I've had a signature wich is removed, twice, with apparently no real reason? I'd like to know why. I've read the rules but they don't break the rules, as fas as I can see it! At first, I had this picture in my sig: click here It has no nudity (every private part is covered), no violence, doesn't 'suggest' anything etc. It's completely suitable for kids or whatever. It doesn't stretch the forum table (a lot of sigs are 525 pixels in width) and i especially made mine a pixel léss wide to be sure. Though it was too high. Allright. So I edited it, and my sig became: It's alot less high then for example undeadmaster's sig, or one of the administrators with the halo flash thing in his sig.. So the height problem should be fixed now. Then why has it been removed agáin?? Or is it allowed for some of the users to have high signatures while other people may not do that? I haven't read anything about that, but if that's the case then I'll do this one: But I thought I'd bring it up here first, before it would be removed agáin for whatever reason.. If it's not allowed, then why is it not allowed? I've also seen no rules saying that for example only bands or computergames may be in a signature.. And i've seen sigs with the faces of slipknot for example, I'd think that would be a lot less suitable for kids then a belly (wich you'd see every summer when you step through your front door)? Thanks in advance for clearing it up.
Hello Dillusion, perhaps I could best explain why your signature was removed. If you look under the official forum rules in Newbie Camp (I have bolded out important parts): The woman in your signature, despite being covered, is barely clothed at best. The woman does not appear to be wearing even a skirt and the only thing thats keeping her..privates..from being exposed is a small tiny, black belt. I do not see how this image could be deemed 'suitable for kids' when you can see the bottom half of her breasts in the tiny pic, and a very sexual shot of her legs and mid-rift in the bigger photo. Lastly, I can tell you right now that we wouldn't support the smaller picture either because any shot of a woman's privates is offensive, and thus would not be toleratable on the LPA forums. In the past some of our members' signatures have pushed limits (such as one featuring Michele Branch from Maxim) but when the line is crossed we have no choice but to remove them without warning from the person's signature. I was not the one who removed the image but I can guarantee you that whoever did, would provide the same reasons as I gave for it's removal. Having already removed the swear filter, I can assure you that we're not going to allow sexual photographs on top of that. I'm sorry.
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. We removed a signature of Britney Spears because she was half-naked, so it would've been extremely unfair if we would've let you keep your signature of a half-naked girl. We don't play favorites here.
You had a full picture of the girl before the top picture in your signature. It was a full picture, not a cropped one, and it DID break the forums table. I saw a big white space next to the top banner of the site, removed your signature, and then it went back to normal. Great job, Holmes. Seeing the fact that I removed your signature in the first place, who the hell do you think you are to put it back in? I took it out for a damn good reason, as Derek said, and I don't expect to be undermined by childish newbies who have no respect for the actions of staff. Not to mention that you were a complete smartass in your signature to me, which makes you look so ridiculous for thinking you can do anything about it. From now on, when we do something, don't reverse it. Fine and simple.
Sorry, but i do kinda agree on that When I get children, id rather see them watch a belly then a clown with blood on his face and a dark face with a zipper as a mouth. But im Dutch, so dont listen to me
@Derek: Thank you for your clear explanation, my definition of 'offensive' is somewhat less broad, and with the picture replaced with a standard 'no offensive images, no stretching, too large' I didn't know that that was the reason that it was removed, so it seemed unfair, but now I understand. So thanks. and @Mark: the only time it did streth the table was when I was editing my signature and I accidentally put text at the right of the picture instead of under it.. it was like that for about one second at the most, plus that people who saw the signature and asked who that girl was didn't mention any stretching (if it did, they probably would have).. so it just didn't make any sense.. And well, to be honest, you can't demand that a user abides by the removal of his/her signature, when it's not apparent why it's been removed in the first place.. Because then it just seems like playing favourites. But the topic can be closed now
I can vouch for this as truth because I saw that the text on the side of the picture caused the stretching, not the picture itself. Anyways, thread closed.
In your first post of this thread, you have a picture within a picture. That smaller picture was blown up to full size, and thus, stretched the forums, causing its first removal. Then you decided to put it back in, which prompted a second removal. During this second time, this was when you put the text in to stretch the forums a second time. The signature was not removed the second time because of stretching, for there was none, as you had removed the words to the right. It was removed due to its sexually explicit nature and your disregard for my explanation. Will can vouch for this. I gave an explanation as to why the signature was removed in your singature. I said it broke the keep-it-clean rule. That's all you needed to hear. You are not the judge of what is offensive or not, staff is. Tell me what other signatures we haven't removed here that are worse or could be considered along the same lines of your picture. PM me when you find an example. Oh, that's right, you're not going to find an example because there are none, thus making your argument about favoritism void and groundless.