Signatures

ISO · Post Post #0 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:30 am

We will be disabling some tags (any of the quote/code family, img, font size) in signatures in the near future. The font size will be fixed at "Small".

Mr Stoofer · Post Post #1 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:41 am

VisMaior · Post Post #2 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:44 am

What? No more LyingBrian quote for me??

I guess its still funny in plain text too...

rolandofthewhite · Post Post #3 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:25 am

Why no quotes?

Astronaut · Post Post #4 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:27 am

Mr Stoofer wrote:

What he said.

halo freak · Post Post #5 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:04 am

LyingBrians sig should be stopped, it is both too big and too in your face, i am glad the changes will do this. However i don't think the removal of the quote codes is necessary.

Iammars · Post Post #6 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:06 am

Yeah, I actually feel that the quote code is necessary, as it is easy, and doesn;t take up that much room.

Dragon Phoenix · Post Post #7 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:59 am

rajrhcpfreak · Post Post #8 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:04 am

quotes make the page hard to read sometimes.

inHimshallibe · Post Post #9 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:16 am

halo freak wrote:LyingBrians sig should be stopped, it is both too big and too in your face, i am glad the changes will do this. However i don't think the removal of the quote codes is necessary.

Iammars wrote:Yeah, I actually feel that the quote code is necessary, as it is easy, and doesn;t take up that much room.

Now, now. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

rajrhcpfreak · Post Post #10 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:28 am

in the mean time, enjoy mine

ISO · Post Post #11 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:29 am

Don't put it back, raj.

rajrhcpfreak · Post Post #12 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:31 am

it was fun while it lasted.

Mr. Flay · Post Post #13 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:53 am

*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.

Commodore Amazing · Post Post #14 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:25 am

Mr. Flay wrote:*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.

Actually, I approve of both decisions. I'll miss some of the old avatars, but we'll move on.

Bacde · Post Post #15 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:50 pm

Mein MSPaint Pictar

rolandofthewhite · Post Post #16 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:54 pm

All I have to say is... No me gusta.

LyingBrian · Post Post #17 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:25 pm

mith wrote:We will be disabling some tags (any of the quote/code family, img, font size) in signatures in the near future. The font size will be fixed at "Small".

not sure i like this... especially since i'm not the only one with a image in my sig...i guess i would like to know the reasoning behind this, so at least it makes it more palatable...

Cadmium · Post Post #18 (ISO) » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:41 pm

Mr. Flay wrote: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.

MeMe · Post Post #19 (ISO) » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:33 am

it has been observed that the size of one's sig block is usually inversely proportional to one's prestige on the net.

Iammars · Post Post #20 (ISO) » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:43 am

The only reason why I use my sig is to either promote games I'm modding (which a lot of people do) or to remind people that there is no "e" in Iamm

a

rs, and the use of the quote tag makes this funny.

ISO · Post Post #21 (ISO) » Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:06 am

Nightcow in Thy Mod is God Mafia wrote:No, I thought this was miss-spelling-name-mafia. With you [Anix], Scotty and Iammers as scum.

No, I thought this was miss-spelling-name-mafia. With you [Anix], Scotty and Iammers as scum.

- Nightcow, Thy Mod is God Mafia

I am not seeing a loss of funny.

Iammars · Post Post #22 (ISO) » Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:19 am

It just looks better in the quote tags.

Mr. Flay · Post Post #23 (ISO) » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:09 am

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 · Post Post #24 (ISO) » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:16 am

Sorry, I missed this post initially.

Cadmium wrote:
Mr. Flay wrote: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.

Signatures

Signatures

Re: Signatures