I've noticed recently that a few members have been including an image in their manual signature. While I suppose a reaction could be "this isn't hurting anyone", I beg to differ. Below, you will see who it is hurting, and how it is hurting them. First off, they waste my bandwidth downloading them. I am on a cable modem, so it doesn't slow down my page load times too much, but I can imagine that these would get annoying for people who are still using dial-up connections. Second, they waste the bandwidth of the site that is hosting the pictures. Having my own website, I know that bandwidth costs money. Chances are, these pictures aren't hosted on space that the member pays for. Therefore, they are leeching the images off of someone else's site, and are hurting that site's bandwidth. It may not seem like a big deal with images that are only a few KB, but every time a thread is loaded by a new JC member, that number multiplies. If this member posts in ten different threads, and each one of those threads gets a hundred page views (which I don't think is too unlikely), the kilobytes has been turned into megabytes. As a webmaster, I would hate the fact that someone is leeching my bandwidth, without my site getting any more traffic. That being said, the webmaster could take action. Personally, I have recently set up my website so that it will only display images if the request is coming from my site. If another site is requesting an image, a simple "Remote linking forbidden" image comes up. Other webmasters might not be as nice. They could easily have remote linking show a picture unsuitable for the JC, whether it is porn, or something else. Then, every post that this person made with the manual signature image would now have an inappropriate image. I wouldn't want to be the mod who has to go back and edit a hundred posts, to keep the JC a family-friendly place. Third, there isn't really a point to manual signature images. Does it help the discussion in any way? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that there is a reason that images aren't allowed in signatures. Perhaps it is because Snowboards didn't get the programming done. Perhaps they were disabled. After all, images take up a lot of room on the screen. If the administration of the JC took the steps to not allow images in signatures, couldn't a manual signature image be seen as a way to try to get around the rule? Even if images were allowed in signatures, I wouldn't like the idea of manual signature images. It isn't hard for an administrator to log in to someones account, and change their signature. That would change the image in all of their posts. With a manual signature, it has to be changed in every single post, which would be time-consuming. I'm pretty sure the moderators have something better to do than edit every single one of someone's posts. That being said, I think I have presented enough evidence as to why these images shouldn't be allowed. I am not trying to stir up drama. I just feel that the negatives out weigh the positives. Feel free to discuss this.