A while back, around August 2006, we (mods) decided that decisions involving all of VGC would be allowed to be decided by all members of VGC, not just mods. Up until now, nothing really came up that concerned all the members, though.
Anyway..
[b]The [IMG] tags don't work in sigs anymore.[/B] You can't link an image from an outside source, such as Photobucket, in your sigs anymore. In order to put an image in your sig, you have to first upload it to VGC, and then place [noparse][sigpic][/sigpic][/noparse] where you want the image to show. There's a restriction of like 500x700 pixels and 97KBs file size and you can only have one image for your sig at a time.
Why did Jesse do this? I honestly don't know. He claims it's for the handful of internet users still on dial-up.
So, do you think this was a good or bad idea?
The Shadow Alliance is against this! I have a poll that says 13 people (including me, and excluding Jesse), think it's a bad idea.
If you want to make restrictions, then there are other ways of doing it. Do it the old fashioned way. Make it in the rules that there can only be so many pictures that are such and such height and width. Then let the Super Mods take care of any signatures that don't comply. Or there are probably OTHER ways of managing this problem.
Also, I think there should be a measure of how many people are on dial up.
Users have the option to disable signatures, avatars, and images in posts. So there is no reason to protect dial-up users. Normally I wouldn't care about such restrictions, but I recently just started using my awesome new sig! And my awesome new sig happens to exceed the 97KB limit.
*yawn* :D
I don't like it. Restrictions for signatures? What's the point?
I'm not really that worried about it, but everyone else it complaining. Whatever they want to do is fine.
Hey! I know! Lets make more retarded changes that nobody wants! **** yeah!
lame, very lame.
If Jesse wants efficiency, I guess it works out fine. I don't need an image in my sig anyhow.
It's not efficient though.
Zeta haet change.
Jesse destroyed another poll :(
*yawn* Notice da mods only make polls out here when they know how every one will vote. Go to an art board if you want a bazillion images in ur signature!!! :D:D:D:D
Whatever. I don't really care because I rarely put huge-*** images in my sig anyway. I don't see how this is more efficient, though - doesn't it bog down the server with more crap?
Who still uses dialup anyway? I have a dialup account as a backup for when the cable goes down, but really..?
Not a bazillion, just more than one. :(
As far as efficiency goes, this isn't more efficient. It'll be followed by many "OMG HOW DO I PUT IMAGES IN MY SIG?" threads. It's not really going to make it much easier on the few dial-up users that are too ignorant to know to turn sigs off if they're having problems. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't just a pre-April Fools joke.
I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it if the max file size wasn't a measly 97KB. If you ABSOLUTELY MUST have it this way, then at least raise that to like 200-250KB.
Yeah, the size is too small for any kind of animated sig, and I also anticipate a huge number of members creating threads about images in signatures. Also, is it now impossible to have text bigger than [size=1] in your sig? I tried [size=2], and so on, and it said the value was "too big".
On a fun side note, if I upload child porn, can i report jesse to the FBI for hosting it and get him arrested?:D
Nah, cuz he'll give them your IP and they'll come to your house and find it on your PC.
This blows chunks.
Big chunks with sharp edges.
@ PHM: Not if goes to an internets cafe!
edit: jordo you stupid bicurious ninja
I never even had a sig until today.
There's really no sense in users holding signatures with a ka-gillion images within. It's tacky and trashy to clutter up the e-space on VGC, like that. It's pretty ****ing annoying to have to scroll down an extra mile to read posts and scroll an entire thread because some dumbass member just HAS to have every known ****ing image pertaining to (for lack of better example) Tails, etc.. In their signature. I whole-heartedly support, and believe that Jesse is in the right; for restricting and laying boundaries down on sig abuse. It's just ugly, whorish, and ****ing annoying TOO TEH MAXX!!!!
I thought you could restrict these things easily. Didn't we used to have have sig restrictions? I don't really mind the restrictions, but the whole [sigpic] business is idiotic and inconvienent.
Would I like sig freedom? Yes. Would I like more than one image? Yes. I can go without these things, but destroying [img] crosses the line.
[quote=Down The Sun;554272]There's really no sense in users holding signatures with a ka-gillion images within. It's tacky and trashy to clutter up the e-space on VGC, like that. It's pretty ****ing annoying to have to scroll down an extra mile to read posts and scroll an entire thread because some dumbass member just HAS to have every known ****ing image pertaining to (for lack of better example) Tails, etc.. In their signature. I whole-heartedly support, and believe that Jesse is in the right; for restricting and laying boundaries down on sig abuse. It's just ugly, whorish, and ****ing annoying TOO TEH MAXX!!!!
That's not that common and super mods would be allowed to take some images or whatever off if it's too big if Jesse would stop being a retard.
I can't recall the last time I saw an overly large signature *shrugs*
Nice, now I don't have to see half naked anime girls 20 times on every page. Rock.
I honestly don't care, I have always used a small sig in size and file size, so this isn't going to crush me. All my sigs will probably always be 500X250, less than 100k.
I have a problem with the avatars, that should of been changed. Maybe a tad bigger size limit? Or file size limit? That would be better IMO
I think avatars are fine. But the destroying of [img] upsets me so.
And yes, I would like filesize to be less. Like someone said above, was it Vamp? I don't recall the last time I saw an overly large sig. They're really not a problem.
I think 195.3KB is a little overboard. I mean...the biggest size banner I have is like....56kb.
HEY GUYS I'M LAZIER THAN A ROCK.
About as dumb as one too:cookie: [spoiler]i still wuv you zeta[/spoiler]
**** you. :(
Play nice you two
I am
Yes, I saw it too!
200KB is fine. The little banners Linkman made are tiny but 100KB since they're not compressed. I tink we should put a limit on signature height and width rather than kilobytes.
How about you lower the sig size limit, and raise the avatar size limit? That'd make me one happy bastard.
[quote=Iris;554298]That's not that common and super mods would be allowed to take some images or whatever off if it's too big if Jesse would stop being a retard.
And did I ***** about large images? No. I explicitly stated my view against MULTIPLE images. Layering a sig out of 10 stupid little banners, etc; is ****ing annoying.
[quote=Lord of Spam;554482]you dont want to see them? fine, turn off sigs or learn to use adblock. the people that enjoy doing fun things with their sigs shouldnt have to suffer because you're too stupid to use a basic function of VB code.
idiot.
Oh shut the **** up, you over exaggerated twat. What about "multiple-image sigs being annoying" did you NOT understand.. Really, your opinion isn't worth **** right now. To further add, I shouldn't have to mess with my settings. An eyesore is an eyesore, and you're a straight-up ****..
[quote=Down The Sun;554491]And did I ***** about large images? No. I explicitly stated my view against MULTIPLE images. Layering a sig out of 10 stupid little banners, etc; is ****ing annoying.
I never said you did. I said we could remove some images if the signature is too big. I still don't see the basis for your complaints anyways, since there hasn't been many full-page signatures recently. Complaining just for the sake of it? No surprise there.
There we go.
stfu Jesse I meant larger :mad:
Actually, I was saying the filesize should be less small. :( Meaning, bigger.
how does i right click adblock image? lol internet is ez
Bah!!! You kids are like chicks that can't make up their mind!!!!
Does this mean you'll enable the [img] tags again?
Actually, if the signature is too big, it shouldn't be "like it or lump it." If you just don't like the image or something then tough luck, but huge signatures are against the rules, and that's what he's complaining about. Not everyone can ad-block or wants to block all signatures, and they shouldn't have to when it takes half a minute for anyone to scroll past it.
Also, plenty of people complain when some one's signature is too big.
Jesse, I love you. Don't forget. :(
69% disagree with the new sig rules. what percent does it have to be for Jesse to open his eyes and see that it's flawed?
666.
oh right =/
agree with it for philsdad reason
well in that case, lets just bomb his rpg inferno version 2 account with 666 wackler donations!
Listen to Red. He's getting angry. Something bad could happen.
don't make me go SS2 on yo ***!!!
[quote=Lord of Spam;554520]Blah blah blah blah bull****!
Get the **** off my message board if you're going to be this retarded.
You're one to speak; and it's a wonder, why no one takes your mindless spat seriously..
[quote=Raptor;554621]What if we want to be able to view decent, reasonable signatures, but not sigs with large irritating animations or 10 pictures of their favourite character?
And anyone who uses the expression "get off my message board" or anything to similar effect has no place calling someone else "retarded."
Ditto..
I prefer [noparse][sigpic][/noparse]. Already built-in and works perfectly fine.
Not everyone uses Firefox. Adblock doesn't work for them! We shouldn't force people to change their browser, either.
Don't you think it's somewhat conceited of you to want everyone who enjoys their (and other's) signatures to do without just because you and a few other people here are uptight enough to allow an image to bother them?
This is one of the biggest argumets I've seen in a while. Anyway, my signature works, but for the sake of order on VGC, I say we should allow more freedom with signatures, and I also don't like the requirement for us to upload their signatures that much, cuz it seems like something that will help bog down the server.
I've had the same signature (with only a few slight textual changes) for roughly two years, now, simply for familiarity and because people have come to not even look for my name when I post-they look for a little red raven or a Hitler with the giggles. Does this mean that I'm actually going to have to change it?
*edit* Alright, so I actually went to the "Edit Signature" area to take care of the business, and I realize that it is rather inconvenient, but not at all a big deal.
*edit2* Weren't you guys trying to argue that this is better for dial-up people? I'm fairly certain that I'm the one and only "regular" that's still on dial-up, and frankly, I turn off all signatures and avatars to keep load times down. It's not hard, so the change wasn't at all warranted in the first place.
Mods can't edit signatures any more. There's not a lot of huge ones, but there's occasionally someone who's sig takes up twice the height of your browser, and only those ones get complaints, even if they're not directly complaining to a mod. After all, they shouldn't have to change their settings because a single person can't just shorten down the image. It'd be nice if members would change their signatures if asked and super mods got the ability to change signatures and avatars again.
I'm not in favor of this. I don't mind putting a reasonable lengthxwidth limit on the total signature (not just a single image), but forcing people to upload them is silly. Allow more freedom with signatures, and any problems can be handled quickly and easily if we're able to change huge or inappropriate signatures. Clearly this isn't working out, so bring the image tags back and bump the size limit up to around 200kb. Like Arms said, sig size was never a big problem and it hasn't been now.
On the flip-side of that argument, one member shouldn't ruin it for everyone else who may enjoy it. That, and the massive signatures are never really seen anymore. And when they are, it's by one member in some random thread that really no one goes to. There was nothing to fix or need fixing.
Anywho, I don't actually give a **** about the size. And if this is never remedied, I don't have a problem either. But it would be nice to have img tags back.
BRING BACK THE CLOWNS
Fukken can't get my sig to work
It's not that difficult. Protip: preview signature
As retarded as this all is, I don't see Jesse putting back anytime soon, so:
http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=21893
Hopefully that will at least spare us a few "OMG HOW DO I PUT IMAGES IN MY SIG" threads. Unfortunately, it wont solve the fact that the system is loaded with flaws, be it from vBulletin or Jesse's server, PHP or HTTP related. For some people, it just wont work.
Once you all move on to the next thing to whine and complain about, I'm sure you'll get used to it, and realise that not being able to use the img tag in the signature field is hardly a big deal after all.
[quote]Hopefully that will at least spare us a few "OMG HOW DO I PUT IMAGES IN MY SIG" threads. Unfortunately, it wont solve the fact that the system is loaded with flaws, be it from vBulletin or Jesse's server, PHP or HTTP related. For some people, it just wont work.
Nobody cares about those people anyways, much less their signatures. Close this thread.
Good thread. Though you realise it had nothing to do with this, right?
I can see both sides of the argument here, but personally I preferred the old method.
Even though I'm on dialup and have to disable images occasionally I still like being able to link to offsite images.
Right now my sig links to some offsite realtime images, a Wikipedia image, a GeoCities image, and my actual signature (which was on a free webhost long since dead, which is where the VGChat image hosting would actually come in handy).
If anything, you should keep the local image hosting but also allow offsite linking to images. Otherwise just go back to the way it was before.
[quote]If you want to make restrictions, then there are other ways of doing it. Do it the old fashioned way. Make it in the rules that there can only be so many pictures that are such and such height and width. Then let the Super Mods take care of any signatures that don't comply.
Isn't that basically just putting the moderators out of a job by making the restrictions the rules that would only be written in a thread? People would need to follow the rules of signature posting anyway; the restrictions just never let anyone who is too lazy or self-centered to follow the rules to even begin getting away with it. You're basically okay with the restrictions, as long as you have the chance of a human not noticing it and repremanding you for disregarding the posting guidelines.
:cookie:
I really thought there were ways of setting set sizes and such in the code. :( I distinctly remember a period of time where there was like, a 10 picture limit, and they could only be so big. I've seen it here, and on other forums, so why go through this business? Signatures are rarely bad anyway. Most of the time it's just a banner, artwork, or some random picture. I never see too much, and I love sigs with several images, that yes, are small.
I just remember having default restrictions before. We do we have to go through this sigpic one image crap now, when there's clearly easier, more convienent ways for everyone? (Even dial-up users!)