4786
Post by: legoburner
With the large number of offtopic images in signatures appearing now, do you think it is time to disable images in signatures? Lurkers please vote too (you are allowed) as I'm curious how everyone feels. This would not include the dakka army icons as they have always been a staple of dakka and will continue to be so. I'm not planning to change anything but I was curious how the rest of dakka feels about signature images.
7375
Post by: BrookM
I seem to get a LOT of flak and comments on my current signature for some odd reason. Well, the option to disable signatures is always nice, but not that needed in my opinion. The boards already prevent people from posting page stretching anus gapers in their sig-lines, so no real harm is done.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
I would be okay with keeping them, but limiting their size by number of lines they can take up.
I am not a fan of a signature that is 10 times the size of the post it is attached to. It can actually be difficult to find what someone is posting if it is squashed between two gigantic signatures.
6035
Post by: Techboss
I have them turned off as is because it interferes with reading the content. Most people sig pics are obnoxious anyway.
8558
Post by: Grokin
I turn them off for every board I visit.
752
Post by: Polonius
Can you currently just disable signature images? I don't want to lose sigs entirely, but most images are of negative net value to me, particularly after multiple posts.
I voted no, mostly because I'm more interested in what other posters have to say, not what image they find amusing.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I vote off too, mostly because some are so ridiculously oversized.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
I would like the option to turn them off, either pics, text or both.
On the one hand, you do get some good sigs and the like, but on the other giant stupid pictures that mess with the width of your browser window (I am looking at YOU Shuma) are irksome. Even if they are kind of funny too (still looking at Shuma).
459
Post by: Hellfury
Well users having the option of turning it off themselves is always good. But that is already there so no need to change that.
As far as disabling them completely...It gets a bit sticky I think. One of the benefits of the forum style we have enjoyed for the past decade is that it is more graphically involved than the days of Usenet. It can get a bit boring just reading a wall of tecxt broken only by...more text.
But then again you have people who make a huge wall of images including text with snide quips about how it is seven lines high and that is pretty contemptible to the rules issued by the admins here to be perfectly honest and frank. No need to name names, they know who they are and their flagrant condescension is visible to all.
Looking at Wehrkinds sig above me makes me sad to think that images would be turned off. He won a paint comp and was rewarded with a very cool looking, hard earned sig.
I just feel that a blanket removal of all images in isgs would be a shame.
I think how the B&C handles images in their sigs is a good way to make a compromise.
Here is a recent announcement they made regarding this issue:
Brother Tyler wrote:
Okay, I've been forced to edit a lot of signatures lately because they did not conform to the B&C forum rules. I'm posting this here as a reminder to everyone (and also to hopefully save myself and the other Administrators the work of having to edit signatures).
Members are allowed to post images in their signatures. In fact, members are allowed to post multiple images in their signatures. However, all images in a signature must display within a single space no wider than 350 pixels and no taller than 100 pixels. 1 or more pixels beyond either of those dimensions will get images removed (actually, we usually just turn them into hyperlinks so that members can still take a look at your images).
Also, images may not be hot-linked from third-party sites except for image sharing sites such as Imageshack and Photobucket. We recommend that members create their own free B&C galleries.
There have been a lot of Magic the Gathering "What Color Are You" banners that I've been removing. These are both larger than the maximum allowed dimensions (they're too wide) and hot-linked from a third-party site (Wizards of the Coast).
Also, we allow up to ten lines of normal sized text in signatures. The line count includes blank lines, quote tags, etc. If you use a larger sized font, the maximum line count will decrease based on the size of the font. A very important consideration here is screen resolution. Members whose screens are set to a larger size (such as mine - I use 1680x1050) can get more text than those whose screens are set smaller. For our purposes, we use 1024x768 as a standard size for gauging line count.
And as with all other things, signatures may not include objectionable material (adult content, profanity, politics, etc.).
The reason we have these restrictions on signatures is because the goal is to keep the focus of discussions on the actual discussion, not the signatures. Too many sites have much more relaxed rules governing the signatures of members, and as a result, signatures often overshadow the actual discussions. We want to keep everyone focused and limit the noise.
Now this isn't a warning to anyone, and we generally don't count signature edits as being hard-line violations of the rules. We tend to edit them, and then notify the members in order to explain why the signature was edited and the corrective action. Only when a member is a repeat offender and/or crosses the line in a signature is a warning issued.
Please take this as a heads up and look at your own signatures. If your signature isn't compliant with the forum rules as outlined above, please edit the signature yourself.
As always, if you have any questions or problems (or if I've said something above that contradicts the posted forum rules), feel free to contact me or any other administrator and we'll be happy to provide clarification and/or assistance.
So images over 350px long by 100 px tall is verboten. Perhaps a way to automatically resize sig images to fit within the confines of whatever size you think is best to save the mods trouble and time by going around and modifying a users prfile to remove the offending image size? I have no clue how difficult that would be to do so take that suggestion for what it is worth.
[EDIT]
s for my own personal opinion, I spend a fair amount of time making image sigs in photshop and try to make them as minimal as possible while still being able to convey the point. I think my current sig linking to the space hulk blog is the largest I have ever had in recent memory. But then again its just stylized text, so if it gets turned off I wont be too offended, but a bit sad.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Polonius wrote:Can you currently just disable signature images?
Yes, in your profile edit area there is a heading near the bottom that says:
"Disable all signatures when reading the forums:"
So it is indeed possible to disable sigs from the user interface. But it disables all sigs. text, pics, everything.
752
Post by: Polonius
Hellfury wrote:Polonius wrote:Can you currently just disable signature images?
Yes, in your profile edit area there is a heading near the bottom that says:
"Disable all signatures when reading the forums:"
So it is indeed possible to disable sigs from the user interface. But it disables all sigs. text, pics, everything.
Right, that's what I figured. I like reading the sig texts, I guess. I'm just not wild about the images.
I mean, I care very little in either direction, but in terms of personal preference, I'd rather not have the images.
5845
Post by: Teek
Well if I had a snazzy animated "Dakka Conversion Champ" banner like the painting contest winners, I'd probably argue in favor of pics.
As of right now though, those demon adoptables are getting annoying. And of course, the random Gigantor image sig is an eyesore.
The poll doesn't allow for it, but I'm in favor of the B&C style rule, small size limitations. Compromise, keeps both parties happy.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Anything larger that Wehrkind's or Hellfury's sig pics need to GO! If your Sig pic is bigger than what you post...it needs to go.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
I'm not sure, I guess it depends on more than just the picture.
Take LunaHound for example. She has a rather large pic in her signature, but it doesn't really extend her post, since the stuff under her Avatar (whichever that maybe today  )is longer than her sig as long as she posts more than 2 lines.
I would like to have my XBox gamertag in my sig, but I can't get the link to work.
7013
Post by: Ifurita
I'd be fine with just putting reasonable limits on the size of avatars and sig graphics
10345
Post by: LunaHound
I think for the people that dont like seeing Sig or Avatar should have option to leave it off . Rather then restricting others, which is unnecessary imo.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
The course of the B&C to handle sigs would be fine.
I'm not against pics, if the actual text / pics of the post is still possible to see as primary eyecatcher.
But some upcoming demons/dragons sig-expansions are just enhancing the needed space and loading time.
So maybe keep them in control.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
Argh! Luna, that's the 3rd Avatar in 2 days 
10761
Post by: karmaiko
BrookM wrote:I seem to get a LOT of flak and comments on my current signature for some odd reason. Well, the option to disable signatures is always nice, but not that needed in my opinion. The boards already prevent people from posting page stretching anus gapers in their sig-lines, so no real harm is done.
Really? You don't know?
7375
Post by: BrookM
karmaiko wrote:BrookM wrote:I seem to get a LOT of flak and comments on my current signature for some odd reason. Well, the option to disable signatures is always nice, but not that needed in my opinion. The boards already prevent people from posting page stretching anus gapers in their sig-lines, so no real harm is done.
Really? You don't know?
It's just a sig? I don't hear people rag on about the guy who has n*gger, sp*c and that other bad word in his avatar picture.
11544
Post by: IRPurple
LunaHound wrote:
I think for the people that dont like seeing Sig or Avatar should have option to leave it off . Rather then restricting others, which is unnecessary imo.
QFT
i totaly agree, people who dont want them, dont need to have them or have them showing.
but if they are realy the bane of all evil then bah, send me to hell...
844
Post by: stonefox
All I can say is that if the sig-ban passes, nobody will be able to appreciate some totally awesome dogs with glasses. 2009, year of the d09.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
LunaHound wrote:I think for the people that dont like seeing Sig or Avatar should have option to leave it off
QFT.
Profile / Edit Your Profile:
- Disable all signatures when reading the forums: Yes / No
- Hide all avatars when reading the forums: Yes / No
Allow the sigs, but keep the sig space small. It's a good compromise that keeps sigs from getting too stupid.
10618
Post by: Chrispy
I think that if your entire message body is smaller than your signature on that forum post, your entire post should be deleted, and you should be banned from the forums.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Chrispy wrote:I think that if your entire message body is smaller than your signature on that forum post, your entire post should be deleted, and you should be banned from the forums.
And for good measure one of the mods will visit you and shove something up your personal goatse so you won't do it again?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Good one, Brook.
Of course, you giving a 1-line reply against a huge sig means that you're just begging for it.
Are you really asking for it like that?
7375
Post by: BrookM
JohnHwangDD wrote:Good one, Brook.
Of course, you giving a 1-line reply against a huge sig means that you're just begging for it.
Are you really asking for it like that?
I fear nothing. 
 in all seriousness I think that some people are overreacting. /
5468
Post by: temprus
Wow, I am surprised at the number of yes votes at the moment.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
You can have my AWESOME faces when you pry them from my cold dead hands!
Besides, my signature is still smaller then the people with 20 stacked icons and lines of text. If I cared how many points of squats someone had I would ask.
844
Post by: stonefox
I'm so tempted to bring back my ~AWESOME~ faces in addition to the year of the dog but that might just be too much awesome for people to handle.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
stonefox wrote:I'm so tempted to bring back my ~AWESOME~ faces in addition to the year of the dog but that might just be too much awesome for people to handle.
People just wouldn't know what to do with themselves after seeing it.
7375
Post by: BrookM
The dogs and awesome faces would be too much for me, I know that much.
844
Post by: stonefox
ShumaGorath wrote:stonefox wrote:I'm so tempted to bring back my ~AWESOME~ faces in addition to the year of the dog but that might just be too much awesome for people to handle.
People just wouldn't know what to do with themselves after seeing it.
Well, in an ideal world they would go  then take it as a sign to go outside instead of visiting a warhams forum, but then I'd be lacking people to reply to.
11544
Post by: IRPurple
if you take away people sigs then thell just find other ways to full your screen.....
like this, as pointless as it seems it suits the purpose,
ok, now to stop being an asshat....
11
Post by: ph34r
There should be a greater restriction on sig image size. I voted yes to remove sig images, but there should be an option to turn them off, or small images should be able to stay.
I use adblock plus to block peoples sig images, such as shum, luna, basically anything that I think takes too much space. I don't want to look at them, so I don't. I also use this to block avatars that I don't care to look at (giant :awesome: smiley faces, gifs, etc)
4786
Post by: legoburner
All interesting stuff. As mentioned in the OP, I dont have any plans to change things just yet, but seeing the large number of people against sig images makes me more tempted to do stuff. I think I'll let this poll run for a while, then start another based on options. I lean away from anything that requires mods to patrol sigs as that takes away from mod time elsewhere, so I prefer a purely technical solution and will give it some thought.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think if you could implement something that blocked images but not text that would be the perfect solution. It might be really difficult to implement though, I dunno.
(Dakka is one of the best sites I've seen for implementing this stuff quickly and without fuss. )
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@lego: given that visible sigs are already technically enforced, and the option exists to turn off sigs and avatars, perhaps the real issue is education.
As in: Go to Profile and check "NO" for "Show Signatures".
4786
Post by: legoburner
One of the main problems with being able to turn off sigs is that anonymous users have to put up with them as they dont get that option. What to do about guest users (who make up about 80% of dakka's readership) is a key thing as happy guest users = good new posting users. Like I say, the next poll will be to see what the dakka community thinks is palatable, I'm not planning to do anything in particular as of right now, just seeing how the general dakka userbase feels about things.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
BrookM wrote:I seem to get a LOT of flak and comments on my current signature for some odd reason. .
You think? I know you know why too..
It's not a popular opinion but even signatures can be annoying and stupid and I'd rather not have to be reminded of my stupid comments later on just because someone happened to copy them and sig it.. lol
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
two_heads_talking wrote:It's not a popular opinion but even signatures can be annoying and stupid and I'd rather not have to be reminded of my stupid comments later on just because someone happened to copy them and sig it.. lol
Are you kidding? That's the best part!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I just want to mention that JHDD has a signature thats just as large as mine, and he uses no images at all.
9522
Post by: Madadh
I've never had a problem with images when they're reasonable in any forum I've been on and gods know I've been on plenty. It strikes me that if there's a basic rule of 'no ridiculously' oversized signatures then anyone that still can't manage to just scroll a little more can take a tiny amount of effort to register and disable then. I mean really, it takes like 2 minutes.
'Sides I like my little daemon thingie.
7375
Post by: BrookM
Maybe an emote for sarcasm might be in order, bunch of fricking idiots.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
legoburner wrote:One of the main problems with being able to turn off sigs is that anonymous users have to put up with them as they dont get that option. What to do about guest users (who make up about 80% of dakka's readership)
If they can't be bothered to fill in 3 fields to register, I'm not sure it matters. ____ ShumaGorath wrote:I just want to mention that JHDD has a signature thats just as large as mine, and he uses no images at all.
That is actually untrue - on my screen, the last "AWESOME!" icon starts a second line, and is truncated, whereas mine is shown in toto, including the Dakka Code. Also untrue in that I have at least 5 images in there - look little bit more closely and you might see them... ( FWIW, I like to think that I helped encourage more posters to list their armies in their sigs)
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
I'm capable of ignoring humungous sigs all by myself, thanks.
10086
Post by: Neconilis
legoburner wrote:One of the main problems with being able to turn off sigs is that anonymous users have to put up with them as they dont get that option. What to do about guest users (who make up about 80% of dakka's readership) is a key thing as happy guest users = good new posting users. Like I say, the next poll will be to see what the dakka community thinks is palatable, I'm not planning to do anything in particular as of right now, just seeing how the general dakka userbase feels about things.
To be completely honest the reason I first joined these forums was so I could turn off the signatures. Few places have the level of annoyance found in many of the signatures here. That being said I find very few forums as interesting as this one when it comes to 40K content and geek-based soap operas. I don't mind the concept of signatures, but many people fill them not only with way too much, such that it dwarfs the content of their actual post, but moreso than not totally irrelevant/frivolous material. I think an ideal solution would be to implement the same sigblock feature found over at the WotC forums. [sblock][/sblock] You can make that forced on actual signatures and it would add another option for actual comments so spoilers could be conveniently boxed, as well as large images, etc. I'd find that preferable for other reasons too, like with BrookM. I disable signatures here as a rule, but everyone started commenting on his sig without ever saying what it was, so I finally had to go turn it off and then find a post he made, read it, then go turn and it back on. If I could've just clicked a button to see what everyone was making a big deal over I would've been far happier. This also conveniently helps all of the lurkers as it's a function they can use without joining, or even signing in for any user at a computer that isn't their home one.
I hope that idea helps, and so everyone knows what I'm talking about...
Example
11542
Post by: Elric of Grans
Individuals can already control whether or not they see them, so I do not think banning them outright is necessary. On the other hand, some degree of regulation may be in order. I am sure no one wants to see a half-screen picture of Mr T that has `I WISH I WERE HALF AS AWESOME AS ELRIC!' scrolling across it at the bottom of all my posts. Then again, my assumption could be wrong!
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
BrookM wrote:karmaiko wrote:BrookM wrote:I seem to get a LOT of flak and comments on my current signature for some odd reason. Well, the option to disable signatures is always nice, but not that needed in my opinion. The boards already prevent people from posting page stretching anus gapers in their sig-lines, so no real harm is done.
Really? You don't know?
It's just a sig? I don't hear people rag on about the guy who has n*gger, sp*c and that other bad word in his avatar picture.
First off, you don't need to bring me into this conversation.
If you have a problem with my avatar, you should do 1 of 3 things...
1) Contact a Mod and let THEM decide if it's inappropriate.
2) Contact me and possibly get educated
3) Follow the link in my sig and possibly get educated.
I find it horrible, yet suitable, that you failed to mention the word that the avatar is all about.
I guess you don't MIND that one.
You see, the statement is about how SOME words are considered bad (thus, the asterisks), yet others -which are just as hurtful- aren't and how th "R" word should be considered AS BAD as those others.
Now, to stay ON TOPIC...
I think that the ability to post images in a sig line is at least as important as the ability to post quotes. I enjoy seeing people's avatars, sig lines and sig images. They have been, both, enlightening and amusing.
If some people don't like them, they already have the ability to turn them off. Why stifle those who DO want them?
Eric
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Since you brought it up, what I don't get: why "slow"?
Why not "idiot", "simpleton", "imbecile", or getting to the heart of things: "stupid"?
Is it just because "slow" has become the favored (i.e. Politically Correct) euphemism for all of the above?
But if "slow" really is that offensive (and I don't think it is, as, IMO, one would have to go "FULL slow" (ref. _Tropic Thunder_) to draw that conclusion), then, I think I'm going to favor "short bus" as the new descriptor going forward, as an euphemism for the euphemism.
Although, for sheer economy of prose, perhaps "idiot" and/or "dumb" are the way to go.
Or maybe dress it up with the classic tags of "mentally deficient" or "intellectually subnormal". As excessively polysyllabic descriptors, they do have the further advantage of conveying additional haughtiness on the part of the user.
[this missive brought to you by the letters "I" and "Q"]
8074
Post by: Faux Pas
I think the phrase you are looking for here is Neuroatypical thinking patterns.
At this point to continue talking about people being annoyed with pictures in sigs would be beating the dead horsey more deader.
You have a few options.
1. Enjoy them
2. Turn Them off
If in the case you have the half page long signature if you are a frequent enough poster someone will eventually chastise your expressionism and either you will be guilted into removing it or a mod will do that for you.
Thats my take on it at least.
752
Post by: Polonius
I guess I'd like to pipe up and say that I don't want to turn sigs off, because many people do post what armies they play, their dakka code, all that stuff that can actually be useful in providing context for a post (which, IMO is the whole point of a sig).
What I could do without are images that repetitive and similar in many ways to banner ads. You can write whatever you want in a sig, and I can ignore text. I can't ignore a large image, at least not completely.
This is purely personal preference, but I can say that if I could shut down sig pics, while keeping sig text I would do that in a hurry. I'm sympathetic to the argument of things being fun and expressive, but there's a flip side where after seeing the same picture 300 times it's not really fun nor is it telling me anything new about the person. At that point it's just more stuff to ignore.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Wow i just saw something i said been quoted into a sig o_o
Quote: LunaHound--- Why do people hate unpainted models? I mean is it lacking the realism to what we fantasize the plastic soldier men to be?
171
Post by: Lorek
BrookM wrote:Maybe an emote for sarcasm might be in order, bunch of fricking idiots.
Personal attacks, BrookM. They're not allowed here. Please refrain from doing so.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Iorek wrote:BrookM wrote:Maybe an emote for sarcasm might be in order, bunch of fricking idiots.
Personal attacks, BrookM. They're not allowed here. Please refrain from doing so.
Why the hell are you modding? Arent you supposed to be playing games or something?
Go play some damn games and have fun, Mr. Sister.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
Meh. Matters not.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Iorek wrote:BrookM wrote:Maybe an emote for sarcasm might be in order, bunch of fricking idiots.
Personal attacks, BrookM. They're not allowed here. Please refrain from doing so.
You mod that and not the guy with 3 racial slurs in his avatar who just indirectly threatened someone? God damn this forum has some awful mods. I mean this is just kind of mind blowing. Do you only act when someone PMs a complaint?
First off, you don't need to bring me into this conversation.
You were a part of the topic even if you weren't a part of the thread, being insulting to make a stand just makes you insulting. People won't understand the irony when you present it that way, you just end up being insulting. Its also pretty debatable wether those words even contain the same level of insult. slowed means something, it was repurposed to be an insult. No other word in bold present in your avatar had an original meaning. Well except F*g though to be honest I'm not sure how the original meaning has any relation to it's repurposed one.
131
Post by: malfred
I wouldn't mind a feature that allows me to disable the sig images.
10618
Post by: Chrispy
ShumaGorath wrote:I just want to mention that JHDD has a signature thats just as large as mine, and he uses no images at all.
Well, I'd like to just add that JHDD is not a problem for me since all his posts are ignored, thus his signature plus his text equal one line that lets me know that he's (thankfully) blocked.
I really actually like signatures. I think that it gives a good measure about where someone is coming from. Considering that I may be a newer member, and I haven't really figured out which members to accept at face value and which to take with a grain of salt (or which ones to ignore completely) I take a quick look at signatures to gauge what their online "professionalism." I just have a strong dislike for posts that are simple one liners and have the equivalent of 20 lines worth of GIANT PICTURE SIGNATURE.
I think a size cap would be a nice balance for both parties involved.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Chrispy wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:I just want to mention that JHDD has a signature thats just as large as mine, and he uses no images at all.
I just have a strong dislike for posts that are simple one liners and have the equivalent of 20 lines worth of GIANT PICTURE SIGNATURE.
None of that here!
11298
Post by: anticitizen013
I think Warhammer (or Warmachine/Hordes/whatever other game has a section on this website) sigs are perfectly acceptable. In fact I like seeming them. It really personalizes your small little slot on the web
Having the option to have them or not is always good, since some people are boring (if you don't like sigs and you are offended by this comment, I feel bad for you).
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
There's already the option of not displaying signatures. You're already cropping anything over 150 pixels.
The people who don't want them can opt out. I see no reason to disable them entirely.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Little banners aren't a problem. I mean, in the first page of this thread we have stonefox, Hellfury, Mattlov and Wehrkind all with very unobtrusive and simple banners.
Granted, I'm on a 24" widescreen, so everything looks tiny to me ('cept Shummy's pic), but I have nothing wrong with these, and my 'Jervis Homeboy' pic wasn't much bigger than those either.
752
Post by: Polonius
The Dreadnote wrote:There's already the option of not displaying signatures. You're already cropping anything over 150 pixels.
The people who don't want them can opt out. I see no reason to disable them entirely.
Ok, I've said this about three times, but I'll keep saying it as long as people don't understand.
I don't want to disable sigs, I want to disable pictures in sigs.
Text sigs can give context for a post. If there's a rousing discussion on IG tactics, and a person's sig announces that they play Space Marines and Eldar, it makes me realize that this person is slightly less likely to have any clue what they are talking about. On the flip side, in a discussion on IG apocolypse tactics, a person who announces that they own 7000pts of IG is probably somebody to listen to a little bit more.
It is true that pics in sigs do sometimes add context. An image that is annoying, omnipresent and adds nothing to the discussion may, alas, often be a reflection of the poster's postings. Still, I'd rather reach that conclusion by reading the posts, not by seeing yet another wacky image.
So, what I would propose would be a two teir opt out: disable all sigs, and disable images in sigs. If we were to couple that with a drive to get people to include useful info in their sigs (something I need to do, I know), then text sigs would be more useful and images would be less annoying to those of us that don't enjoy them.
I'm an old school usenet guy, I started talking about 40k on RGMW. While I'm not that old or cranky, I don't come here to see what people find funny enough to share every time they post. I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with the idea of banning images outright, because while I don't see their value that doesn't mean the value isn't there, but I do admit that I would prefer not to have them around.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
I agree with Polonius to some degree.
I used to scroll pass through HBMC's post when he had that jervis home boy sig lol.
*im sure lots of people have me on ignore too :"P
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
How could they? Your posts are always such a joy to read. 
I don't know gak about programming stuff liek this here, but I guess the "disable pic" option should be rather easy. I'm sure LB can code something together like "disable all sigs that include (img) (/img)" or something like that.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Heya Polonius - good to see you finally list your armies.
I agree that having an option to block (off-site) images in sigs would be nice.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I think the lesson here is that some of you need to buy better monitors. Widescreen aspect ratios make childsplay of long signatures.
752
Post by: Polonius
ShumaGorath wrote:I think the lesson here is that some of you need to buy better monitors. Widescreen aspect ratios make childsplay of long signatures.
There is no monitor on earth that minimizes how unnecessarily obnoxious your sig is. With all due respect, it makes reading your posts very difficult as your sig shows that you don't really respect those reading it or take anything seriously. Maybe that's fine with you, or even your intent, but if so that's not exactly noble.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Polonius wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:I think the lesson here is that some of you need to buy better monitors. Widescreen aspect ratios make childsplay of long signatures.
There is no monitor on earth that minimizes how unnecessarily obnoxious your sig is. With all due respect, it makes reading your posts very difficult as your sig shows that you don't really respect those reading it or take anything seriously. Maybe that's fine with you, or even your intent, but if so that's not exactly noble.
I stole this thing from stonefox. Blame him.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
What? Stonefox forced you to use his "AWESOME" sig? You couldn't give it a pass?
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:What? Stonefox forced you to use his "AWESOME" sig? You couldn't give it a pass?
Maybe it's more of an infection based model. Was Stonefox patient zero or do we need to find a Rhesus monkey with creepy smiley faces tattooed on it's ass?
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I voted "no".
I like looking at pictures.
Werds is hard stuf, pikshures is eezee.
1963
Post by: Aduro
Something like this?
1
752
Post by: Polonius
I picked a hell of day to stop sniffing glue....
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Aduro wrote:Something like this?
That looks shopped MS Painted.
I can tell by the pixels and having seen quite a few monkeys in my time.
844
Post by: stonefox
JohnHwangDD wrote:What? Stonefox forced you to use his "AWESOME" sig? You couldn't give it a pass?
It was just too AWESOME not to.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Polonius wrote:I picked a hell of day to stop sniffing glue....
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
Polonius wrote:With all due respect, it makes reading your posts very difficult as your sig shows that you don't really respect those reading it or take anything seriously. Maybe that's fine with you, or even your intent, but if so that's not exactly noble.
That is complete crap.
Even if his signature shows that he doesn't take things seriously, why would taking the images out change anything? They're not the root of the "problem". Which as far as I can tell - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - is that people aren't treating the internet as SERIOUS BUSINESS.
There is a time and a place for SERIOUS BUSINESS. The time is "most of the time" and the place is "in the message body". Images in signatures change nothing.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
signatures dont really bother me at all. Well.... ok there has been once or twice that someones sig was so damn big it got on my nerves. But personally I like sigs for the most part. Along with an Avatar the sig helps me remember who Im talking too. Because I horrible with names. SO JD and luna has made me do the "who the hell is tha... OOOOhhhh never mind" lol
9217
Post by: KingCracker
ShumaGorath wrote:You can have my AWESOME faces when you pry them from my cold dead hands!
Besides, my signature is still smaller then the people with 20 stacked icons and lines of text. If I cared how many points of squats someone had I would ask.
Thats exactly how I feel. Sure some of the sigs can get a bit crazy, but Ive seen a few people have that list of 20 thou shalt not vows and crap.
752
Post by: Polonius
The Dreadnote wrote:Polonius wrote:With all due respect, it makes reading your posts very difficult as your sig shows that you don't really respect those reading it or take anything seriously. Maybe that's fine with you, or even your intent, but if so that's not exactly noble.
That is complete crap.
Even if his signature shows that he doesn't take things seriously, why would taking the images out change anything? They're not the root of the "problem". Which as far as I can tell - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - is that people aren't treating the internet as SERIOUS BUSINESS.
There is a time and a place for SERIOUS BUSINESS. The time is "most of the time" and the place is "in the message body". Images in signatures change nothing.
I don't know if it's complete crap. I think you're confusing "being annoying" for "being fun." I have no problem with fun. I believe I posted about tatooes on a monkey's ass and sniffing glue, like, four posts above this.
The root of the problem is that I come to Dakka because people want to talk about the GW hobby, not share internet memes. I can go about 50,000 other places to get me some of that. I"m good when it comes to that.
Think of it like this: let's say you go to a party, and it's a pretty good party, lots of people and booze and decent music, and you start talking to this guy, and it turns out you both like the same genre of music. Now, let's say every now and then in the conversation he would break off and perfom a 20 second dance move that disrupted your conversation. After a few of those, its a little annoying, right? And while it's a party, and he's having fun, you'd probably rather talk to somebody else after a while.
I feel the same way with the sigs. I know I have a bias against posters you use them, and I know I shouldn't. Their posts could have merit, I need to judge them on that, and not their obnoxious sig. That would be easier for me if I could turn them off.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
Okay, that's fair. I dislike obnoxious sigs as much as the next guy. I'd be happy with an option to not display images in sigs - then we'd all be happy. Flat-out disabling them, as the topic title suggests, I would not be happy with.
752
Post by: Polonius
The Dreadnote wrote:Okay, that's fair. I dislike obnoxious sigs as much as the next guy. I'd be happy with an option to not display images in sigs - then we'd all be happy. Flat-out disabling them, as the topic title suggests, I would not be happy with.
Yes, which is why I've mentioned I think four times now that I'd rather simply be able to disable them.
I'm not trying to be snippy, just being clear.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
Don't worry, I skipped the first two pages of the topic in favour of posting my opinion anyway - not ignoring you, honest!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
The root of the problem is that I come to Dakka because people want to talk about the GW hobby, not share internet memes. I can go about 50,000 other places to get me some of that. I"m good when it comes to that.
I see no meme in my signature! You're just an angry owl.
123
Post by: Alpharius
The Dreadnote wrote:Don't worry, I skipped the first two pages of the topic in favour of posting my opinion anyway - not ignoring you, honest!
Awesome way to contribute to a discussion!
ShumaGorath wrote:
The root of the problem is that I come to Dakka because people want to talk about the GW hobby, not share internet memes. I can go about 50,000 other places to get me some of that. I"m good when it comes to that.
I see no meme in my signature! You're just an angry owl.
I have to admit, Shuma's signature pictures are the main reason I'd love to have the ability to turn off pics in signatures... (No offense Shuma!)
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
I aim to please.
7680
Post by: oni
I'm indifferent. I identify a lot of readers by their signature rather than their avatar.
Ideally all non GW related sigs should be expunged, but I wouldn't know how to police that. Only allowing text isn't much of a fix either because text can take up just as much space or more and even get confusing as the whole thread would just run together.
I think the best solution would probably be to limit the size of the overall signature as well as image size within the signature.
752
Post by: Polonius
ShumaGorath wrote:
The root of the problem is that I come to Dakka because people want to talk about the GW hobby, not share internet memes. I can go about 50,000 other places to get me some of that. I"m good when it comes to that.
I see no meme in my signature! You're just an angry owl.
Fair enough. I don't come to Dakka to see wacky non- GW related images. I'm also neither angry, nor an owl. Owls, particularly the Little Owl of Athena, are symbols of wisdom.
11544
Post by: IRPurple
sorry, coundlt realy resist that 1....
and more to the point you can take this as a rights argument, someone takes away your rights to lets say were all in america and they ban the use of all guns excapt things over lets say air pistols, with no excaptions. you would moan and complaign wouldnt you. just cos there isnt a ban doesnt mean you need to go out and buy a crazy gun or two...
i know that seems a bit rampley and disjointed, but thats the way my doors hindged(YES my spelling is bad... anyone got a good spellchecker addon for firefox?)
752
Post by: Polonius
What?
11544
Post by: IRPurple
thought so, read it like 8 times you may understand it then....
(if you hadnt noticed its an owl.... and there was a comment about angery owls, im just SLOW at getting my point across....)
752
Post by: Polonius
IRPurple wrote:thought so, read it like 8 times you may understand it then....
(if you hadnt noticed its an owl.... and there was a comment about angery owls, im just SLOW at getting my point across....)
Thanks, I got that.
I couldn't understand the text after that. Are you saying we shouldn't take people's rights away, or that we should be more respectful with the rights we have, or what. If you could clarify that, that would be great....
I think Firefox 3 has a built in spellchecker, actually. That's what I use.
11544
Post by: IRPurple
more taking away rights, but then again both can technicaly be applyed. but if i remember the OP says nothing will happen as of yet so nothing to worry about,
im guesin its in toold or something... but then again i havent looked perticularly hard.......
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:You're just an angry owl.
Fair enough. I don't come to Dakka to see wacky non- GW related images. I'm also neither angry, nor an owl. Owls, particularly the Little Owl of Athena, are symbols of wisdom.
(thx for teeing it high and soft!)
____
IRpurple - please give context for the reply, otherwise it just looks random. kthxbai.
752
Post by: Polonius
Too bad you're the second person to make that joke.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Yeah, but it makes no sense without the setup...
It's just a punchline without context.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
It's just a punchline without context.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
So are we putting pictures in sigs or what.
7375
Post by: BrookM
It seems to be a yes-no thing. You are free to put a picture in your sig but your peers may say otherwise.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
As expected, Shuma has the biggest and most obnoxious animated GIF to put things to an end.
Thanks, Shuma.
@Taco: pull the spaces so it does the mouseover:
DC:70-S++G+++M-B++I+Pw40k03#-D++A++/eWD278R+++T(T)DM++
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
As expected, Shuma has the biggest and most obnoxious animated GIF to put things to an end.
Thanks, Shuma.
Any time.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
I think you should just limit the sig sizes, and cut it off after x number of lines. let people have pics, just not huge annoying ones.
edit: also the whole demon adoptable thing would kinda cease to continue if you ended pics. They arent that large and the whole point is for people to click on them, IMO
459
Post by: Hellfury
oni wrote:Ideally all non GW related sigs should be expunged...
While GW content is predominant on this site this is a wargaming forum, not an exclusive GW forum.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
oni wrote:Ideally all non GW related sigs should be expunged
Precisely WHY should that happen?
Eric
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Waiting for answer to above question.
4786
Post by: legoburner
The followup thread to this one is now up with more detailed voting. Thanks for voting and opining here to all that did. I'll lock this thread now since it is replaced by the other one.
|
|
