PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Suggestions => Topic started by: Gran Dori on April 01, 2005, 07:02:30 PM
-
well i was wondering why you have the avatar and signature options off, i make kick ass sigs and avatars , and i was trying to see if i can upload um but i couldnt , i was wondering if you can let us put our sigs and avatars
-
no
-
may i ask why not?
-
because i said so
-
and one
-
Originally posted by Gran Dori
may i ask why not?
Because you touch yourself at nite....
-
Lol guys, way to up the member count.
Gran Dori, you need to get 500 posts before getting a picture. That\'s just the way it works around here. As for sigs, no idea. :)
-
No pics in sigs. I drives me nucking futs when you only get one post on the screen at a time because so many people have huge banners.
-
thats right, you tell\'em....
:p
-
Originally posted by mm
no
Originally posted by mm
because i said so
I love it when mm replies so cynically towards newbies. It just brightens my day :)
-
On the other hand, it\'s possible to allow images in signatures, but restrict the size so they DON\'T fill the whole page. We have the same limitation on signature text don\'t we? What\'s the difference?
-
thats right, other forums, have a 600pixels limit. maybe you can set those rules.
-
nope.
It would kill loading times for the non-broadband members. It\'s also completely unnecessary. Express yourself in your posts, not in some stupid picture we\'ll all get tired of seeing after a day anyway.
And 600 pixels would be too big even if we did allow it. Way too big. Your signature should never be bigger than your post.
-
600 pixels is a half a page. That is just plane stupid.
There are only about 20 or so of us. Do you really want to see that same banner over and over again.
-
Um...you can add mods that restrict size to any specification you desire. 600 pixels is pretty damn huge.
-
one two, and three and four and you got served like a whore
-
That doesn\'t flow well at all, Jumpman.
-
well i mean like height of 150 pixels, and width of 450 pixels.
-
I browsed the Gamespot forums the other day. Ugh... I hate images in sigs, it\'s just awful. I like it neat, so I vote NO FOR IMAGES IN SIGS.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
I browsed the Gamespot forums the other day. Ugh... I hate images in sigs, it\'s just awful. I like it neat, so I vote NO FOR IMAGES IN SIGS.
What if there were boobie images? ;)
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
On the other hand, it\'s possible to allow images in signatures, but restrict the size so they DON\'T fill the whole page. We have the same limitation on signature text don\'t we? What\'s the difference?
We don\'t have limitations on our sigs. We technically do since if the admins feel if its too big, they go in and edit it and change it to make you seem like your a homosexual.
-
Pics in sigs for mods only...
See what happens when you compromise?
-
one thing I hated bout this site is the no images in sigs rule. I highly doubt 400x150 size pics in sigs are goin to be the end of the world. When you guys rag on sigs in pics you must be talking about the unregulated friggin huge ones that take up half a page.
It\'s pretty easy to follow, maximum sig pic size is 400wx150h, if someone makes one bigger they get thier sig privledges removed for a week and if they do it again they get banned, plain and simple.
For everyone whining about sig pic size slowing down all the 56gayers, they deserve to go slow for still having that shit. aAnd like all the "hot babe threads" arent slowing them down but you know they\'re waiting for those pics to load with the KY next to them.
I think it would definatly add some more color to this forum if it was allowed, it\'s too bad there are to many fucking anal people.
-
^ What he said.
Building a web forum to accomodate 56kers is ridiculous in 2005. It\'s a weak argument anyway. A pic that is 150x400 pixels ends up around 11k - 15k in size if you pay even the slightest attention to the jpeg settings. That is probably smaller than a normal banner image, and I\'m sure we ALL visit websites with many more images than psx2central.
Some say we would just get sick of seeing the same image over and over, but don\'t we already get sick of the same avatar, and the same signature over and over? How is this any different or worse? I don\'t understand why this forum has to remain in the stone age, when adding a little creativity and flexibility might keep things interesting.
-
I guess I\'m just old and grumpy, but I like the plain look. :)
-
Originally posted by Samwise
I guess I\'m just old and grumpy, but I like the plain look. :)
Thats why you can choose to not have one ;), just because it\'s allowed doesn\'t mean you have 2 have one.
Seriously I think it\'s worth a try and hell if it doesnt work out just remove the privledge and it\'ll be like it was before.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
^ What he said.
Building a web forum to accomodate 56kers is ridiculous in 2005. It\'s a weak argument anyway. A pic that is 150x400 pixels ends up around 11k - 15k in size if you pay even the slightest attention to the jpeg settings. That is probably smaller than a normal banner image, and I\'m sure we ALL visit websites with many more images than psx2central.
Some say we would just get sick of seeing the same image over and over, but don\'t we already get sick of the same avatar, and the same signature over and over? How is this any different or worse? I don\'t understand why this forum has to remain in the stone age, when adding a little creativity and flexibility might keep things interesting.
I agree with that first statement completely. Personally i dont care too much, it is just that sites that allow pictures in sigs carry associations to stupid forums/people in forums etc. so i can kinda understand the sentiment of not wanting them.
I guess there are just a lot of low tech fogies on this site but this is in some ways a technology forum.
Meh.
-
Always gotta make sites with low end users in mind.
Besides, I don\'t read your sigs now, I don\'t want to have pictures in the way, too.
-Dan
-
bandwidth was never an issue for sig pics
i just don\'t want to see them 10 times in a thread
therefore, we will never have them
-
I agree with mm.
Any site I go on that has them, the first thing I do is delete them.
-
Originally posted by unknown
Thats why you can choose to not have one ;), just because it\'s allowed doesn\'t mean you have 2 have one.
I know I could choose not to have one, but Í can\'t choose NOT to see the other 384 images from other members. :)
-
In the thousand years this place has existed, I don\'t remember a single moment where we had picture signatures. Tradition.
-
Originally posted by mm
bandwidth was never an issue for sig pics
i just don\'t want to see them 10 times in a thread
therefore, we will never have them
This makes no sense.
1. With every other forum I read that allows images in signatures, they always show the signature under a user\'s first post in the thread ONLY. Subsequent posts have no signature. Does this antiquated version of VBulletin not support that?
2. Every other forum I read allows users to choose whether they want to view other users\' signatures. The setting is a checkbox in the control panel. Does this antiquated version of VBulletin not support that?
EDIT- I just checked... INDEED IT DOES. You can disable signatures NOW, complainers!
-
Is it really that big of a deal? It\'s a friggen picture, it\'ll get old in all of a day. There is no point in allowing it after all these years.
-
It\'s not a big deal, it just seems strange that so many people oppose the idea for no legitimate reason at all. I can understand if you\'ve read other gaming forums where signatures and avatars were abused and became annoying... However, my main alternate forum (s2ki.com) has always allowed images in signatures, and the vast majority are tasteful and creative. If anyone abuses the priveledge, they are slapped down and the sig is edited by a mod. Simple as that.
I dunno what everyone\'s so afraid of.
-
I have been to many forums that do allow them, and I hate them. It makes the signatures too long, when really signatures are pretty pointless to begin with. If you have something to say, say it in your post. An image just leads to signatures expanding. Any times the signature takes up more room or more time for that matter, than the post, something is wrong. Besides, we already have avatars if you want a picture.
At the n64cc forums, regular members weren\'t even allowed to have avatars. That was reserved for mods and admins only. I personally liked it a lot better that way.
-
sig pics = lame
never gonna happen
-
thats only your opinion.Letting a small image in a sig isnt bad.Huge sig pics are lame
-
Jesus, you already have a pic under your name.
If you really want to have a picture under ever post you make, do it manually.
And sometimes I like reading peoples signatures. But it takes long enough for the forums to load for me as is.
-
I said small.Like...as big as your avatar.And I am using a 56k modem and never complain
-
thats only your opinion
yeah, the one that counts
you\'re lucky to even have a 100x100 avatar
would have been 50x50, but clyde had to have his 100x100 one
:rpissed:
-
You mean the one that is enforced.
Since Clyde doesnt post often why dont you make avatars to be 50x50
You ll make forum members happier.Bob for example would load faster the page :stick:
-
perhaps i\'ll just make yours 50x50
:smokin:
-
I mean pics in sigs are cool now. I have seen a lot of cool pics in sig large and small and it has never bothered me. I have BB of course. I mean but everyone should be trying to get off that 56kshit.
56k is played. BB is the new platinum. I mean this site is going nowhere. Why not try it out???????????????????????????????
-
Tell it to the mr dictator above you.I am using a 56k modem and I dont mind
Originally posted by mm
perhaps i\'ll just make yours 50x50
:smokin:
yeah ofcourse.You hate me and you cant face me like a man.
-
Shockwaves: If you don\'t like looking at signatures and you think they are pointless, you can disable them in the control panel. Problem solved. If the pages load slow for a 56ker, they can also disable the signatures. Problem solved. There\'s no real argument against this.
It all comes down to "mm says they\'re lame" so it\'s not going to happen. OK, but in some ways this whole site is already lame, so I don\'t think you\'re protecting us from some great slide into chaos.
BTW, at least one member already has an avatar that is larger than 100x100.
-
It\'s not just about what I want though. I mean, it\'s like the same reasoning for why we limit the signatures to five lines. Sigs are good, but in moderation.
Having a picture under every post you make is overkill. Avatars I can understand as it helps to identify the poster, but like Bob said, if you really need a pic under each of your posts that badly, post it manually.
I can think of one person here who already posts his sort of text signature under his posts manually :p
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
yeah ofcourse.You hate me and you cant face me like a man.
I don\'t know if mm is into naked Greco-Roman wrestlling.
-
There other forms of wrestling too.And many ways to face someone like a man.
Didnt know that was your only idea of facing someone like a man
-
yeah ofcourse.You hate me and you cant face me like a man.
bro, this is ummmm the internet?
please wave your e-penis in another direction, thanks
-
So now I have to disable peoples signatures to avoid looking at the picture?
I already said I enjoyed reading peoples signatures. I don\'t want to disable them.
This website has to be made with my interests in mind!
-
Thread freaking close. Take your picture sigs and shove em up your poonanny.