.

EDIT: there was a fair mix of the two actually. Plenty of "why should staff have it and not the rabble" and also plenty of "I just don't like pics in sigs" posts.

Though obviously how many thought the former while saying the latter can't be known fo' sho'.

 

[Richard]

Mainly that I think, yeah. Also it's a pain to have signature images (or signatures, for that matter) that extends the post size to be bigger than the post if it had no signature.

Hmm...

Mainly that I think, yeah. Also it's a pain to have signature images (or signatures, for that matter) that extends the post size to be bigger than the post if it had no signature.
__________________
CW Colts Vice Captain | Yorkshire WCC Manager
President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - Follow the whirlwind | President of JHAS - Howzat!?
Supporting Lou Vincent, Peter Fulton, Ross Taylor, Tim Southee, Aaron Redmond, Neil Broom, Greg Hay
Chamara Kapugedera, Uttam Sarkar, Paul Collingwood, Simon Katich & Jack "The Man" McNamara
Go Tigers!
R.I.P. Fardin

Mainly that I think, yeah. Also it's a pain to have signature images (or signatures, for that matter) that extends the post size to be bigger than the post if it had no signature.

I should probably add that I don't find Geg's signature unacceptably long by any stretch and was strongly opposed to the idea a little while ago of 5-line capping sigs. Just seemed a slightly ironic comment(!)

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I should probably add that I don't find Geg's signature unacceptably long by any stretch and was strongly opposed to the idea a little while ago of 5-line capping sigs. Just seemed a slightly ironic comment(!)

You've totally missed the point here.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yes, images in signatures were disabled due to loading times. Most members at the time were in favour of us doing down that route.

Hmm, don't tell me you are still using dialup!

 

[Precambrian]

Hmm, don't tell me you are still using dialup!

I used to have dialup until abt a month back.

 

[NZTailender]

Hmm...


I should probably add that I don't find Geg's signature unacceptably long by any stretch and was strongly opposed to the idea a little while ago of 5-line capping sigs. Just seemed a slightly ironic comment(!)

Been over this before.

 

[cpr]

Pics in sigs would be a bit rubbish IMO, all for limited sizes aswell. A Sig is a footnote, a small memento of who you are, long sigs are like signing a cheque and asking for a seperate piece of A4 paper to finish off on.