Well, its good that it has been brought to the attention of the mods, hopefully the guidelines will be made clearer/standardized soon :)

 

I'm still waiting, I guess I can go back to my old sig in the meantime and link to users like should mine be again jeopardized. It would have been nice to have an appology, though. But I guess since the rules state that it's not permissible to say a moderator is wrong, they aren't supposed to admit they are. The joys of bureaucracy :|

Be sure we are currently discussing this matter. I'll let you know, however, that it's hard to come up with a set of rules that avoids an arduous and tedious work for all moderators -like checking every signature down to the pixel- while avoiding situations like this one.

 

 

 

You see, we usually had left this to be determined by a moderator's discretion after a couple of simple guidelines. It is until now that we'll have to introduce bureaucracy and standards.

 

 

 

Don't take me wrong; I contempt injustice just as much as you do, and hopefully the rules will indeed be much clearer now.

No reason to keep this open, it's degenerating back into the old topic. Rest assured we are discussing a revision of the rules, and we'll let you know by way of global announcement or similar when we make a final decision. Like meol said, it's a pain to come up with a decent, failsafe rule that doesn't make it awkward for moderators to determine if the signature in question is breaking the rules or not.

 

 

 

Please, no more topics about this for now.

 

Locked.