The return of the [img] tag and shortening the sigs

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:52 pm

[QUOTE=Buck Satan]How often was the [IMG] code used before? Is it a big deal to have to post pictures via an attachment instead of being able to post them directly into a thread? We have certainly seen the mischief that can be caused with the [IMG] tag, and unless it's a serious detriment, I'd rather not reinstate it.
[/QUOTE]

I understand your reluctance, Buck, but what I miss is the ability to load in the occasional, especially effective emoticon graphic, particularly animated ones. If we're not going to get back [img], can we at least increase our supply of emoticons?

Post by **BuckGB** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:12 pm

Alright, I went ahead and enabled the [IMG] code once again, so hopefully we don't see anymore abuse of it.

I'd like to get some more feedback on the signature rule, though, before we actually add one to the list. How do Vicsun's suggestions look to everyone?

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:00 pm

[QUOTE=Buck Satan]How do Vicsun's suggestions look to everyone?[/QUOTE]
There is nothing in there that i would dissagree/have a problem with.
He has a very good point about the number of lines, most posts are shorter then the avarage signature.
I have to admit that the new layout of the site (avatar and name above the post instead of to the left) made me notice the number of lines in signatures more.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:26 pm

The only thing I would see as a problem would be a signature line that's very large--so Vicsun and I are on the same wavelength.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:57 pm

Yay! Thanks Buck!

Re: signatures, my biggest issue is when they are in huge letters; it just looks bad. Overall, I agree with Vicsun's suggestions though

Adahn · Post by **Adahn** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:46 am

Alright I *may* agreed that really big signatures are useless, but keep in mind that you guys keep limiting us more and more, don't think we don't see what you're doin' here. I for one understand that it's annoying to scroll past a huge signature and small post, but you took away the images then you reinstate them probably just to take them away as soon as some poor sap posts something again, you took away our right to have images in our signature, at the very least let us keep our "text" ones. It's not like we're killing the planet with them. Can't we have a little bit of freedom? I'm glad that Mr. Satan here is sane enough not to listen to your gibbes completely Vicsun. Thanks for having the images back, but how exactly do you plan on controling people from using them abusively? Through fear of getting banned?

Ideal Maxima · Post by **Ideal Maxima** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:42 am

see, now i made my siggy MUUUUCH SHORTER... is that good enough for you vicsun?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:21 am

Adahn wrote:...but you took away the images then you reinstate them probably just to take them away as soon as some poor sap posts something again,

You didn't see the image in question, did you? No person posting tubgirl should be referred to as a 'poor sap', ever.

you took away our right to have images in our signature, at the very least let us keep our "text" ones. It's not like we're killing the planet with them. Can't we have a little bit of freedom?

'Rights' and 'freedom'? Please

Get a grip.

I'm glad that Mr. Satan here is sane enough not to listen to your gibbes completely Vicsun.

Woah! No need for personal attacks here!
So only someone insane would listen to me? And my suggestions are either gibbers or gibes, depending on what word you failed to spell? Frankly, I wouldn't mind someone criticizing the rules I suggested, since criticism usually brings improvement, but simply dismissing all of them in a rude manner without stating reasons for the dismissal in spite of the fact that it appears the majority of posters agree with them strikes me as illogical and inane. If you had instead said what aspects of my posts you disagreed with, a discussion would have been possible.

Thanks for having the images back, but how exactly do you plan on controling people from using them abusively? Through fear of getting banned?

Wait, was the part of my post appealing for the return of the [img] tag less of a gibe/gibber?
As I don't exactly see the point your question is trying to make, I'll try to answer it on a literal level:
I would hope that people's own sensibilities would prevent them from posting shock-site images such as goatse or tubgirl, but if someone does post such an image he should most definitely be banned. Are you suggesting otherwise?

edit: thanks, DEN. I do indeed think your sig looks a lot better now

This thread wasn't specifically aimed at you, though, if that's what you're thinking - it was created as a response to what appeared to me was an emerging trend of enlarging sigs.

Adahn · Post by **Adahn** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:32 pm

Sorry about that Vicsun, you're right I didn't see the image. I did a search for it on the net... and let's just say it was enough to make me shut up... gross. And you're right, any guy posting that should be banned. If not worse.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:57 pm

Eventhough things have calmed down again - I'll just like to remind people about forum rule #1

#1 - Flaming, humiliating, ridiculing, or belittling other members will not be tolerated. If you have an issue with another member, take it to private messages or email.

Moderate ones own language in the posts - or it will be done for you.

Also - just to clarify - Image signatures have never been allowed on GameBanshee (that I know of) in the 4 years I've visited this board, so that is a mute point in the discussion about the img. tag and large text signatures.

Now - thread back on track please.....

__________________
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:28 pm

Xandax is right; my discussion with Adahn did not belong here. I believe the matter to be settled - apologies go out to Adahn for any offence taken

Now that I'm done derailing my own thread, we should get back on topic. Does anyone have any issues with my proposal as it currently stands? Previously I had also suggested that there are no fully bolded/italicized signatures and that no annoying colors are used, but later removed the suggestions. I actually took some time to look through people's signatures and the two signatures I noted (fable's bold quotation and Sytze's italicized dreams) didn't bother me and even looked quite stylish.
The second suggestion I only dropped because it was too subjective to enforce, and it colors aren't really a big problem. If anyone disagrees or has any ideas please post. I don't like the pressure of rules being created based on my ideas

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:07 am

I dislike very large signatures because it detracts from the posting, so I wouldn't mind some rules about them.

My concern however, is to many and to complex rules about them which will make it difficult, but I'll moderate any guidelines/rules given by Buck on the matter

One thing I would definately never like to see is images in signatures. Also I would have loved to simply see the size be removed from signature creation (isn't that possible, simply to remove it from the code that is displayed when creating a signature ... ), but if that isn't possible then simply only allow normal size.
Quotation I dont' really know about - I can see the problem with exessive usage, but a single quote in signature dosen't matter much, because it is the "same style" as the forums post.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:31 pm

Hi everyone

Since someone has complained about the largeness of my sig (which I've had since April 03 with no complaints), I wanted to weigh in.
I like the idea of being able to use quotes from actual conversations, messages, etc. in GB in our sigs - but isn't there some way to do the code so that they will be smaller? My quotes have large boxes around them and a lot of space - like more that one line - between sentences. I really really really don't want to write anything in code myself - frankly, I just don't have the time. I have faded away from GB over the past year, and this kind of nitpicking over little things doesn't exactly make me feel welcomed back, and the reason I faded away was because of all the in-fighting on SYM, but that's another story. Anyway - my advice to my lover, Buck, is that limiting the size or color or whatever someone is feeling anal about should be built right into the code of the bulletin board and should not entail a lot of energy on the member's part.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:16 pm

[QUOTE=VoodooDali]Hi everyone

Since someone has complained about the largeness of my sig (which I've had since April 03 with no complaints), I wanted to weigh in.
I like the idea of being able to use quotes from actual conversations, messages, etc. in GB in our sigs - but isn't there some way to do the code so that they will be smaller? My quotes have large boxes around them and a lot of space - like more that one line - between sentences. I really really really don't want to write anything in code myself - frankly, I just don't have the time. I have faded away from GB over the past year, and this kind of nitpicking over little things doesn't exactly make me feel welcomed back, and the reason I faded away was because of all the in-fighting on SYM, but that's another story. Anyway - my advice to my lover, Buck, is that limiting the size or color or whatever someone is feeling anal about should be built right into the code of the bulletin board and should not entail a lot of energy on the member's part.[/QUOTE]
Formatting text is hard and time-consuming

If you articulate what you want your sig to be a bit more clearly I'll gladly do it for you if it means you'll stick around

Oh, and coding fixed signature lenghs into the board isn't possible - vBulletin haven't released the code (to my knowledge) and it would take countless hours re-writing the software even if they had. Right now the only options Buck has is to limit the maximum number of characters and allow/disallow html/vB code.

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:59 pm

I was wondering if there has been a disission made on the signatures jet.

giles337 · Post by **giles337** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:56 am

Wouldn't it be easier just too encouage common sense when creating signatures? Rather than strict guidelines saying what can and can't be used; couldn't we just 'self-moderate' our signatures, and if we feel somone is being excessive, let them know how we feel. Most of the posters on this forum are more than compliant enough for this, and it would prevent unfair rulings.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:07 pm

[QUOTE=giles337]Wouldn't it be easier just too encouage common sense when creating signatures? Rather than strict guidelines saying what can and can't be used; couldn't we just 'self-moderate' our signatures, and if we feel somone is being excessive, let them know how we feel. Most of the posters on this forum are more than compliant enough for this, and it would prevent unfair rulings.[/QUOTE]
How can you encourage common sense? I think a feat like this would be impossible; if it was it would have been used on a large scale and our world would be a better place

The people who self-moderate their signatures won't be affected by the guidlines. Frankly, I would feel awkward asking someone to change their sig just because I don't like it. If there are a set of rules on which we've agreed upon, I would know I'm not over-reacting.
As for unfair rulings, I'm not really sure I know what you mean. I think, if anything, having non-ambiguous rules would prevent unfair rulings as what is and isn't allowed will be obvious.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:46 pm

I have seen a couple that push at the boundaries of abuse, IMO. They're very large and annoying even at normal text size. Maybe this issue should be revisited.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:46 pm

giles337 wrote:Wouldn't it be easier just too encouage common sense when creating signatures? Rather than strict guidelines saying what can and can't be used; couldn't we just 'self-moderate' our signatures, and if we feel somone is being excessive, let them know how we feel. Most of the posters on this forum are more than compliant enough for this, and it would prevent unfair rulings.

I just got the following pm in a response to a request of making a font in a sig a bit smaller than size 7

Why should i change who i am to fit your needs?

And that is why self-moderating and kindly requesting doesn't work.

Ideal Maxima · Post by **Ideal Maxima** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:50 pm

lemme guess, does his name start with D end with S and have emorti in the middle?

If so, i've been meaning to talk to him about that, his siggy always draws my attention away from what i was reading for a good 5 seconds, it's hard to focus when there is such large writing sitting right above or beneath the post you are viewing.

and if it isn't him your talking about... oh well