In post 200, Isa wrote:Not a fan of this, when I use my phone to read the forums I use signatures as a way to identify the author without scrolling to the left to see their avatar. This makes that harder.
I mean, I think the feature is bad in itself, but I used another angle because I wouldn't get anyone to bulge if I just said "hey this is bad for reasons already documented".
In post 231, animorpherv1 wrote:Not until after you're done reading the post. At which point it's essentially useless.
But that's exactly the same as it was before. Isa was talking about how he uses sigs to differentiate between posters while on his cell phone. Not a bad point. I offered a solution.
In post 231, animorpherv1 wrote:Not until after you're done reading the post. At which point it's essentially useless.
But that's exactly the same as it was before. Isa was talking about how he uses sigs to differentiate between posters while on his cell phone. Not a bad point. I offered a solution.
The difference between Show compared to Show animorpherv1's signature is fairly minimal, imo. Especially when you're skimming threads, which is what I do on my DSi.
The difference from Show to most people's signatures is fairly drastic, and easily viewable on sight.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare
I've got to say, while I've tried to meet part way with the criticism, my experience is completely opposite.
When I'm on my cell phone, that tends to be the time I find long signatures MOST annoying because far more scrolling has to be done on a cell phone, and that scrolling tends to not be as easy as using a mouse wheel.
Besides, once this becomes normal, far fewer people are going to have long signatures, so it won't be much of an issue either way.
In post 192, zoraster wrote:No. It's not a "superior option" because signatures can actually have a use. For example, I quite like that IceGuy can advertise his game with a short little tag. I like that someone can put a one or two sentence quote at the bottom. A short sig actually helps break up posts a little bit in a good way when rereading a game thread.
But I don't need to read the same conversations over and over or a list of all their favorite movies or whatever. It encourages people to keep it short and sweet, which is exactly what it should be. And if you want to go longer, that's fine. You just have to accept that not everyone will be forced to read your signature.
Then don't read it? I don't see why a CHANGE has to be implemented to limit sigs, when there's not inherently any benefits to doing so in the first place?
For those who are going to argue that "OH BUT I DUN WANNA SEE WAH", it's like as if being a homophobe, and banning gay marriage just because you can't stand the sight of seeing gays out on the streets, when what they do really is not your choice to dictate how others should act.
Frankly I don't see any instances of say abuse that prompted this change in cig limit to be implemented?
Fluffy fluffy~~~ |
"READING KATSUKI IS LIKE SOME SORT OF POSTMODERN ARTFORM"
- GreyICE
Katsuki is by far more absurdly beautiful than Fate. (hai parama)
Katsuki's Madness coming to you shortly: Nov, 2011!
In post 192, zoraster wrote:No. It's not a "superior option" because signatures can actually have a use. For example, I quite like that IceGuy can advertise his game with a short little tag. I like that someone can put a one or two sentence quote at the bottom. A short sig actually helps break up posts a little bit in a good way when rereading a game thread.
But I don't need to read the same conversations over and over or a list of all their favorite movies or whatever. It encourages people to keep it short and sweet, which is exactly what it should be. And if you want to go longer, that's fine. You just have to accept that not everyone will be forced to read your signature.
Then don't read it? I don't see why a CHANGE has to be implemented to limit sigs, when there's not inherently any benefits to doing so in the first place?
For those who are going to argue that "OH BUT I DUN WANNA SEE WAH", it's like as if being a homophobe, and banning gay marriage just because you can't stand the sight of seeing gays out on the streets, when what they do really is not your choice to dictate how others should act.
Frankly I don't see any instances of say abuse that prompted this change in sig limit to be implemented?
In post 192, zoraster wrote:No. It's not a "superior option" because signatures can actually have a use. For example, I quite like that IceGuy can advertise his game with a short little tag. I like that someone can put a one or two sentence quote at the bottom. A short sig actually helps break up posts a little bit in a good way when rereading a game thread.
But I don't need to read the same conversations over and over or a list of all their favorite movies or whatever. It encourages people to keep it short and sweet, which is exactly what it should be. And if you want to go longer, that's fine. You just have to accept that not everyone will be forced to read your signature.
Then don't read it? I don't see why a CHANGE has to be implemented to limit sigs, when there's not inherently any benefits to doing so in the first place?
For those who are going to argue that "OH BUT I DUN WANNA SEE WAH", it's like as if being a homophobe, and banning gay marriage just because you can't stand the sight of seeing gays out on the streets, when what they do really is not your choice to dictate how others should act.
Frankly I don't see any instances of say abuse that prompted this change in sig limit to be implemented?
Gee. Yes. I'm exactly like a homophobe because I don't think it's in our best interest have 8 lines of multicolored text between each post in a game. Way to elevate this conversation. It serves very little purpose other than your desire to make everyone else see "fluffy fluffy" each time as if that's somehow a great contribution. But you know what? If that's what you prioritize as your signature, fine! But fit it into 4 lines. OR just deal with the fact that everyone won't see it each and every time they see your post. They'll probably click it once to see it and move on.
The thing is that the people who are complaining most about this are those who have long signatures. And for many who did have them, they went "welp. I'll just edit myself a little bit." But no. For you it's a matter of civil rights and everyone who feels differently is an asshole bigot who's just out to get you.
And guess what? We already did restrict it. Lots of forums allow jpgs in their signature lines. We do not.
Last edited by zoraster on Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
ani, your signature shouldn't be more interesting than the content of your posts. drawing attention away from the body of your posts with a bunch of colors and other bs is just bad posting.
pedit: the image thing is a good point. we're not an image board, we're a discussion board.
If I remember correctly for a long time our character count was at 250 and things in tags (e.g. urls) counted toward that. The amount you can fit in 4 lines now far exceeds that.
Right. But even more importantly, it doesn't count tags. So if you make something into a link, you don't have to worry about how many characters that takes (I remember going to [POSSIBLEtinyurlSPAM] to fit in a game link).
