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

[frostedfire]

have we actually made a decision about this, or are we still discussing random ideas?  from my quick calcs, the vote was ~48v52 in terms of image/no image.  I think small image banners should be passable, as you can put in a few lines of combat dialogue in image.  that and loads of text, my sig had to be tailored but neatly fits in at the 256 limit (through clever tag use ) and I know a few people who would like to use more, eg that guy with the b-ball meme sig or whatever, or even myself - I would have liked to put in more combat lines about organs being blown out, but couldn't

[Draco18s]

the vote was ~48v52 in terms of image/no image

52v48 image/no image. Gotta make sure you do things respectively.

Its like how "The Mets are winning 0-9" is wrong.  It's always done [named]-[opponent] or as you wrote [a_score] vs [b_score] in terms of [a_def] to [b_def].

[Lemnx]

Mmm... I think of the vote this way.

People who don't want signatures V People who don't mind them and people who want them.

This reminds me of the "Don't smoke, this is my air too!" argument, except the effects of graphic signatures don't cause any ill health effects, but we still need DF like we need Air. *giggle* Anyway, if smokers can just go outside to smoking designated areas, can't forum users just choose not to see the signatures? It's called meeting both sides half-way.

I would ENJOY signatures, but we (The Forum) don't NEED them. Now I guess Toady needs to decide if forcing Somebody who doesn't want signatures to click a button in their profile is too much to ask.

[Torak]

have we actually made a decision about this, or are we still discussing random ideas?  from my quick calcs, the vote was ~48v52 in terms of image/no image.  I think small image banners should be passable, as you can put in a few lines of combat dialogue in image.  that and loads of text, my sig had to be tailored but neatly fits in at the 256 limit (through clever tag use ) and I know a few people who would like to use more, eg that guy with the b-ball meme sig or whatever, or even myself - I would have liked to put in more combat lines about organs being blown out, but couldn't

Meme?

[mutant mell]

Well, I might as well add my 2¢ to the giant pile of change.

In general, I am a very timid forum-poster, one who lurks a lot, reads most everything, seldom posts (and when I do post, it tends to be massive walls of text that few read).  Something about a forum of people discussing things makes me feel uncomfortable, for some reason.  I don't fill out my profile, and I seldom have a signature ever.  I think that they tend to look bad, because few people spend a large amount of time working of them, especially when it comes to images.  I especially hate it when they are riddled with misspellings.

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

Really, even though I would prefer to not look at them, I would rather not disallow people the opportunity to have an image in their signature.  And really, if an image is too obnoxious or irritating, then you can send a quick PM to the person to ask them if they could tone down their images a bit.

When you have a large group of people, you are going to get a weird phenomenon: people have different opinions and cultures.  When you have different people with different opinions, I believe that concessions have to be made, especially from both of the extremes.

The culture of our previous board has dictated that images are not allowed.  However, with this new board, we have a sudden change of culture: images are suddenly allowed.  Instantly we have a schism occurring, from the side who wants to embrace the new culture, and the side that wants to embrace the old culture.  Not that either culture is bad, per say, they are just wildly different.  When you have a sudden culture shock, an unfortunate tendency is for the groups, who may have had no problem with each other before, to dehumanize the other group.  As long as the two groups remain separate from each other, and as long as they have wildly diverging beliefs about the issue, some members of the group will never see each other's opinion as valid, or even humane.

In my eyes, an opt-in/opt-out system will just keep these two groups separate, and would perhaps lead to a subtle culture schism in the board.

So, while I would prefer not to have images, I voted for a concession.  Will I ever use an image in my signature?  Probably not; it's not my style really.  But others will enjoy it, at the concession that they have to keep it reasonably sized.

Having an opt-out option is definitely a good idea, for technical reasons, and for people who really despise all images.  However, I'm not sure that it would be the wisest course of action to make opt-out the default setting, especially when we're just trying it out for the first time.  The board has been compulsorily image-free since the day it was digitally conceived, lets give it some graphical freedom for a while.  If it gets to be too much, then we could always go back to the old way.  If we don't try both, how will we ever know what we prefer?

EDIT: I hate it when I think of something else to include in a post about 5 seconds after I hit the submit button.  Anyways, just to head off a potential argument:

And if we do find that we don't want images in out signatures after trying it out, then some of the people will complain, yes.  However, the people who would complain would probably be part of the problem that would lead to disallowing images, and it wouldn't be taking away something they enjoy just to spite them, it would be taking away something to punish them, and to take away temptation.  Besides, for the most part, we are a reasonable group of people, and if it came to that, then most people would understand.  Most people tend to fall in the middle of any group anyways.

[E. Albright]

As, I suppose, one of the image objectors, I'd be willing to hope that opt-in with guidelines will be relatively safe. Speaking only for myself.

As to a chilling effect, posting guidelines doesn't in and of itself do it, no. Anecdotally, one of the most engaging and informative (and active) forums I ever participated on had, without question, the most draconian (but fair and consistent) moderation and posting (and avatar, and sig, and profile, and tone, and grammar) rules I've ever encountered. But since the community was good, and there was sufficiently meaningful content to read, people didn't care. The fact that the tone was civil and the forum free of 1337-speak and memes (by means of brutal moderation) was actually touted within the greater community as a positive feature of said forum. Which is, again, a long, anecdotal way of saying that posting guidelines is not in and of itself chilling (particularly considering how many people won't bother to read them  ).

[Draco18s]

I belong to a similar forum, joining regimen is heavily restricted, though moderation is light (if you can be draconian enough upfront, people are very unlikely to need moderation afterwards--the forum requires that one write an essay!)

[OverrideB1]

I'm quite happy to allow those that want images in their signatures to have them, at whatever size is deemed best as long as there is some method of disabling them for those that don't want to see them. This could be an opt-in or an opt-out process: it really is no big deal whichever way it's set up. And, honestly, if there is no option? I would still come here...

[Slartibartfast]

The options as Toady presented them are:
1) Guests either have images turned on or off.
2) Logged in users have either option by default, and can change it.

I believe it is pretty obvious that 1) should have images off by default, the harm from having images off is none-existant, while for some people having images on might be harmful.
Now we come to decide whether logged in users should have on or off as the default.
Having on as the default has the downside of, as Toady said, quite a shock when you join in. (And I believe the "risk" here is a bit downplayed, because in that case I fully expect at least a weekly spam thread of "w00t I joined and there are perty pictures")
Having off by default has been said to be a problem because new users will not be aware of having to enable signature images. I don't think this is a real problem, because you have to mess around with your profile settings to put up a signature, so there's a very good chance they'll see the appropriate option on the way. And even if they won't, then they will just put up a signature image, see that the image isn't showing up, and then start exploring what is going on. So this is not really a problem imo.

[Mikademus]

As to a chilling effect, posting guidelines doesn't in and of itself do it, no. Anecdotally, one of the most engaging and informative (and active) forums I ever participated on had, without question, the most draconian (but fair and consistent) moderation and posting (and avatar, and sig, and profile, and tone, and grammar) rules I've ever encountered.

A beneficial dictator is the best form of government. What speaks against this for here, though, is that Toady obviously do not want the role of a dictator, which I understand and sympathise with, because it fundamentally changes the role and actions to have to assume and perform. And delegating draconian powers is a very risky path.

Anyway, engrossing and enthusing as this thread is, it is really a storm in a very small bottle (only some ten of 15 persons are actually involved in debating, arguing and behavioural rectification) and though the doomsday scenario arguments painted here may seem convincing the outcome of a hands-off policy will probably be the best solution. If not, then rules, technical restrictions and disciplinary task force of  moderators can be introduced later.

--

Oh, a new post while typing:

I believe it is pretty obvious that 1) should have images off by default, the harm from having images off is none-existant

It is not obvious. The converse "the harm from having images on is non-existant" is an equally viable argument.

However, I will introduce an argument FOR the side of no images for guest accounts: not seeing sig pictures before signing up may format the expectations and early internalisation of norms of the new user, and as such instil a proclivity for recalcitrance. This is of course theoretic, but at least it is based on psychology, it is reasonable, and it is not based on paternalism or pre-emptive restriction of freedom (note: not accusing anyone of this).

[Slartibartfast]

I believe it is pretty obvious that 1) should have images off by default, the harm from having images off is none-existant

It is not obvious. The converse "the harm from having images on is non-existant" is an equally viable argument.

No it is not, for a multitude of reasons that I don't feel like posting over and over again. (One of them, for example, is bandwidth concerns.)

However, I will introduce an argument FOR the side of no images for guest accounts: not seeing sig pictures before signing up may format the expectations and early internalisation of norms of the new user, and as such instil a proclivity for recalcitrance. This is of course theoretic, but at least it is based on psychology, it is reasonable, and it is not based on paternalism or pre-emptive restriction of freedom (note: not accusing anyone of this).

Of course this works the other way around.

[Mikademus]

it doesn't matter how you phrase yourself in this kind of situation. If you argue cogently and rationally [fluffy penguins] will just stubborn on; if you try to be diplomatic and give an inch, the [entrenched but cute lemurs] will believe their cause stronger and claim victory;

However, I will introduce an argument FOR the side of no images for guest accounts: not seeing sig pictures before signing up may format the expectations and early internalisation of norms of the new user, and as such instil a proclivity for recalcitrance. This is of course theoretic, but at least it is based on psychology, it is reasonable, and it is not based on paternalism or pre-emptive restriction of freedom (note: not accusing anyone of this).

Of course this works the other way around.

QED.

Or do you mean "this works the other way around, too"? If so I agree.

[Slartibartfast]

STUFF

So you claim an imaginary misconduct that no one has done, and then to prove your point you go and commit that misconduct?
Is there a point to that post?

[Toady One]

I'm not sure what the other way around is for that statement, so I'm not really sure what's being argued here, but that's not important, I think.  As far as I can tell, Mikademus was making a no-image argument as an olive branch or a change of pace and considered Slartibartfast's response to be evidence of the zealotry he mentioned previously, but it could easily just be a simple misunderstanding instead.  Let's not score points off each other.  This thread is just a fact-finding mission, and we are all explorers.  Think good thoughts about each other and let the waves of peace and understanding of your shared humanity flow throughout your entire body.  As the buzz slowly fades, you find yourself...  chill.


(mutant mell) Even in opt-in, I think a prominent news item stating that signatures images are now available, or something to that effect, will raise community awareness enough to count as giving images a chance (virtually everybody that wants one will add one at that point).  Easing into things is vastly nicer for me personally than making sweeping, opposed changes a couple times.

(slartibartfast) I think there might be some "I just found the option, and wow, look at all these signatures!" threads in an opt-in system, but it's impossible to tell...  yeah, you might get a bit more in the opt-out system because it's an unforeseen shock, but I dunno.  I'm leaning toward opt-in, but more for the ease-in-ness of it.

(mikademus) Yeah, I agree this is a storm in a small bottle, in the sense that it's probably not important to that many people, especially after ten pages.  However, if a consensus option exists, I see nothing wrong with searching for it, as there's no urgency in updating the settings, though clearly a ten page thread gets to be long for any new entrants into the discussion.  I thought of starting a new thread with a summary of the discussion thus far, but I won't, because I think we're pretty close to satisfying everybody that's posted, actually, I think I think, at least insofar as satisfaction is loosely defined as being sort of kind of okay with stuff.


He he, the javascript is fun.  I reload the page and slarti's face is big, then it's small.

[Slartibartfast]

As far as I can tell, Mikademus was making a no-image argument as an olive branch or a change of pace and considered Slartibartfast's response to be evidence of the zealotry he mentioned previously, but it could easily just be a simple misunderstanding instead.

Yeah, I was a bit confused as well.
To use Mikademus' imagery, has was giving "us" an inch, and I sort of gave the inch back (saying it was an argument that seemed to go both ways to me), and then it seemed to me as if he "turned on me".
So that was confusing.

I'm leaning toward opt-in, but more for the ease-in-ness of it.

I'd rather have opt-in than opt-out, but the most important thing is having signature images disabled for guests.
One reason for that is that I know that I'll probably end up surfing these forums on my cellphone, where logging in might not be an option, and more images will be a huge hassle (as my phone [and I don't think any/most phone] won't strip 'em, and on their crappy bandwidth and miniscule screens, those things are big trouble.)

EDIT:

He he, the javascript is fun.  I reload the page and slarti's face is big, then it's small.

I don't think that's javascript, seeing as I have js disabled and I still see how the face is resized.