The return of the [img] tag and shortening the sigs - Page 3

Vicsun · #31 (**permalink**) 11-11-2004, 04:28 PM

Xandax is right; my discussion with Adahn did not belong here. I believe the matter to be settled - apologies go out to Adahn for any offence taken

Now that I'm done derailing my own thread, we should get back on topic. Does anyone have any issues with my proposal as it currently stands? Previously I had also suggested that there are no fully bolded/italicized signatures and that no annoying colors are used, but later removed the suggestions. I actually took some time to look through people's signatures and the two signatures I noted (fable's bold quotation and Sytze's italicized dreams) didn't bother me and even looked quite stylish.
The second suggestion I only dropped because it was too subjective to enforce, and it colors aren't really a big problem. If anyone disagrees or has any ideas please post. I don't like the pressure of rules being created based on my ideas

Xandax · #32 (**permalink**) 11-12-2004, 12:07 AM

I dislike very large signatures because it detracts from the posting, so I wouldn't mind some rules about them.

My concern however, is to many and to complex rules about them which will make it difficult, but I'll moderate any guidelines/rules given by Buck on the matter

One thing I would definately never like to see is images in signatures. Also I would have loved to simply see the size be removed from signature creation (isn't that possible, simply to remove it from the code that is displayed when creating a signature ... ), but if that isn't possible then simply only allow normal size.
Quotation I dont' really know about - I can see the problem with exessive usage, but a single quote in signature dosen't matter much, because it is the "same style" as the forums post.

VoodooDali · #33 (**permalink**) 11-28-2004, 07:31 PM

Hi everyone

Since someone has complained about the largeness of my sig (which I've had since April 03 with no complaints), I wanted to weigh in.
I like the idea of being able to use quotes from actual conversations, messages, etc. in GB in our sigs - but isn't there some way to do the code so that they will be smaller? My quotes have large boxes around them and a lot of space - like more that one line - between sentences. I really really really don't want to write anything in code myself - frankly, I just don't have the time. I have faded away from GB over the past year, and this kind of nitpicking over little things doesn't exactly make me feel welcomed back, and the reason I faded away was because of all the in-fighting on SYM, but that's another story. Anyway - my advice to my lover, Buck, is that limiting the size or color or whatever someone is feeling anal about should be built right into the code of the bulletin board and should not entail a lot of energy on the member's part.

Vicsun · #34 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoodooDali

Hi everyone

Since someone has complained about the largeness of my sig (which I've had since April 03 with no complaints), I wanted to weigh in.
I like the idea of being able to use quotes from actual conversations, messages, etc. in GB in our sigs - but isn't there some way to do the code so that they will be smaller? My quotes have large boxes around them and a lot of space - like more that one line - between sentences. I really really really don't want to write anything in code myself - frankly, I just don't have the time. I have faded away from GB over the past year, and this kind of nitpicking over little things doesn't exactly make me feel welcomed back, and the reason I faded away was because of all the in-fighting on SYM, but that's another story. Anyway - my advice to my lover, Buck, is that limiting the size or color or whatever someone is feeling anal about should be built right into the code of the bulletin board and should not entail a lot of energy on the member's part.

Formatting text is hard and time-consuming

If you articulate what you want your sig to be a bit more clearly I'll gladly do it for you if it means you'll stick around

Oh, and coding fixed signature lenghs into the board isn't possible - vBulletin haven't released the code (to my knowledge) and it would take countless hours re-writing the software even if they had. Right now the only options Buck has is to limit the maximum number of characters and allow/disallow html/vB code.

Stilgar · #35 (**permalink**) 12-27-2004, 06:59 PM

I was wondering if there has been a disission made on the signatures jet.

giles337 · #36 (**permalink**) 12-30-2004, 06:56 AM

Wouldn't it be easier just too encouage common sense when creating signatures? Rather than strict guidelines saying what can and can't be used; couldn't we just 'self-moderate' our signatures, and if we feel somone is being excessive, let them know how we feel. Most of the posters on this forum are more than compliant enough for this, and it would prevent unfair rulings.

Vicsun · #37 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giles337

Wouldn't it be easier just too encouage common sense when creating signatures? Rather than strict guidelines saying what can and can't be used; couldn't we just 'self-moderate' our signatures, and if we feel somone is being excessive, let them know how we feel. Most of the posters on this forum are more than compliant enough for this, and it would prevent unfair rulings.

How can you encourage common sense? I think a feat like this would be impossible; if it was it would have been used on a large scale and our world would be a better place

The people who self-moderate their signatures won't be affected by the guidlines. Frankly, I would feel awkward asking someone to change their sig just because I don't like it. If there are a set of rules on which we've agreed upon, I would know I'm not over-reacting.
As for unfair rulings, I'm not really sure I know what you mean. I think, if anything, having non-ambiguous rules would prevent unfair rulings as what is and isn't allowed will be obvious.

fable · #38 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 04:46 PM

I have seen a couple that push at the boundaries of abuse, IMO. They're very large and annoying even at normal text size. Maybe this issue should be revisited.

Vicsun · #39 (**permalink**) 01-11-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giles337

Wouldn't it be easier just too encouage common sense when creating signatures? Rather than strict guidelines saying what can and can't be used; couldn't we just 'self-moderate' our signatures, and if we feel somone is being excessive, let them know how we feel. Most of the posters on this forum are more than compliant enough for this, and it would prevent unfair rulings.

I just got the following pm in a response to a request of making a font in a sig a bit smaller than size 7

Quote:

Why should i change who i am to fit your needs?

And that is why self-moderating and kindly requesting doesn't work.

Ideal Maxima · #40 (**permalink**) 01-11-2005, 04:50 PM

lemme guess, does his name start with D end with S and have emorti in the middle?

If so, i've been meaning to talk to him about that, his siggy always draws my attention away from what i was reading for a good 5 seconds, it's hard to focus when there is such large writing sitting right above or beneath the post you are viewing.

and if it isn't him your talking about... oh well

Aegis · #41 (**permalink**) 01-12-2005, 12:00 AM

Let's try and keep personal shots out of this. There is no need for comments made between posters, through PM, to be made public.

Vicsun · #42 (**permalink**) 01-12-2005, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis

Let's try and keep personal shots out of this. There is no need for comments made between posters, through PM, to be made public.

I was trying to illustrate a point and intentionally left the name out - it was not meant to be a personal shot.