"Removed" would be a more adequate term.

I'm sure there's plenty more errors with it that I could come across, if I cared to seek them out.

Must be some missing conditional in the postbit template. I'll look into it someday.

Merv: seek them out.

I'm not going to actively seek them out, mostly because I'm not very good at that kind of stuff. I mostly came across that bug by chance, really. I just wanted to see how a sig I did would look in the space (disregarding the fact that I'm following the 75kb rule with my current sig.)

But if I do come across any more bugs by chance, I'll report them, and I do encourage those that are willing, to find the bugs in this system (mostly because I don't really like it.)

Part of the problem is that there is at least one easy way to circumvent the checker (by the way that Miles explained to me that it worked) that anyone wanting to use a larger signature could do. This checker, assuming it didn't throw out false negatives, would only keep people who don't want to break the rules from breaking them. People who want to break them still can.

Looking around, I found a blatently obvious way to circumvent it (that was so simple I couldn't believe I didn't think about it,) but we might not be thinking the same thing.

And so those people will receive warnings. I think most of the people who break the rules just do so unintentionally. The sig checker is still useful in that regard.

The problem is, how can people know if they're breaking the rules?

We say a 50kb max, which the checker checks, but we have an uploading system that allows for 75kb. The checker thinks we only allow one image, when the rules clearly define that we can have two.

Our rules, and the "main" enforcer of these rules aren't on the same page. This is something we should worry about more than people breaking these rules.

The checker allows 2 images. It is set to allow 2 images. If it doesn't, those 2 images probably break one of the other rules together or something, or the system is buggy. (You should report the bugs in the actual feature thread instead of this one so they have a better chance of being seen).

As for the 75kb thing, that's bobo's mistake. When he created chocosig again he must've forgotten about the 50kb limit. I can try to find a way to make it correct if I can find where this little hack is stored.

In my example, the error it throws says that my images are either larger than 550x300 (which they aren't, they total to 450x216,) or larger than 50kb (they would at most total 25kb, I believe.)

The system is buggy.

I think there's a fair amount of desire amongst the user base to up the limit.

This 50kb shit is ridiculous. I don't honestly see where it can make that much of a difference. To 56k people that's what, a half second increase in loading time per signature image? (This is assuming the image was at 75k.)

Hmm, so my signature was mysteriously deleted. Ok, fine... but I would have liked a PM or something TELLING ME, instead of just "BAM, UR SIG IS LIKE TOTALLY GONE". Also, why was my signature just NOW removed, when these rules have been up for a month?

Clearly if it was against the rules, then it would have been logically removed within a day, but I've had my SOAP extension up for more then a week.
(This thread's Creation Date: March 6th, today is April 4th, close enough)

So, when it says image dimensions, does this go for each individual image, or all together? The latter is the only reason I see mine being removed, because I carefully made sure to have both images LESS then 50k.

So, yeah I'd like an explanation.

I have no idea why your signature was removed. Any mod could have done it. :3 *stealth edits your sig*

Oh, I know it's just a slight increase and it wouldn't really matter much. We just don't wanna change it since we enjoy watching everyone beg for the increase all the time. Our goal is to make your experience here at gamingforce the worst one possible. =D

The explanation is in the first post, which you obviously didn't read.

The wording on here still connotates that each individual image has a max of 500 by 300, not both images combined. THAT IS WHY I ASKED right now.
Also, I DID read it, back when I added the second image, and it came out to around 45-47k IIRC.

My only real complaint is that I was given no warning or message indicating that I had allegedly violated the signature rules.

What part of "550 pixels wide and 300 pixels high. Total." is unclear to you?

I explained what part in my above post.

...but I'll spell it out:
It was unclear to me if "Maximum image dimensions: 550 pixels wide, 300 pixels high (total)"
was meant to indicate both images, or the max dimensions of a single image.

Uh, if it referred to a single image, why would there be the word total?

*sigh*

The signature guidelines are in place to prevent stretching tables on a display 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels high. The total number of images you are allowed to have in your signature. The total filesize the image(s) in your signature are allowed to take up is 50kb, and the total area the image(s) in your signature are allowed to take up is 550 pixels wide and 300 pixels high.

If the limits were meant to allow two images that could each be up to 550 pixels wide and 300 pixels high, it would stretch the tables on a 800x600 display, would it not?

THINK, STUPID!

when I see total for something, it's not for just one thing but for ALL of them >.>

and btw Merv Burger I don,t understand how you're sig is now 73kb when you come here and evryone is telling you that the maximum (and TOTAL which mean all images in the sig, just in case Dark nation didn't understand again) is 50kb ...

I sometime so have the urge to pm some mod, because I look often at the sig and everytime I see something suspicious(sp?) I check to see if the sig is in the limits... but most of the time when it isn't I don't really tell anyone, mainly because I don't know who XD and I doN,t think that is worth pointing every single sig that is out of limit...

Inhert, the "Report Post" button is there for a reason. See the little red triangle icon under a poster's information? Hit that on a post where someone has a bad sig and you can report it to staff so it'd be dealt with as appropriate. If you're using the Lite Set, this'd simply be a "Report" text link under the poster's avatar.

Someone knows how to right-click!

I'm using a sig that's over 50kb because I'm making a statement that I support the Chocosig guideline of 75kb.

I'll ask you a question, did it take any more time to download than my 50kb version?

Chances are, it didn't.

I was about to change it, but since you decided to just go and point it out, I'm going to keep it for longer, now.

And nobody was tell me to change my signature. In fact, I've said at least once that my signature was following 75kb.

Actually, I've been using it since Chocosig was put back in. Although, I'm serious when I say that it's retardedly simple to bypass.

>.> now I feel stupid... I never notice this or even know what it was doing >.<

and yeah I did say I look often if sig are under limit XD

What's this "our goal" bullshit, Miles? I'm all for 75kb. I support Merv on this all the way.

Because your sig was up for an entire month. That's a major infraction!

I'd like to know just how many people on Gamingforce download under 1mbps. I think this thread indicates that there are little members who have 56k or a slow connection speed. This means that 75k per signature wouldn't be a pain for most people, or the majority.

Even if it were set at 70kb. That's pretty reasonable, and that's 100kb per user when you total their avatar with their signature. If people have problems loading lengthy threads, they can shorten their posts per page.