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

[Mikademus]

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.

The big problem with text-based communication is that when writing, we always interpret our text from an existing understanding, so it is very easy to be blind that others can interpret our messages differently from how we intended.

[Toady One]

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.

Ah, I don't know what it is then.  It keeps the face large if I select "Let HTML resize", but it makes the face large then small if I select "Let Javascript resize".  I guess it's an absence of html rather than a presence of javascript then.  The timing just reminded me of how the text entry window in the old forum was resized by a script.  Unless the script is happening server side where browser thingies wouldn't matter.  ie I have no idea what's going on.

[Slartibartfast]

The big problem with text-based communication is that when writing, we always interpret our text from an existing understanding, so it is very easy to be blind that others can interpret our messages differently from how we intended.

This is partially true for "regular" communication as well

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.

Ah, I don't know what it is then.  It keeps the face large if I select "Let HTML resize", but it makes the face large then small if I select "Let Javascript resize".  I guess it's an absence of html rather than a presence of javascript then.  The timing just reminded me of how the text entry window in the old forum was resized by a script.  Unless the script is happening server side where browser thingies wouldn't matter.  ie I have no idea what's going on.

Ehhh, oops?
Turns out I don't have js disabled. (I'm using NoScript for FF, but forgot that I enabled js on these forums [usually I only give out temporary permissions if I need them, but in this case I guess I thought I'd be using these forums often enough that I should give them permanent permission to use js. And then forgot about it :S])
BTW, that face is one of the smilies in the pack of smilies that I made that I offered you to use if you want them
EDIT: And if I re-disable js then the face doesn't resize.
Sorry for misleading you, Toady :S

[E. Albright]

(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.

 

...and the non-universal forum experience rears its (ugly??? lovely???) head for me! What is this 10-page thread you speak of, Toady? I'm posting into a modest, reasonable 5-page one... 

[Draco18s]

The big problem with text-based communication is that when writing, we always interpret our text from an existing understanding, so it is very easy to be blind that others can interpret our messages differently from how we intended.

This is partially true for "regular" communication as well

Significantly less so because text lacks tone of voice and body posture, which are essential in telling the difference in certain instances (particularly sarcasm).

[MaxVance]

Would it be possible for only certain news items to appear for certain members? If so, there could be a news item for Escaped Lunatics that states the rule ("Don't be an idiot") and tells them how to change their preferences. The reason it would be for Escaped Lunatics is because this would be stated in big red letters, which would make them notice it but would get bothersome after a while for normal members.

[JT]

Establishing bias to be fair, I'm in the "no-images, 3-6 lines" camp.

That said, every time I saw "internet identity" or posts along those lines, I scoffed and laughed.

[Draco18s]

That said, every time I saw "internet identity" or posts along those lines, I scoffed and laughed.

Care to explain why?

[Tylui]

Because it's the internet; essentially everyone's anonymous, because it's too easy to lie.

[Draco18s]

So then there's no need for usernames is there?  How about we all post as Anonymous.  That should do it.

[Mikademus]

Because it's the internet; essentially everyone's anonymous, because it's too easy to lie.

Anonymity and identity are not mutually exclusive. Taggers can express themselves because of anonymity. If you are incredibly adamant about your definition of "identity" then use the word "persona" instead. Actually, it should be obvious to anyone not insensible to social signals that all community-like areas of Internet actually gravitate around the formation of identity (online persona). Whether it is "true" to your IRL one is irrelevant.

[juckto]

Edit: nvm.

[JT]

The reason I find it so mind-bogglingly silly is because it sounds like people are trying to distinguish themselves through mere appearance.  You don't need graphical images to express your identity.  The quality of any person is defined by their actions and their ideas.

I'm perfectly fine with an opt-in option, for what it's worth.

[Draco18s]

Yes, but it's hard to associate actions with people when I can't remember who is who.

[Mikademus]

The reason I find it so mind-bogglingly silly is because it sounds like people are trying to distinguish themselves through mere appearance. 

You need to get our more Because, you know, in the real world, people don't care about appearances and everyone's main interest is the ventilation of complex intellectual constructs.