Moderators: General Forum Moderators, Global Moderators
), will need to have that option switched on to check for objectionable content.
.
It's a profile optionesd wrote:Didn't we say "no" to signature images?
. You get to choose whether they're loaded or not. I figured by the large number of threads on the issue I'd make a mod for it .
.
SlavedriverSSX-MS wrote:Seems fair enough, if people don't wanna see them they can just turn em off.
I'm not an admin but i'll keep images on to check for objectional sigs, i'll just poke Anny or someone if i see any.
Remove it, the mod's not in place yet.Kahn wrote:Oh, and testing.
The consensus of the last vote was 50% voting either way, and I believe it was stated we'd go with no until we had such an ability to turn them on and off at will, and an ability to moderate them. This mod will do that, so in the interests of fairness the mod should be used. That way both those who voted no AND those who voted yes can be happy, since people can opt to have them off or on in their profile, rather than simply those who voted no being happy, as is currently the caseBlueFlames wrote:A query: What was the point in all of those threads (where the concensus was 'no sig images') if we're just going to allow them anyway? I know we left behind the vote-on-everything mentality, but when you have clear data on what the general will of the membership is, it's pretty lame to just bypass that will.
If only one person requested I make a reasonable modification (i.e. no office assistantsA query: What was the point in all of those threads (where the consensus was 'no sig images') if we're just going to allow them anyway? I know we left behind the vote-on-everything mentality, but when you have clear data on what the general will of the membership is, it's pretty lame to just bypass that will.
), and if I was able to do so without affecting everyone else's forum experience (or forum performance), then I'd do it given enough free time. And 400x100 is far too big. It's bigger than the current banner actually.Anubis wrote:And BD...250x50 is far too small. 400x100 is the smallest sig pic I've ever used, and its been fine on every forum Ive been to that allows sig pics, in fact I often use bigger ones now rather than that. Some forums (such as Gateworld) even allow up to 700x400. Whilst I agree we should keep things small, at least to start with, anything below 400x100 would be, imo, too small. The smaller you get the less a point there is to having them in the first place, as it becomes harder and harder for people to display what they want.
You don't have to view them BD.BlackDove wrote:And 400x100 is far too big. It's bigger than the current banner actually.
I don't really care what other forums allow, most other forums are garbage anyway, so it doesn't really surprise me that they would allow 700x400 pixels of pure shit to be displayed for every member that wants it.
250x100 or 300x100 is fully sufficient for an image where it doesn't belong anyway. Just because you will be allowed to use the feature doesn't mean that we should allow no constraints and allow everyone to be a Picasso with an open canvas. You know why? Everyone isn't Picasso.
If you are unable to express yourself within minimal constraints, then that's really your problem. It's already disturbing enough that you need to express yourself through art in a place where communication through words is the primary medium.
Even with the feature turned on, the forums STILL need to look tasteful and considering their primary use is CONVERSATION and COMMUNICATION, sig image sizes should be kept to a minimum anyway.
Oops, sorry.esd wrote:Remove it, the mod's not in place yet.
I see someone already took care of it though. Yes....?Kahn wrote:You don't have to view them BD.
You would be right if height was at all the issue. It's not so much the fact that it mangles the boards a bit further down as much as it's about an image (usually a bad one) covering a set amount of space.esd wrote:I can understand limiting them hieght-wise quite tightly, but width? 500pixels won't stretch anyone's screen unless they're running stupidly low resolutions (in which case links would do the same).
If you're going to allow them, there's no point making them pointless. 400x100 is probably the minimum at which there's much point.
. 