The return of the [img] tag and shortening the sigs

[Vicsun]

My opinions, partly echoing what others have said.

• No blank space - using a single blank line to emphasize a link is okay, but more than one blank line is excessive.
• Fonts shouldn't be bigger than size 2 in terms of BB code (size 1 is small, size 2 is regular font, and size 3 and above are larger-than-normal fonts)
• Sigs shouldn't be written in caps-only or be fully underlined. Writing in caps is ususally taken to be screaming, and underlining should be used to emphasise a certain word or phrase...
• There should be no [quote]quotation[/quote] code - it takes up a lot of space and distracts. If you want to quote someone you can use bold/italic text and quotation marks - it's a lot neater when in a sig, especially because many posts begin with quotations and thus a quotation in a sig often tricks me into thinking I'm actually reading a new post (especially when I'm tired and/or just skimming through the thread). That might be the rule I'd personally most like to see enforced.
• Definitely no images in signatures. I'm not on a 56K, and I can still imagine how images in sigs would slow GB for me if they became popular, while adding more or less nothing to the content.
• No more than 1 (2? 3?) link(s) per sig - I'm kind of split on that one as links are useful, but they are also slightly larger than normal text, underlined and bright yellow - i.e. they are meant to draw attention. A single link in a sig is no problem whatsoever, but more can become unpleasent.
• Five lines per signature - this might seem restrictive, but looking at this thread only five out the fifteen replies have more than 8 lines in them (I'm using eight because that's the upper limit Stilgar suggested). A signature should be short. It's not meant to be an autobiography, nor a description of your character. I find it quite absurd that a signature can be longer than most posts.

Regardless of what rules are adopted, they should be enforced strictly, IMO. Apart from the no-annoying-colors-rule, which I'm not overly sure is necessary anyway, everything else is pretty concrete and can thus be enforced quite easily. As soon as some ambiguity is added to a rule or it is not enforced it will become pointless - i.e. saying about x-to-y number of lines in a sig are allowed would practically make the rule void.

Comments?

[dragon wench]

Personally, I would like to see the [img] brought back. As others have said, the recent incident was the only one to cause problems in all the time I have been here. Why allow the immaturity of one individual to cause blanket restrictions for the many?

I don't think images should be allowed in signatures though... I mod at a board that does allow them, and while many are quite tasteful.. there are some that do look overly glitzy and tacky.

I have mixed feelings about making judgements on signatures in terms of colours, spaces etc. only because it seems very arbitrary. Yet, I agree in that some I have seen are over the top.
Reminds me though, I know I have four in different colours, and also one blank space. If this seriously annoys people I could probably alter it a little, Though I do try to keep the colours from clashing too much...

[Vicsun]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

Personally, I would like to see the [img] brought back. As others have said, the recent incident was the only one to cause problems in all the time I have been here. Why allow the immaturity of one individual to cause blanket restrictions for the many?

I don't think images should be allowed in signatures though... I mod at a board that does allow them, and while many are quite tasteful.. there are some that do look overly glitzy and tacky.

I have mixed feelings about making judgements on signatures in terms of colours, spaces etc. only because it seems very arbitrary. Yet, I agree in that some I have seen are over the top.
Reminds me though, I know I have four in different colours, and also one blank space. If this seriously annoys people I could probably alter it a little, Though I do try to keep the colours from clashing too much...

Firstly, I'm glad someone agrees with me on the [img] tag issue. I feel the exact same way.

Regarding your signature, I can only speak for myself, but I don't find it at all obtrusive or annoying. Even if the rules I suggested are implemented as they stand (and I believe they are currently a tad too strict), you'd still be in the clear . I don't find different colors, in themselves, annoying, and I don't find a single blank line distracting or obtrusive either. I don't believe anyone else does either.

I've observed different people's signatures for about a day now, and I'd like to edit my post and revise some ideas, but I'd like to get some more feedback first.

As for arbitrariness, isn't that the case with all rules? Aren't all rules based upon individual judgement or preference, usually the administrator's (not meant as a critique - I happen to like the rules here )? Why should we not swear? Or post links to porn sites? It's because the administrator has decided to create a board which is enjoyable and friendly, and his idea of enjoyable and friendly includes politeness and a lack of links to porn sites. The community, in general agrees. Now if the same community also agrees that 'enjoyable' also consists of sigs which are not written in 25 point, bolded, red, impact font, would a rule enforcing sensible signatures be a bad thing? Just my 2c worth of thoughts

[Xandax]

Ofte with signature it isn't the colours (or the amount of them).

It is the size that is the factor. Like huge letters, huge filler space, huge quotes etc.
(IMO)

[giles337]

Personally, though i agree with many of the points, with regards to Images in Signatures I feel it would be better to limit them regarding size, rather than stopping them all together. I have a simple .gif I would like to include in my sig, and at 44kb, I can not see how this could be a problem. Although, I can see how it would add up....

10 posts a page at 50 kb a sig, on 56.6 k modem adds about 10 seconds to load time. This may not seem much, but try counting it!

[fable]

Originally Posted by Buck Satan

How often was the [IMG] code used before? Is it a big deal to have to post pictures via an attachment instead of being able to post them directly into a thread? We have certainly seen the mischief that can be caused with the [IMG] tag, and unless it's a serious detriment, I'd rather not reinstate it.

I understand your reluctance, Buck, but what I miss is the ability to load in the occasional, especially effective emoticon graphic, particularly animated ones. If we're not going to get back [img], can we at least increase our supply of emoticons?

[BuckGB]

Alright, I went ahead and enabled the [IMG] code once again, so hopefully we don't see anymore abuse of it.

I'd like to get some more feedback on the signature rule, though, before we actually add one to the list. How do Vicsun's suggestions look to everyone?

[Stilgar]

Originally Posted by Buck Satan

How do Vicsun's suggestions look to everyone?

There is nothing in there that i would dissagree/have a problem with.
He has a very good point about the number of lines, most posts are shorter then the avarage signature.
I have to admit that the new layout of the site (avatar and name above the post instead of to the left) made me notice the number of lines in signatures more.

[fable]

The only thing I would see as a problem would be a signature line that's very large--so Vicsun and I are on the same wavelength.

[dragon wench]

Yay! Thanks Buck!

Re: signatures, my biggest issue is when they are in huge letters; it just looks bad. Overall, I agree with Vicsun's suggestions though

[Adahn]

Alright I *may* agreed that really big signatures are useless, but keep in mind that you guys keep limiting us more and more, don't think we don't see what you're doin' here. I for one understand that it's annoying to scroll past a huge signature and small post, but you took away the images then you reinstate them probably just to take them away as soon as some poor sap posts something again, you took away our right to have images in our signature, at the very least let us keep our "text" ones. It's not like we're killing the planet with them. Can't we have a little bit of freedom? I'm glad that Mr. Satan here is sane enough not to listen to your gibbes completely Vicsun. Thanks for having the images back, but how exactly do you plan on controling people from using them abusively? Through fear of getting banned?

[Ideal Maxima]

see, now i made my siggy MUUUUCH SHORTER... is that good enough for you vicsun?

[Vicsun]

Originally Posted by Adahn

...but you took away the images then you reinstate them probably just to take them away as soon as some poor sap posts something again,

You didn't see the image in question, did you? No person posting tubgirl should be referred to as a 'poor sap', ever.

you took away our right to have images in our signature, at the very least let us keep our "text" ones. It's not like we're killing the planet with them. Can't we have a little bit of freedom?

'Rights' and 'freedom'? Please Get a grip.

I'm glad that Mr. Satan here is sane enough not to listen to your gibbes completely Vicsun.

Woah! No need for personal attacks here!
So only someone insane would listen to me? And my suggestions are either gibbers or gibes, depending on what word you failed to spell? Frankly, I wouldn't mind someone criticizing the rules I suggested, since criticism usually brings improvement, but simply dismissing all of them in a rude manner without stating reasons for the dismissal in spite of the fact that it appears the majority of posters agree with them strikes me as illogical and inane. If you had instead said what aspects of my posts you disagreed with, a discussion would have been possible.

Thanks for having the images back, but how exactly do you plan on controling people from using them abusively? Through fear of getting banned?

Wait, was the part of my post appealing for the return of the [img] tag less of a gibe/gibber?
As I don't exactly see the point your question is trying to make, I'll try to answer it on a literal level:
I would hope that people's own sensibilities would prevent them from posting shock-site images such as goatse or tubgirl, but if someone does post such an image he should most definitely be banned. Are you suggesting otherwise?



edit: thanks, DEN. I do indeed think your sig looks a lot better now This thread wasn't specifically aimed at you, though, if that's what you're thinking - it was created as a response to what appeared to me was an emerging trend of enlarging sigs.

[Adahn]

Sorry about that Vicsun, you're right I didn't see the image. I did a search for it on the net... and let's just say it was enough to make me shut up... gross. And you're right, any guy posting that should be banned. If not worse.

[Xandax]

Eventhough things have calmed down again - I'll just like to remind people about forum rule #1

#1 - Flaming, humiliating, ridiculing, or belittling other members will not be tolerated. If you have an issue with another member, take it to private messages or email.

Moderate ones own language in the posts - or it will be done for you.


Also - just to clarify - Image signatures have never been allowed on GameBanshee (that I know of) in the 4 years I've visited this board, so that is a mute point in the discussion about the img. tag and large text signatures.

Now - thread back on track please.....

__________________
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules