Signatures

[Mr. Flay]

*shrug* If we're going top-down instead of public opinion (as was previously the case with signatures and avatars), then removing all img files may be necessary. I have more problems with 5-line sigs than a small image, however.

Maybe we're just too big for peer pressure to work anymore, I don't know. These decisions seem to be awfully draconian, however.

[Mr. Flay]

It's much harder to tell apart from the 'real' post when it's in quote tags, I think is what's being gotten at here...

I'm having a harder time understanding what is meant by "code family", but I suspect that's not really germane...

[Mr. Flay]

Sorry, I missed this post initially.

These decisions seem to be awfully draconian, however.

What exactly is so harsh about reducing the signature's content to its original purpose? A signature is supposed to be a line of text, not a jungle of quotes, images and obnoxious font sizes that keep attracting ones attention from the actual post content. If people keep abusing these properties even after multiple reactions from others, I find it no more than justified to remove them. The fact that over 90% of the users (okay, that's a wild guess ) don't even use these properties says enough about public opinion.

btw, here's a sample of dictionary.com on sigs that's so true:

The composition of one's sig can be quite an art form, including an ASCII logo or one's choice of witty sayings (see sig quote, fool file). However, large sigs are a waste of bandwidth, and it has been observed that the size of one's sig block is usually inversely proportional to one's prestige on the net.

This is an ancient (i.e. at least as old as Usenet and the 'finger' command on mainframes, there I just dated myself) debate about the 'point' of signatures. Is it a line of text? Is it just your name? Is it your 'trademark'? Obviously the 'name' argument is moot, since that's displayed to the left of the post anyway, but the rest is much more up for debate than you seem to be willing to countenance.

I don't have a problem with mith/JEEP making changes to the site, of course, as they host MafiaScum. If they've discovered that large avatars and signatures are part of the performance problems we've had since moving to the new host,

I'm all for it

. But the entire site could easily be termed a "waste of bandwidth", and TWSOGMM takes up a lot more space than siglines and externally hosted avatars, for example.

Neither of these changes came with a lick of explanation, which makes it a bit of a Benevolent dictator situation. And I wanted to make sure that was what they were going for, since there IS sizeable (if not always well-founded) opposition to both changes. I'm not even opposing them,

per se

- ask Orbiting and she'll tell you that Devil's Advocate is my favorite hat to wear.

[Mr. Flay]

If they've discovered that large avatars and signatures are part of the performance problems we've had since moving to the new host, I'm all for it.

I'm not even aware of any performance problems. Did I miss a thread? These decisions didn't have much to do with bandwidth, though.

Not since the early November weirdness with the database, no, I don't think so. I was just trying to place it in a frame of reference.

The rest of it's cool, it's your place to ensure the place runs smoothly and is a good home for Mafia, I just wondered if I missed some sort of bruhaha...

[Mr. Flay]

They do for me; check your profile to see if

you unchecked the box by accident

the box got unchecked.

[Mr. Flay]

Seems to be working now...it's light orange (and kinda hard to read)...