To sig or not to sig...

[Grey]

Honestly though, Grey and AcidTrip, those images are way too big. 75x300 is supposed to be the limit, you should resize them please.

Once again, no. Be patient for any changes imposed by the GMs and stop being a whiney little bitch. Or, use the new option of disabling sigs for yourself if you hate them so much.

 

[AcidTrip]

I was informed that the limit was 100x400, and my sig fits the limits, and does not stretch the forum in any way, shape, or form. I don't see the problem with Grey's or my signature.

Of course, that nifty new option to hide other people's sigs from your view is a nice feature.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

They are quite annoying.

 

[masterchris]

They're supposed to be 75x300.

I'll continue to be patient, but when they reset the limit to what it's supposed to be I hope you'll do the honorable thing and resize them accordingly.

 

[trust_no_one]

Now now, settle down...

 

[AcidTrip]

They are quite annoying.

Thank you, I'm glad you've taken the time to at least formulate an opinion on my and Grey's work. I was personally going for a certain effect that I found striking; that being the uneasiness of the Little Sisters in BioShock, and how underneath the brilliant animation and voice acting, these little bits of code (or machines) can still pull on your heart strings and stimulate an emotional response.

They're supposed to be 75x300.

I'll continue to be patient, but when they reset the limit to what it's supposed to be I hope you'll do the honorable thing and resize them accordingly.

From the messages I saw, the first limit was 100x300, which my first sig fit nicely into. Then I saw the limit reformated to a much more doable 100x400. I fail to see how exactly a GM would fuck up on the size limit twice.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I have to inquire as to why exactly you're having a hard time accepting this size for signatures. What is so irksome about them to you?

Loves and kisses,
Acid

 

[masterchris]

They're too big and in your face, that's what I don't like about them.
The limit has been 75x300 for the last year at least. Probably more. I have no idea how they screwed up the size limit when they brought signatures back, but they did. And now they should fix it.

 

[AcidTrip]

But the limit now is 100x400, and isn't that the point of a signature? It's supposed to leave a bit of personal style or flavour under your posts, and you know immediately who did it.

I suggest you take a gander over at some other forums to see really big signatures. These are actually really small in comparison to the standard size limit of most forums (200x500).

 

[masterchris]

Isn't that what the username is for, to identify who posted a message? My point is it doesn't matter that the image dimensions are now, because it's not what they've always been. I see nothing wrong with wanting back the settings we've had for the last year or more.


Believe me, I've been to other forums which allow pretty much any size images, or whatever other bullshit their users want to put in their signatures, and to be blunt I do not visit those boards simply because I find all that shit too distracting to look through. I shouldn't have to sift through the junk to see the actual content of the post.

If you want to see good, check out GameFAQs boards. Nicest looking message boards around, since there are no images allowed and signatures are limited to 2 lines of text only. Everything looks neat and tidy, and you don't need to put up with what is essentially people showing off their photoshop skills.

 

[Grey]

They're too big and in your face, that's what I don't like about them.

Then shut them off. Its already been said their's an option to disable viewing sigs, yet you still complain. Don't give me bullshit of "what if other people don't like it?" Same answer, turn it off.

 

[masterchris]

I'm fine with smaller size images, it's the larger ones I don't like.
All I want is the same restrictions we've had for the last year plus to be restored.

 

[Grey]

Really? I had no idea!

 

[masterchris]

Now you do.

 

[Grey]

If that extra 25 x 100 is causing you to have this much of a predictable hissy fit I really have to ask, what the hell is your screen resolution?

 

[masterchris]

1280x1024

 

[Grey]

Then I'll have to stick with my theory that you have issues.

 

[AcidTrip]

Isn't that what the username is for, to identify who posted a message? My point is it doesn't matter that the image dimensions are now, because it's not what they've always been. I see nothing wrong with wanting back the settings we've had for the last year or more.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So, because you yourself do not like large image files clogging up forums, you think that the size limit should be restricted to an even tighter bind? I find nothing wrong with wanting a neat and tidy forum, but I find something wrong with requesting that our privilege to showcase our "photoshop skills" or personality in images or in text is a bit much. The image sizes are nice as they are now.

Believe me, I've been to other forums which allow pretty much any size images, or whatever other bullshit their users want to put in their signatures, and to be blunt I do not visit those boards simply because I find all that s*** too distracting to look through. I shouldn't have to sift through the junk to see the actual content of the post.

I do not mean to pry, but can I ask if there is some medical problem associated with this? I'm not in no way trying to sabotage your no doubt good standing, nor am I implying that you have an absurd case of O.C.D. that extends to Internet forums. I was wondering if you had a legitimate medical problem as to which why you cannot view erm, "super flashy images" in contrast to other colours and shades, or is just a mere annoyance of those with "photoshop skills" and wish to show off?

If you want to see good, check out GameFAQs boards. Nicest looking message boards around, since there are no images allowed and signatures are limited to 2 lines of text only. Everything looks neat and tidy, and you don't need to put up with what is essentially people showing off their photoshop skills.

The tidiness of their forum does not equate to the quality of their forum. Yes I've been to GameFAQs, and I find most of the crowd there to be rather vulgar and, in my honest opinion, so fucking full of themselves they can't even pass a bowel movement without telling someone how great it was, or how much better their shit smells than someone else's. But that's another argument for another time.

I guess, what I want to ask is, if I or someone here were to open up a "Signature Shop" where users could request images made by me or others to put into their own signatures (within the size limits, of course), would you have such a big problem with it? You yourself could request something. I'm more than a nice enough chap to do it quickly and diligently.

 

[masterchris]

Sorry, I think it's you who has issues, if you think it's okay to have an image in your signature that is more than double the height of the actual content of the post.

 

[masterchris]

The tidiness of their forum does not equate to the quality of their forum. Yes I've been to GameFAQs, and I find most of the crowd there to be rather vulgar and, in my honest opinion, so f****** full of themselves they can't even pass a bowel movement without telling someone how great it was, or how much better their s*** smells than someone else's. But that's another argument for another time.

What does the quality of their users' postings have to do with this debate at all? We're talking about the way a forum looks, not the douchebags that post in it.

I do not mean to pry, but can I ask if there is some medical problem associated with this? I'm not in no way trying to sabotage your no doubt good standing, nor am I implying that you have an absurd case of O.C.D. that extends to Internet forums. I was wondering if you had a legitimate medical problem as to which why you cannot view erm, "super flashy images" in contrast to other colours and shades, or is just a mere annoyance of those with "photoshop skills" and wish to show off?

My only condition is that on certain message boards I don't feel it should be my responsibility to scroll past half a page of bouncing balls and flashy images to figure out what the person is actually saying, as it pertains to the topic at hand. I guess my condition is that I like everything relatively easy to read. I dunno, perhaps you enjoy looking at somebody's 300x500 picture of a man falling down the stairs 20 times in a single thread, but I don't find it amusing.
And no, this is not a direct comparison to your images, this is my thoughts on other message boards.

 

[Grey]

We were already getting that with lengthy sigs filled with nonsensical quotes, yet I never saw you complain about that.