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

[Draco18s]

My take:
Ad type images for any for-profit ventures (solicitation, basically) should be forbidden. Something for "myminicity" or whatever wouldn't bother me.
Animated images are fine with me as long as they don't fall into the flashing, epilepsy-inducing variety.
Meme sigs are also fine with me, if the person wants to use them.

That said, I have no real strong feelings on the matter; as long as they're not utterly annoying, they don't bother me.

This is about where I fall as well.  DF forums have been one of only two places where sig images haven't existed (the other is a non-binary newsgroup, so sig images there have been extremely limited as most people don't have the skill to make ASCII art of any significant size, even mine--which I mostly stole--is only about 7 lines tall, which is about middling for signatures, though I do think on this particular pre-web forum I've got the only "image" signature above 15 characters).  So I'm not bothered by them and have had generally good experiences (due to being part of only serious forums) with them, so I took a liberal stance.

[Surma]

Don't try and negate my opinions by refuting them or telling me I can turn them off.  Answer a couple of the questions above and try and please share with us something positive about how signature images might benefit us.

Fine, I'll negate it by mentioning another piece of that quote:

...
Since just fewer than half of the people voting don't want to have image signatures, and it would be a significant change, and yet more than half support them at some level, an option I'm considering (please keep in mind that nothing is decided) is to allow signature images on an opt-in basis.  That is, guests would not see them, and members with a profile option checked would see them.  As he mentioned, Janus has already prepared a mod (including now the guest setting, so those browsing from keylogger-ridden public terminals don't see signature images).  Although the decision has not been made, I wanted to make sure it was technically feasible before entering the discussion.
...

(made bold for clarity)
If implemented as highlighted above, you would never have to lift a finger to disable images in signatures.


Let me give you an example:

Core50, TILESET SUPPORT, (Future): Allow graphical tiles to be used for all game objects.

Required in Presentation Arc, Version 1 Development, found under CORE COMPONENTS 41-60 #50.

Once said arc is complete, I can imagine some of the tileset makers (sprite artists?) will have a link to this in their signature. Probably including a sampling of some of the sprites. Of course this is just one example of their potential uses, I myself can not foresee all the possibilities of a decision to allow images in signatures, and I assume that some enterprising artist (or clever thief) will eventually find a way to astound me with an ingenious use of the image.

And honestly, some of you are grouping all signatures together as "annoyances". There are countless stereotypes on the internet already, e.g. "everyone on the internet is male (until proven otherwise, preferably with a picture)" which is of course stupid, or lets not forget "The internet is for porn"_[1] ... that may be true however (the smilie means it's a joke, ha ha.)
The preceding was in jest, though at one point or another both were actual stereotypes found about the internet, and can still be found in particularly deep holes under large rocks.

Once all is said, and I've said enough already, I'm a supporter of signatures, as I was of avatars, though I may never get, make, or use one. I try to believe that not everyone on the internet will automatically abuse any or every feature they're privileged with. Though I may just be an optimist.

_{[1] A reference to the musical, "Avenue Q". Avenue Q - Wikipedia. 18 June 2008(last edit). Wikimedia Foundation. 21 June 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avenue_Q#Act_One>}.

_{P.s. Yay for pointless bibliography! (again, a joke ha ha.)
P.p.s. I think this may have been my longest post I've written in any forum, ever. My head hurts...}

[OverrideB1]

I'm quite surprised to see that this debate is still ongoing: Toady has said that there will (in all probability) be an opt-in option for image-signatures. Those that want 'em can opt in. them as don't need do nothing. That, as far as I'm concerned, is the ideal option.

IF that can't be done, I'm sure that an opt-out option can be (is already?) available. While not as ideal, from my viewpoint, that is equally acceptable.

I don't understand why those that want them feel that they're being "done down" in some manner by those that don't. (The opposite is also true: those that don't want them seem to feel slighted in some way by those that do). As far as I knew, Toady was giving us a democratic option to make our feelings known - he's quite within his rights to say "No avatars, no image-signatures, and no text-signatures" if he so desires. Having made our feelings known (a preponderance of those who voted want an image-based signature) shouldn't we abide by the majority decision: even if it is at odds with our own wishes? Call me "old fashioned" if you like^*, but I thought that was the whole point of the poll

^* There now follows a list of posters calling me old fashioned

[Aquillion]

Once all is said, and I've said enough already, I'm a supporter of signatures, as I was of avatars, though I may never get, make, or use one. I try to believe that not everyone on the internet will automatically abuse any or every feature they're privileged with. Though I may just be an optimist.

The thing is, though, that to many people the nature of image sigs is inherently abusive, regardless of what actually goes inside them.  There is no other way anyone could get away with spamming the same image every time they post.  None.  If I were to put a clever image joke in every post I made normally, I would (quite rightfully) be banned from nearly any forum on the internet, since spamming is a terrible thing regardless of what you decide to spam.

I am not objecting to individual theoretical image sigs, but to the concept of image sigs as a whole.  A clever image or tileset or whatever belongs in a thread devoted to it, not in every single thread you post to; people who make good content for DF can post it to an appropriately-named thread, edit it into a Wiki page devoted to user-made content, and so on.  How could it be appropriate for people to advertise their creations -- no matter how badly they want the rest of us to see them -- in what are essentially ad banners across the bottom of every post they make?

There is still no answer to this.  Nobody has explained why they feel the need to use every post they make -- even on barely-related subjects -- to advertise their creations, or to post the same once-clever joke a thousand times until it has been run into the ground, or whatever it is they intend to use their sigs for (go ahead, tell me if it's something else!  I don't know.)  I think it's easy to understand that some people are bothered by the visual impact of image sigs (surely the fact that we see them as ad-banners and spamming is easy to understand, even if you disagree with it?)  But nobody who supports them has provided a really good reason why they're needed; everything you suggest is something that could be done just as easily using an alternate method...  without "spamming" what you're advertising or saying into everything you post.

A sig is, in essence, a method of spamming the same thing over and over.  Why do you feel it is necessary to be able to spam images in this fashion?  What do you feel it accomplishes that cannot be accomplished any other way?

In any case...

Opt-in image signatures are at least less glaringly offensive; they do address most of the important logical arguments.  With opt-in image sig, there is really no way for people who don't want to see them to be "forced" to see them, so the fact that no really compelling argument has been made for why image-sigs are necessary is less important (if they're really not bothering anyone, "I like them" can be enough.)

I still would rather not have them.  Even if I don't see them, I can't help but feel that for the people who do see them, it will influence the way they think about the forum and, therefore, how they behave in it.  Regardless of the sort of person they are (regardless, in other words, of the fact that they'd be people who would enable sigs if given the choice anyway), I can't help but feel that people's attitude towards the forum will be influenced by how it looks to them...

I feel that people are likely to be more civil and mature (whether they realize it or not) without dozens of "This poll says I am a fisherdwarf!" and "This post made by XXXGoku37XXX!" and "See my DF-themed DeviantArt page!" banners splattered around.  There is an effect like this noted in the study of neighborhoods, where people are more likely to vandalize the area if they see it as already damaged or vandalized...  you get the idea.  Regardless of the sort of person they are normally, what they see, constantly, at the moment when they post and reply, is going to have a direct impact on how they post and behave -- if they see a cleaner, smoother, less flashy forum, they will be more inclined to make cleaner, smoother, less flashy posts. 

Certainly, you can see how someone who sees a bunch of garish, spammy images every time they log into the forum could be inclined to use more garish, spammy images (or image macros, or whatever they're called) themselves?  To them, that's what the forum looks like, and it'd be easy for them to forget that it doesn't look that way to everyone else -- so they'll say (on some level) "Hah, that person is acting stupid!  I shall post a picture of a quizzical owl asking them if they really are that stupid, which will not be out-of-place here because, as I always see, this forum is filled with images!"  Someone who is not constantly bombarded with image sigs is far less likely to post that quizzical-owl picture, even if they would have enabled sigs when given the option.

Which leads to this...

By that "logic", if Toady offered people the option to change their forum theme to something that doesn't look gray, you'd try to VETO them too even if YOU get to see the forum in the way YOU want it. You just don't want OTHER people to see the forum in the way THEY want it.

Well, yes.  If Toady posted what looked to me like an absolutely, offensively-ugly, garishly-colored forum theme and said "should this be added as an option?", I would say "hell no!"

It might get added anyway, and it's not like it's going to be the end of the world.  But in either case, I do feel that the look-and-feel of a forum influences the way people behave there...  and I would, therefore, prefer to post in a forum whose display did not contain options for what I feel to be garish, ugly, or spammy elements.  Even if I do not actually have to see them, they will set the tone of the forum, to an extent.

[Mikademus]

There is still no answer to this.  Nobody has explained why they feel the need to use every post they make -- even on barely-related subjects -- to advertise their creations, or to post the same once-clever joke a thousand times until it has been run into the ground, or whatever it is they intend to use their sigs for (go ahead, tell me if it's something else!  I don't know.) 

I did, but you conveniently forgot this. Or thought it wrong or irrelevant, so you forgot it. Whatever, you're a zealot with a mission that seem analogous to that it is worth sacrificing essential freedom for temporary safety (if you know the quote then you know what I think of you and your diatribe argumentation). It was amusing initially to make swings and jabs in this thread, then I realised you on the image-hater side actually takes it seriously. I'm actually astonished you are so self-assumed and self-absorbed myopic you actually can't see any positive sides to sigs, and have the cynicism and so little belief in this community --which is one of the most reflecting and reasonable ones I've ever come across bar some-- that you manically fear and loath the chimeric ghost of a worst-case what-if.

You know who you are: I throw a venomous lol in your face. Shrug or wipe it off, still know that you're being laughed at for being fanatics in a silly crusade. Intarweb fights for da win.

[Slartibartfast]

Mikademus, flaming Aquillion only serves to prove his/her point
(And that was some seriously venomous post.)

[slMagnvox]

<...flame...>

You know who you are: I throw a venomous lol in your face. Shrug or wipe it off, still know that you're being laughed at for being fanatics in a silly crusade. Intarweb fights for da win.

Wow.  Responding to an honest editorial with intolerance and antagonism does very little to benefit to your cause.  Especially when you are trying to champion tolerance

[Qmarx]

Personally, I have adblock if image signatures get annoying.

That stated, displaying signatures only once/page is a good idea no matter what option is chosen...

[OverrideB1]

<flammage>

You know who you are: I throw a venomous lol in your face. Shrug or wipe it off, still know that you're being laughed at for being fanatics in a silly crusade. Intarweb fights for da win.

You do realise you're not helping your case any by posting flames like this -- in fact, you are effectively reinforcing every single thing Aquillion is saying is wrong with image signatures. You accuse him of being a zealot: I might suggest you hold that mirror up to yourself and take a good, hard look at what is reflected therein.

[Surma]

Mikademus, flaming Aquillion only serves to prove his/her point
(And that was some seriously venomous post.)

‼+post+‼ at best
Besides, 'It's just a flesh wound'

And yes, we've gone through the whole "You know that's not helping your side of the argument" already. I doubt anyone needed that cleared up.

Aquillion, you did go on a rather long... speech... my thesaurus failed me, allocution, or maybe spiel? Probably spiel, as in a sales pitch.. certainly had such a feeling to me.

Anyway, it was extensive and can be very generally summarized as thus:

images in signatures:

• are a form legalized "spamming"
• will dominate or, in some way shape or form, change the tone of discourse
To which there are no answers, there can't be. This is the internet, where words can more than make up for a stupid or abusive, in any and every way you can imagine words to be abusive, image. And can certainly make up for any amount of canned meat that a image would entail.

My favorite of your post was the following

I am not objecting to individual theoretical image sigs but to the concept of image sigs as a whole.

Which in the context of this thread basically states "I'm not objecting to images in signatures, I'm objecting to images in signatures."  ;P (that's smilie should be taken as a more happy 'tongue' image, more jovial and such)

You obviously object to them enough to write over 900 words on the subject, which it is of course your right to object to something. I just wish that you weren't so pessimistic about the way it may turn out. Have a bit more faith in your fellow Bay12 Forumite (well, at the time of writing this anyway, of course hindsight is 20/20 we'll know how it turns out eventually.)

Aquillion, I mean no offense, but you seem to like long drawn out posts. I'm speaking only for myself here but, some self control is always appreciated. Posting a page and a half essay on why you don't like images in signatures is lovely, but we're (I'm certainly not, I can only hope others agree) not going to grade you on if your post meets the required number of words.

Aquillion, I hope you realize I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, yours is just the latest post to actually have any substance other than general rhetoric and "fightin' words". And I think this post is long enough for the next four hours..

[Sergius]

And ranting for the complete removal of the *right* (not the *obligation*) to see signatures, saying that they're a complete abomination to the internet and inherently offensive regardless of content, that they should be smited on sight, somehow is not? All that "oh by flaming you just proved yourself wrong!" is the worst kind of internet hypocrisy. You can ask for civility all you want but the moment you claim that being uncivil simply proves someone wrong in all points is the most amazingly stup... silly pants thing to do.

And what's that all about "please give one reason FOR signatures"? Why not give a reason FOR a grey on black background... none? Ok, we should remove them. Why do we have blue buttons on the top of the screen? No reason? Off with em! Make them "color neutral"! Why is the game logo red? Get rid of the red! What's the purpose of the "spirit of the forums (ASCII)"? No purpose at all.

The only reason you need is: a lot of people want them. THEY will see them. They will be HAPPY that they got their damn signatures. Those who have them turned off won't be made UNHAPPY by them. Happiness is a valid reason for most things as long as nobody gets hurt. To think otherwise is conservative thinking.

[Sergius]

On other news, the Earth is flat. Whoever said it was round said so in a meanie way and should be disregarded.

[Slartibartfast]

And ranting for the complete removal of the *right* (not the *obligation*) to see signatures, saying that they're a complete abomination to the internet and inherently offensive regardless of content, that they should be smited on sight, somehow is not?

Nope.
Well, not unless you are a signature image.
But for some reason I don't think those are cognizant enough to be offended by that.

All that "oh by flaming you just proved yourself wrong!" is the worst kind of internet hypocrisy. You can ask for civility all you want but the moment you claim that being uncivil simply proves someone wrong in all points is the most amazingly stup... silly pants thing to do.

Aquillion made a point that signature images degrade forum content. So a serious flame from a pro-image user does somewhat helps make his point.

And what's that all about "please give one reason FOR signatures"? Why not give a reason FOR a grey on black background... none? Ok, we should remove them. Why do we have blue buttons on the top of the screen? No reason? Off with em! Make them "color neutral"! Why is the game logo red? Get rid of the red! What's the purpose of the "spirit of the forums (ASCII)"? No purpose at all.

As has Aquillion already explained:
1) There are already disadvantages to signature images (Whether you see them or not).  [and so there would actually have to be an advantage to them to balance the disadvantages.]
2) No images was the previous consensus, if you want to change the consensus you should have good reasons and support. (both of which are lacking)

On other news, the Earth is flat. Whoever said it was round said so in a meanie way and should be disregarded.

Already addressed above.

[OverrideB1]

And ranting for the complete removal of the *right* (not the *obligation*) to see signatures, saying that they're a complete abomination to the internet and inherently offensive regardless of content, that they should be smited on sight, somehow is not? All that "oh by flaming you just proved yourself wrong!" is the worst kind of internet hypocrisy. You can ask for civility all you want but the moment you claim that being uncivil simply proves someone wrong in all points is the most amazingly stup... silly pants thing to do.

And what's that all about "please give one reason FOR signatures"? Why not give a reason FOR a grey on black background... none? Ok, we should remove them. Why do we have blue buttons on the top of the screen? No reason? Off with em! Make them "color neutral"! Why is the game logo red? Get rid of the red! What's the purpose of the "spirit of the forums (ASCII)"? No purpose at all.

The only reason you need is: a lot of people want them. THEY will see them. They will be HAPPY that they got their damn signatures. Those who have them turned off won't be made UNHAPPY by them. Happiness is a valid reason for most things as long as nobody gets hurt. To think otherwise is conservative thinking.

While I try to avoid contentious issues on the internet, I feel that I need to wade in at this point and hand you my 2-cents.

This is Toady's board: none of us here have any rights other than those Toady chooses to grant us. I said it before and it probably bears repeating -- Toady has every right to say "no avatars, no image signatures, and no text signatures" if he so pleases. And the way both of the more zealous sides of this debate are responding to each other I wouldn't blame him for one picosecond if he said exactly that.

I happen to agree with Aqillion that image signatures serve no real purpose and I'd really rather not see them here. I have yet to see a single cogent argument from the pro-side as to why we should have them on this forum. To make bay12 the same as every other damn' forum? So people can express their "individuality" better? Simply because we can? On the flip side, there has been no real cogent argument as to why we shouldn't have them.

There really was no need for Mikademus' post -- it was flamage pure and simple. Exactly the sort of thing that Aquillon feared would become rife in these forums. And lo, it came to pass just frakking discussing the image signatures. So, less hypocrisy and rather more "proving" Aquillon's point for him.

Plain and simple -- there has been a democatic choice made. The majority of those who voted voted for an image signature. I should just like to point out that there are 343 votes out of 4647 members. Those of you on both sides screaming about their mandate might like to remember that the total vote equates to less than 8% of the total membership of this forum. In other words: 92% don't give a frakking damn' either way.

So both sides might like to consider that there is a majority who, by not expressing a preference, want things left exactly as they are. And, given the nature of the arguments that are developing, I'm coming to the opinion that Toady would be best served listening to the real majority vote

[Mikademus]

Aquillion made a point that signature images degrade forum content. So a serious flame from a pro-image user does somewhat helps make his point.

Oh, the thing is, I'm not really die-hard pro-image, I'm pro the creativity of *this* community. And my post wasn't real flammage (flames are closer to spam), rather it vas very acidious attack on his apparent personality. I'm not a fantatic, but I get really riled up by internet holier-than-thouism. And honestly, it doesn't matter how you phrase yourself in this kind of situation. If you argue cognetly and rationally knuckleheads will just stuborn on; if you try to be diplomatic and give an inch, the entrenched will believe their cause stronger and claim victory; and if you go hot then the myopic can invoke something Godwinish (all that vocal minority have done all three of these). Since I actually don't really care about this (or if you believe that statement) I at least got more personal entertainment from telling you what you are. If it makes it easier for some to call it "flames" in self-serving internet fight-myopia, again, I don't really care. Now, make what you want of this post.