Suggestions - Proposed change to signature standards

Hi.

I'd like to propose a change to the signature standards as found at http://flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q79. It seems to me that it should not be against the rules to use a font size smaller than the standard post font size, as it's less obtrusive. Yet, some people feel we must follow the letter of the law and read the rule as written rather than as intended. Can it be changed to say "a font size no larger than the normal posting font size" rather than "the normal posting font size"?

Thanks for you consideration.

Interesting. I used to have my sig in Size=1, but it won't let me go small anymore.

actually, as i understand it, the Moderators have already addressed this issue and the smaller function is in place (yes, they did not want to eliminate that as an option). Not sure how far back you might have tried this but please let me know.

Thanks Randy. When I changed my Sig yesterday it returned an error along the lines of "the size tag is no longer accepted". All is good now! ^

I would seem to me that the appearance of signature lines would clearly be something, like smilies and avatars, which would fall under the purview of TalkBoard. Is this not correct?

Thank you, Randy.

Thank goodness the TB takes care of such important things like smilies.

The TalkBoard has always handled signature questions, i think there are three different threads in the TB forum related to such. The problem is that it's one thing for the TB to look at any issue like this and come up with a plan, but then dump it on the mods to enforce and when they do then members pick on the mods. Might i suggest that if you decide anything, remember and take responsibility for the decision, good, bad or indifferent. Frankly I do not like the TB to put the volunteers into any role as police people, that's not why they are here though they get assigned that role. So, be careful..... For me, I'd suggest that there are no smilies or avatars and any graphic allowed in sigs, that makes it less likely, but not totally, to put the burden on a volunteer to make a judgment call on whether too many smiles and avatars are offensive. Remember, it's all in the eye of the person looking at it so please don't ever come back and complain if one person sees it different than another.

I would seem to me that the appearance of signature lines would clearly be something, like smilies and avatars, which would fall under the purview of TalkBoard. Is this not correct?

I wholeheartedly agree that avatars in signature lines would be totally disruptive, as would animated graphics and huge fonts.

So, please forgive me, but I am still a little unclear. Who makes the rules regarding signature lines, TalkBoard or the Moderators?

I suggest you search the private forum - the answer to your question is on there.

actually, as i understand it, the Moderators have already addressed this issue and the smaller function is in place (yes, they did not want to eliminate that as an option). Not sure how far back you might have tried this but please let me know.
I, and several others on the United forum, were instructed on November 21 that we were not allowed to make our signatures smaller than the normal posting font. I will try again and point the moderator to this thread if he continues to press the issue.

Added: When I try to change my signature, I see the options are set to Allow Size BBCode Yes. I don't see the "smaller" function you mention.

When I changed my Sig yesterday it returned an error along the lines of "the size tag is no longer accepted".
It still allows me to do it.