Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  No images.

60 (15.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  No images.

100 (25.5%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  No images.

19 (4.8%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  No images.

15 (3.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

13 (3.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

67 (17.1%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

9 (2.3%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

49 (12.5%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

18 (4.6%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

0 (0%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

7 (1.8%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

4 (1%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

8 (2%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Images as big as the sky.

1 (0.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Images as big as the sky.

0 (0%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Images as big as the sky.

0 (0%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Images as big as the sky.

13 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 392

[slMagnvox]

Yes.  In effect, I'd rather have the full DF forum experience even if that means signature images that I think are a waste of valuable space and a distraction from the topcis being discussed.

Optimally, I'd like for the forums to be the way I most prefer, text only signatures, by default.  That is why I cast my vote as such.

I think that is a pretty logical and natural point of view.  I think many of the people who have voted against images will agree that, for instance, maxvances image is pretty damn cool.  But, I think we all realize, and Slarti really drove the point home, that many won't be as cool as maxvance's.  Which begs the question, even if I like some the majority will likely become very distracting, shouldn't I have just voted against them in the first place?  Yes.  Can I turn them off?  Yes.  Do I want that to be the situation?  No.

[Janus]

But, I think we all realize, and Slarti really drove the point home, that many won't be as cool as maxvance's.

So if they're not as cool as maxvance's they shouldn't be allowed?

If you're referring to that ridiculous flashing horrid image Slartbartifast provided, when have you ever seen something like that used in a signature in a forum which wasn't posted by a troll? The only time I've ever seen something like that in relation to signatures is when it's used in these ridiculous "look at the horrible things that could happen if you allow them!" speeches.
If somebody has something like that as a signature, they're posting it to be a troll. If they are a troll, they would no doubt find other ways to annoy people besides sticking such an image in their signature, and would deserve to be banned either way.

I have no interest in using an image in my signature, but I support having that possibility in a limited capacity. You can often convey more information or at the least a better looking presentation using an image rather than just using text.

[Gaulgath]

Janus makes mods the forum software to allow people to disable viewing images in signatures and people are still against it?

1) I want to see signatures to their completeness (For example, because the image and text are related, or because someone discusses them in the actual thread or because I just don't want something going on without me knowing about it)
2) I do not want to see images in signatures.
Conclusion: Even though you can disable images in signature you might want to prevent images in signatures in order so that you won't "miss out" if someone does have an image in his signature.

Wait. So you don't want to see images in signatures, but you also do want to see images in signatures? Do you really think you will be "missing" out on much? Certainly, if you are against images in signatures, it is the content of the posts that matters to you.

Honestly, it appears that you are nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking.

[slMagnvox]

If you're referring to that ridiculous flashing horrid image Slartbartifast provided, when have you ever seen something like that used in a signature in a forum which wasn't posted by a troll?

Here is a good example from the taleworlds forum ... http://forums.taleworlds.net/index.php/topic,39170.0.html  I don't know if that crosses the ban this guy line, but it distracts the hell out of me and is arguably offensive.  Moreover, I think we can all agree we don't want to put Toady in a situation where he has to police that kind of nonsense and where the line should be drawn, etc.

I have no interest in using an image in my signature, but I support having that possibility in a limited capacity. You can often convey more information or at the least a better looking presentation using an image rather than just using text.

So let me get this straight...  You don't want an img in your signature, but you want to allow other people image signatures which may go well beyond mild so that you don't have to feel they are being unfairly restricted?  Images can convey more information than text, but in the case of something like a signature, does that much information really need conveying?  By Samuel L Jackson no less?  Shouldn't the conveying of information be the subject of our posts and not so much our signatures?

[Kagus]

I saw a sig one time that was a lengthy .gif wherein Baloo flew a toaster with waffle wings across the deep blue sky for a while.  After that, there's a close-up of his face where he reels back in surprise and then spouts utter gibberish ("gkkak qprodaxd fmngoja!", or something similar).

The camera view shifts and you see a giant floating alien with random appendages that is being ridden by a flute-playing Jesus.  The whole affair is surrounded by a forcefield of energy.

Baloo fires a couple rockets at the alien-flute-Jesus-beast, which are disintegrated by the forcefield.  In response, the alien-flute-Jesus-beast yells some gibberish of its own and then charges up its energy stores and fires a blast of energy at Baloo's toaster-waffle-airplane.  The sky turns blood-red and Baloo goes down in flames.

I forget the rest.


Anyways, this was not a troll.  He was a respected member of the community, a Source modeler, and I think a beta tester.  I don't think I ever got the full statistics on his sig, but it utterly destroyed my laptop's wireless attempt at connecting to any thread he posted in.  There was a second's delay for scrolling down the page, just to see more of that peculiar sig.

[MaxVance]

And who says we have to put up with that sort of signature? We can just say that images like that ate not allowed in signatures. And if you really think it would take up far too much of Toady's time to remove the few signature images that would be like that, remember that he doesn't have to be the only moderator.

[Dwarmin]

I fear Buffalos more than Elephants 

if we have images i hope i can turn them off without system problems. Ive just "seen" some nightmare boards that crashed my computer, lets hope we can be more mature here....

[Shadowlord]

I also voted against images in signatures (but before I read the entire thread - Janus' mod to enable blocking only images in sigs wasn't mentioned until page 6 or 7, and I didn't finish page 1 before voting, I think).

If Janus' mod makes the images not get sent to the users at all, then I've got no problems with allowing images in sigs (I'll disable them in my preferences). (Better still, let us specify the maximum image size in our preferences. Maybe we'll put 128x128 spore critters in our sigs )

[Draco18s]

I also voted against images in signatures (but before I read the entire thread - Janus' mod to enable blocking only images in sigs wasn't mentioned until page 6 or 7, and I didn't finish page 1 before voting, I think).

If Janus' mod makes the images not get sent to the users at all, then I've got no problems with allowing images in sigs (I'll disable them in my preferences).

Two things,
1: That's why there's a remove vote option: you can then vote again differently (I used it, because I voted before reading ANYTHING and decided that 150 px was too much).

2: It would indeed prevent images from being downloaded, that's the wonders of php!

[commondragon]

1. People with bad connections should expect slow page loading.  Despite what you say, it is still their fault their connection is slow.  We can always set a rule against animated signatures.
2. Bad content is one of the things moderators have to deal with.  If they are too lazy to deal with someone's page-crashing or otherwise inapproriate signature, they are unfit to be a moderator.
3. I dont see how Toady could be the only mod, if he needs more, he'll get more
4. Its a distraction only if you let it be.  After the first time, you should know its there.  If not, then you need to work on self control and/or willpower.
5. Not everyone will use images in their signatures
6. Forcing people to use ASCII art is not a good solution, especially if said people dont know how, or just suck at art in general (such as me).
7. the signature and avatar disabling options are separate
8. remove vote is in there because they were expecting a large debate
9. This "image mentality" is a stereotype, and needs to be treated as so (ignored)
10. Signature moderation is not the same thing as a heavily moderated forum
11. Forcing people to post pictures in an art forum is not the same thing as placing them in a signature.  It just makes it rather...well...stupid.
12. Its only a distraction if you let it be one.
13. Oh, did I mention that its only a distraction if you let it be one?

that is all for now

[MaxVance]

1. People with bad connections should expect slow page loading.  Despite what you say, it is still their fault their connection is slow.  We can always set a rule against animated signatures.

Animated signatures aren't always large. Goblinsig.gif is 6.2 kilobytes; Slartibartfast's troll signature is only 1.2 kilobytes.

[Elvenshae]

Here is a good example from the taleworlds forum ... http://forums.taleworlds.net/index.php/topic,39170.0.html  I don't know if that crosses the ban this guy line, but it distracts the hell out of me and is arguably offensive.

... and is about par for the Suggestion Forum Course (seriously, people need to turn down the gain on the "Already Suggested!" output ... ).

So let me get this straight...  You don't want an img in your signature, but you want to allow other people image signatures which may go well beyond mild so that you don't have to feel they are being unfairly restricted?

Yep, that sounds about right.  Permissiveness - especially when married with the ability to self-censor - is almost universally the more reasonable proposition.

Shouldn't the conveying of information be the subject of our posts and not so much our signatures?

Think of the childrens!

Honestly, this line of attack doesn't even make sense.  "You shouldn't be allowed to communicate via a .sig.  You should only communicate via posts!"

Personally, I like to keep important links in my .sig.  That way, they're always available to me and a lot of posts on repetitive questions can be shortened to, "Yes - this works.  Check the link in my .sig for more information."

[Derakon]

1. People with bad connections should expect slow page loading.  Despite what you say, it is still their fault their connection is slow.  We can always set a rule against animated signatures.

There's still a world of difference between "slow" and "glacial". I see absolutely no reason to make pages be an extra 400kB just because we can. Content should have meaning.

2. Bad content is one of the things moderators have to deal with.  If they are too lazy to deal with someone's page-crashing or otherwise inapproriate signature, they are unfit to be a moderator.
3. I dont see how Toady could be the only mod, if he needs more, he'll get more

I'd advise against calling the existing moderators lazy; they have many obligations that they must meet, and moderating the forums is just one of them. I do think that having more moderators would be helpful, but Toady may not feel like he's willing to trust other people with that kind of power. If that is the case, then he'll have to make decisions to limit the amount of moderating he has to do.

4. Its a distraction only if you let it be.  After the first time, you should know its there.  If not, then you need to work on self control and/or willpower.

Just a note - you're doing a lot of assignation of blame here. It makes you come off as offensive, which you may not be meaning to do (if you are meaning to be offensive, then you should reconsider writing the post at all...). Anyway, ignoring something does take a certain small amount of effort. And scrolling past something does take time. Signatures add a certain amount of clutter to the forum, and just like clutter in workshops, make using the forum a slower process. And that's even if you like the sigs.

5. Not everyone will use images in their signatures

I fail to see how this argument relates to the matter at hand; if you're implying that the forums will still be largely image-free, I don't share your optimism.

6. Forcing people to use ASCII art is not a good solution, especially if said people dont know how, or just suck at art in general (such as me).

This is an excellent opportunity to learn a new skill, then. And again, if you want to show off some non-ASCII art you've made, you can make a dedicated post for it. It needn't be in your signature.

7. the signature and avatar disabling options are separate
8. remove vote is in there because they were expecting a large debate

No comments needed, none made.

9. This "image mentality" is a stereotype, and needs to be treated as so (ignored)

Stereotypes are important - they help you recognize connections. They're a form of mental shorthand. They can be misapplied, of course, and it's bad when that happens. But say I notice that most four-year-olds I interact with don't speak clearly. It's a stereotype to say that most four-year-olds in general don't speak clearly, and yet having that stereotype in-mind helps me prepare for when I encounter a new four-year-old.

More relevantly, most forums I've seen that allow for images in signatures have had a lower level of discourse than those forums that don't allow for images in signatures. I've observed similar correlations with avatar size (larger avatars correlate with worse dialogue). I haven't demonstrated any kind of causal connection, but there's still concern that there is one. If nothing else, having images in signatures could drive away a subset of your audience (those who don't like images in sigs) while I think it comparatively unlikely that someone will leave the forum because they couldn't have an image in their sig.

10. Signature moderation is not the same thing as a heavily moderated forum

It's a pretty nitpicky level of moderation, though, and requires a lot of time from the moderators. It will also entail a lot of debate - what exactly makes for an acceptable sig image? That will require coming up with rules, and then the exceptions and extensions of the rules, and it's just generally a big mess that nobody wants to get into.

11. Forcing people to post pictures in an art forum is not the same thing as placing them in a signature.  It just makes it rather...well...stupid.

What's stupid about calling attention to your work once, and giving people a place specifically to admire it? On the flip side, what's smart about pasting your work without thought onto every single thing you write?

12. Its only a distraction if you let it be one.
13. Oh, did I mention that its only a distraction if you let it be one?

Covered earlier. Ignoring distractions takes effort, even if only a little.

Edit:

Honestly, this line of attack doesn't even make sense.  "You shouldn't be allowed to communicate via a .sig.  You should only communicate via posts!"

Personally, I like to keep important links in my .sig.  That way, they're always available to me and a lot of posts on repetitive questions can be shortened to, "Yes - this works.  Check the link in my .sig for more information."

I think the point about sig content is that it doesn't qualify as communication unless it's actually contributing to the discussion in some meaningful way. Serving as a repository of links is a meaningful contribution, for example. Serving as a repository of pointless links isn't so helpful (but at least it's easily ignored). Showing off a funny animation is a meaningful contribution the first few times it's seen, but after that, it stops being meaningful - everyone's already seen it. Moreover, images start detracting from discourse because they get in the way; they grab the eye away from the text that's the reason people are there.

[Draco18s]

This is an excellent opportunity to learn a new skill, then. And again, if you want to show off some non-ASCII art you've made, you can make a dedicated post for it. It needn't be in your signature.

More relevantly, most forums I've seen that allow for images in signatures have had a lower level of discourse than those forums that don't allow for images in signatures. I've observed similar correlations with avatar size (larger avatars correlate with worse dialogue). I haven't demonstrated any kind of causal connection, but there's still concern that there is one. If nothing else, having images in signatures could drive away a subset of your audience (those who don't like images in sigs) while I think it comparatively unlikely that someone will leave the forum because they couldn't have an image in their sig.

Covering both in one fowl swoop:

No one uses a signature as an online gallery.
For example, on a rather serious-minded forum where there are no limits on sig size most are within the limits presented by this thread's poll (not counting "as large as the sky"), here's one of them:


Then three lines, one saying that the website that the image links to is back up, a second linking to DeviantArt, and a third, a quote from Baruch Spinoza.

Serpenthor is one of the most intelligent and serious people I know.  Another is Vellos, here's his sig:


Webpage  Drawing

PEOPLE DO NOT USE SIGS TO DISPLAY NEW ART.  People generally take OLD images and crop them in tight, then add some simple text (usually their name) and then link it to a personal webpage.

On this forum we can expect people to link to a story thread ([insert image saying, "Boatmurdered!" with picture of a shipwreck]) or links to mods (probably raw text), links to graphical sets as an image of part of the graphic tile set.  How gorram cool would that be?  To use a tileset to advertise the tileset!  You knew what it looked like--at least partially--before clicking on it!

[MaxVance]

He makes a good point. I would never have created an entire topic (or for that matter, even a whole post) just to talk about goblinsig.gif. I created that image specifically for my signature, and I am sure this is what everyone else will do.