this is kinda a dumb question but....

why is the sig size at the most 400x200?

Becasue once people start having huge signature images not only does it take long for users of Dial-up to load ever page that a signature is on, but also they bcome too large for the screen. Big signatures are annopying, as it is no most signatures that you see after a person's post every single time are larger than their average post. People should be able to speak their thoughts through posts not huge images.

Plus people should be able to recognize you bye your name, posting skill, and avatar, no by hoow annoying your sig size and and how long it tkaes to load you up

because otherwise your sig ends up twice as long as your posts...

really, besides that, the longer a sig is, the longer it takes to load, and after a point it just gets absurd...

ZeldaFreak++ hit the nail right on the head with that. Not only do huge signature images look bad, but they also take up alot of space and take time for people on dia-up connections to load. Personally, I'm very fond of sleek, thin banners, which look good and don't detract attention from the post itself.

It should also be noted that there's an inverse relationship between the quality of a given user's posts, and the size of their signature.... of course, I kid.

There's also the simple design consideration: Sigs that are too wide could force users running at low resolutions to have to scroll left and right, as well as up and down, making reading a huge hassle. On forums without such restrictions, it happens more often than you'd think.

If I had my way, we'd half the allowed height.

And I wouldn't be complaining either. :p

Seriously, though, I don't think this topic needs to be open much longer. This aspect of the Rules isn't going to be changed anytime soon.

Good point Locked.