E. Costigan
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,026
Images Removed?
I've noticed that many signatures now have a message from one of you guys, with some new restrictions. Now, I'm not complaining or anything, but perhaps we can get a list of what is approvable now, so we won't get in trouble in the future? 
Report
Quote
| Reply
Just had a bit of a mad signature cull, been planning to do it for a few weeks.
Only three rules:
- Signatures should be no larger than 400 pixels wide and 200 pixels high
- They should not be animated
- Must be suitable for a family audience
The last two were added fairly recently.
It's just a way of preventing the signatures getting too distracting, whilst allowing people to view the website from locations like at work.
Only three rules:
- Signatures should be no larger than 400 pixels wide and 200 pixels high
- They should not be animated
- Must be suitable for a family audience
The last two were added fairly recently.
It's just a way of preventing the signatures getting too distracting, whilst allowing people to view the website from locations like at work.
Sounds mighty fair to me. Mine's just in the ball park. Hope those rules stay the same, come DVDActive.
What does suitable for the family audience mean since most of the pictures I've seen on here don't strike me as "family friendly"!
I guess I am one of the few that wouldn't mind a ban on all images. I just don't see that they actually add anything to the message boards.
I guess I am one of the few that wouldn't mind a ban on all images. I just don't see that they actually add anything to the message boards.
Quote: Originally posted by Malcolm Campbell
Only three rules:
- Signatures should be no larger than 400 pixels wide and 200 pixels high
- They should not be animated
- Must be suitable for a family audience
.
Why are you giving us the choice for sigs but with rules to follow?
Only three rules:
- Signatures should be no larger than 400 pixels wide and 200 pixels high
- They should not be animated
- Must be suitable for a family audience
.
Why are you giving us the choice for sigs but with rules to follow?
I suppose having an extreme close up avatar of a woman receiving a double entry would be out of the question then?
Just use good judgment when selecting an image for your signature if you choose to have one. A good rule of thumb for what is meant by 'family friendly' is don't use an image that you wouldn't want your grandmother seeing associated with you.
It is of my grandmother 
Quote: Originally posted by Danny Boy
Why are you giving us the choice for sigs but with rules to follow?
I do not like defining rules, so there were none before. Any that are added will be kept to a minimum.
Why are you giving us the choice for sigs but with rules to follow?
I do not like defining rules, so there were none before. Any that are added will be kept to a minimum.
I try to keep my sig's PG-13. That's why you havent seen any of Monica Bellucci naked, rolling around in water
Quote: Originally posted by floyd dylan
I suppose having an extreme close up avatar of a woman receiving a double entry would be out of the question then?
Quote: Originally posted by floyd dylan
It is of my grandmotherLOL!
Thanks Floyd, made my day!
I suppose having an extreme close up avatar of a woman receiving a double entry would be out of the question then?
Quote: Originally posted by floyd dylan
It is of my grandmother
LOL!Thanks Floyd, made my day!
I've found a way to get explicit images onto the site without falling foul of our new Gestapo-esque 'rules'.
LMAO very funny.
Quote: Originally posted by Jonny "Me You"
I try to keep my sig's PG-13. That's why you havent seen any of Monica Bellucci naked, rolling around in waterI was hoping that sometime a sig like that would come by.
I try to keep my sig's PG-13. That's why you havent seen any of Monica Bellucci naked, rolling around in water
I was hoping that sometime a sig like that would come by.
Maybe I am easily amused, but I think it is funny that we have an admin grumbling about the images.
Chris, maybe the only thing that was wrong with the previous images was that they were "animated"
Chris, maybe the only thing that was wrong with the previous images was that they were "animated"
They weren't animated in the traditional sense. It was just two images showing in sequence, not a bird taking her bra off or owt.
I'm not particularly in favour of the swear filter or the new image rules, but they are apparently necessary to keep the site in the black so what do you do?
Maybe one day I'll wn the lottery, then I could have a naked Asian babe yelling fuck off as my sig
I'm not particularly in favour of the swear filter or the new image rules, but they are apparently necessary to keep the site in the black so what do you do?
Maybe one day I'll wn the lottery, then I could have a naked Asian babe yelling fuck off as my sig
Quote: Originally posted by Jonny "Me You"
I try to keep my sig's PG-13. That's why you havent seen any of Monica Bellucci naked, rolling around in water
Dammit Jonny!!!
And Chris, fight the power! Love that sig!
I try to keep my sig's PG-13. That's why you havent seen any of Monica Bellucci naked, rolling around in water
Dammit Jonny!!!
And Chris, fight the power! Love that sig!
oh dude, mine showed no t@a. it wouldn't even be considered as erotic. I've seen more skin on the beach. I think your going a little extreme in your removals. Of course my current sig is hopefully approved. Just a little more strap seen which is purely cosmetic. Geesh %#=)9*
If she isn't decent, I'll eat Ashl...I mean I'll eat my hat.
If she isn't decent, I'll eat Ashl...I mean I'll eat my hat.
Quote: Originally posted by Chris Gould
They weren't animated in the traditional sense. It was just two images showing in sequence, not a bird taking her bra off or owt.
I'm not particularly in favour of the swear filter or the new image rules, but they are apparently necessary to keep the site in the black so what do you do?
Maybe one day I'll wn the lottery, then I could have a naked Asian babe yelling fuck off as my sig
Still your showing the split. Shame on you.
Nowt wrong with a bit of camel toe.
Especially when said camel has a painted on shoe.
Quote: Originally posted by Chris Gould
Nowt wrong with a bit of camel toe.
I understand, thanks for spreading the vibe.
Nowt wrong with a bit of camel toe.
I understand, thanks for spreading the vibe.
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Reviewer Agony
American Pie Presents: The Book of Love
UK - DVD R2
Long Weekend
UK - DVD R2
White Chicks
UK - DVD R2
Tortured, The
UK - BD RB
Set Up
US - BD RA
Latest News
Disney Animation Blu-rays
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Prince of Darkness
US - BD RA
ABC TV
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Universal Steelbooks
US - BD RA
Criterion August Releases
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Latest Reviews
Cloud Atlas
US - BD
Daleks: Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (Doctor Who)
UK - BD RB
Doctor Who and the Daleks
UK - BD RB
Motel Hell
UK - BD RB
Great Escape, The
US - BD RA
Most Talked About
More Scream Factory News
US - BD RA
Texas Chainsaw (2013, 2D)
US - BD RA
Spring Breakers
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Host, The
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Universal Steelbooks
US - BD RA
