Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I think the lesson here is that some of you need to buy better monitors. Widescreen aspect ratios make childsplay of long signatures.

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.

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.

What? Stonefox forced you to use his "AWESOME" sig? You couldn't give it a pass?

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?

I voted "no".

I like looking at pictures.

Werds is hard stuf, pikshures is eezee.

Something like this?

I picked a hell of day to stop sniffing glue....

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.

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.

Polonius wrote:I picked a hell of day to stop sniffing glue....

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don't worry, I skipped the first two pages of the topic in favour of posting my opinion anyway - not ignoring you, honest!

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.

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!)

I aim to please.

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.

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.