Signatures, Avatars and NSFW

[Christina]

HNA had a good proposal for balancing the love of sigs and avatars with the desire to not have pages setting off epileptic seizures from dancing bling overload.

If I missed something I'm sure he'll correct me, but he proposed that sigs be no longer than 3 lines and contain no images, and that avatars not be animated. I'd also love to see the avatars moved over to the right so that they don't break up the text instead of on the top of posts.

I'd also like to be able to open any subforum at work without a hassle. For me that would mean no NSFW thread titles outside of the 'After Dark' subforum of the lounge, no NSFW avatars (although I can turn those off), and all NSFW pics inside hide tags unless the entire thread is marked as NSFW. For me, it also means not having 'FUCK' in a signature in the largest font available.

We can also ask the sysadmins to install the hack that only shows sigs only once on a page. I would really like that.

What do the rest of you think?

[RexT]

I think those proposals seem reasonable. Surely a place can be fun without it becoming a Wild Kingdom. I don't know what the acronym NSFW means exactly but I get the idea. A separate subforum for all sorts of different things is a good idea. That's why they don't put strip clubs inside churches or churches inside schools.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I'm not particularly hot on the once-per-page thing - I tend to recognise people by their sigs as much as by their avatar or handle.

And I like your NSFW suggestions.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Rex: Not Safe For Work.

[RexT]

HNA: thanks

and I tend to agree with you on the once per/page thing. I would rather see, as Christina mentioned, line limits on the sig.

[A Dead Relative]

Oh c`mon! We need the biggest and most annoying sigs on the internet. Let's have an annoying sig contest, too. While we're at it, why not add flashing ad banners and pop-ups galore. Maybe you could find a way to add some spyware and trojans to the site, too.:D

But in all honesty, I agree. Small sigs with no pics, once per page. Is there a way you can keep the font under a certain size, too? The forum will look cleaner and less cluttered, and you won't have to scroll for days, to get through a page.

One of the forums I'm on also has a feature that won't allow typing in all caps. THERE IS NOTHING MORE ANNOYING, THAN SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO HIT THE CAPS LOCK KEY, TO TURN OFF THEIR CAPS. MAYBE I SHOULD JUST TYPE LIKE THIS, UNTIL YOU DECIDE TO ADD THAT FEATURE. IT REALLY IS DIFFICULT TO TYPE LIKE THIS, WITHOUT HITTING THE SHIFT KEY. i DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE DO IT, CONSTANTLY. (sEE WHAT i MEAN.)

[Garnet]

Oh c`mon! We need the biggest and most annoying sigs on the internet. Let's have an annoying sig contest, too. While we're at it, why not add flashing ad banners and pop-ups galore. Maybe you could find a way to add some spyware and trojans to the site, too.:D

You've been secretly hanging out at CF, haven't you?:eek:

[A Dead Relative]

Now I'm going to have to check out CF. I want to be a troublemaker, anyway. :D

[Garnet]

Well, CF not only has mega-bling and ad banners but it also has dress up dollies.

How can ya beat that?

[Richard]

Let's keep the bling to a minimum, that's the only thing I ask :P

[A Dead Relative]

Holy Crap! (pun intended). CF is a mess!

[Garnet]

Ayup. In more ways than one. :D

[ravenscape]

Would this be a good time to go ahead and confess that I'm chief designer of the CF dollies? It's bound to get out eventually.

[Garnet]

Say it ain't so!!!! *girns* You will note that I do have my dolly up on CF...and she has quite a large wardrobe and various available hairstyles.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I'm not particularly hot on the once-per-page thing - I tend to recognise people by their sigs as much as by their avatar or handle.

Ditto.

[Christina]

I don't care about it all that much about it if they aren't going to have pictures in them or be long. If they get boring to me I can always turn them off.

[His Noodly Appendage]

One of the forums I'm on also has a feature that won't allow typing in all caps. THERE IS NOTHING MORE ANNOYING, THAN SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO HIT THE CAPS LOCK KEY, TO TURN OFF THEIR CAPS. MAYBE I SHOULD JUST TYPE LIKE THIS, UNTIL YOU DECIDE TO ADD THAT FEATURE. IT REALLY IS DIFFICULT TO TYPE LIKE THIS, WITHOUT HITTING THE SHIFT KEY. i DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE DO IT, CONSTANTLY. (sEE WHAT i MEAN.)

Heh.


<Khassaki> HI EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!
<Judge-Mental> try pressing the the Caps Lock key
<Khassaki> O THANKS!!! ITS SO MUCH EASIER TO WRITE NOW!!!!!!!
<Judge-Mental> fuck me

[Richard]

HAHA! oops.


;)

[Christina]

I'm thinking that we might want a separate thread for miscellaneous things that we seem to have consensus on and sticky it.

From this thread it seems like we agree that:

- Avatars should not be animated or NSFW
- signatures should be no longer than three lines and no larger than the default font
- NSFW threads will go in the After Dark forum
- NSFW images and content will go in hide tags in threads not marked NSFW

Does anyone disagree or have anything that they think that we should add to this?

[Tales_of_Kathmandu]

but he proposed that sigs be no longer than 3 lines and contain no images

Not even a teensy little one?

[David B]

I'm thinking that we might want a separate thread for miscellaneous things that we seem to have consensus on and sticky it.

From this thread it seems like we agree that:

- Avatars should not be animated or NSFW
- signatures should be no longer than three lines and no larger than the default font
- NSFW threads will go in the After Dark forum
- NSFW images and content will go in hide tags in threads not marked NSFW

Does anyone disagree or have anything that they think that we should add to this?

I like everything except the three line sig.

It would rule out my resurrecting the sig I had for a while on HH for a start.

I'd say five lines is reasonable, in default font, or nothing bigger.

David

[Christina]

You could always make it a smaller font http://img228.exs.cx/img228/638/whistle9qn.gif

I'm ok with 5 so lets wait and see what others think.

[ravenscape]

I'm ok with 5 lines. I draw the line at glitter.

[Christina]

And dolls.

[His Noodly Appendage]

How about 5 lines, no font or image tags? (I'd say no tags at all, but italics and bold are necessary sometimes)

[David B]

How about 5 lines, no font or image tags? (I'd say no tags at all, but italics and bold are necessary sometimes)

Fine!

David

[Tales_of_Kathmandu]

:lipwobble:

[ravenscape]

Shoud we grandfather in extant smilie signatures you think?

[David B]

Hmm. ToK might have a point.

That sig isn't really offensive to me.

Maybe just a single smiley, or something - but then things do tend to get very complicated and legalistic.

Not easy to find the best solution.

David

[Christina]

How about limiting it to one standard-size smiley per sig? I like the levitating guy.

And no colors, maybe?

[His Noodly Appendage]

No, we should just use some judgment.

No bling. If your sig is too blingy, a mod taps you on the shoulder and asks you to tone it down. 5 lines of plaintext and/or discreet emoticons are the guideline, with moderator discretion as the deciding principle.

[Christina]

How is this now?

- Avatars should not be animated or NSFW
- signatures should be no longer than five lines and no larger than the default font. They should not contain any animated images or those larger than a standard emoticon. In other words, no bling.
- NSFW threads will go in the After Dark forum
- NSFW images and content will go in hide tags in threads not marked NSFW

Does anyone disagree or have anything that they think that we should add to this?

I'd like to add that sigs can't be in color, and then that raised the question in my mind about using colored text at all other than to highlight a word here and there. I'd rather not, because it annoys me and it also makes it hard to see moderator comments in the thread unless we use some ugly mod box.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Ehh. I think a general "Please don't be annoying" is enough.

Ferinstance, I didn't have a problem with Wingeh (or was it the other one?) using green comic sans for her posts back at II. It wasn't disruptive.

[Christina]

Yeah, that's true. If it's ever a problem we can worry about it then.

[hecaterin]

Well, CF not only has mega-bling and ad banners but it also has dress up dollies.

How can ya beat that?Fuck, man, now I really wanna dress up dollie. Not the rest of it, just the dress up.

[dug_down_deep]

It sounds fine as you have it Christina, and I agree with HNA's simplification.

[hecaterin]

BTW, for those who don't know me, I don't actually want a dress up dolly. But I would like to see them. Is there somewhere not too epilepsy-inducing that I can see them?

[Garnet]

You can see my CF dolly here. (http://christianforums.com/~garnet2727)

Damn...that sounded a bit nasty, didn't it?

[ravenscape]

Here's mine (http://christianforums.com/~ravenscape), all Leprauchanned out.

[David B]

Here's mine (http://christianforums.com/~ravenscape), all Leprauchanned out.

Sadly, you appear to have disabled guests from seeing it.

The dolly is the character, right?

Or what - I don't see anything else that might fit the bill in Garnet's link.

David B (is confused)

[ravenscape]

Sadly, you appear to have disabled guests from seeing it.

The dolly is the character, right?

Or what - I don't see anything else that might fit the bill in Garnet's link.

David B (is confused)
Fixed. That switch must have been set to default in one of the upgrades or something...

[Garnet]

The dolly is the CF character, yes. :)

[Octavia]

Why does anyone need five entire lines for a sig?

Edit: Nevermind. I hate the things, but can ignore them.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Control panel -> Edit Options

Visible Post Elements
You have the option to show or hide various elements of messages, which may be of use to users on slow internet connections, or who want to remove extraneous clutter from posts.
Show Signatures
Show Avatars
Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)

[Octavia]

^Oh, you got in before my edit! But a big thank-you for the info. Will go and do it now. :)

[A Dead Relative]

I must admit, I have secretly joined CF, and have been biting my lip, to not tell some Xians how it really is. I know that would definitely be frowned upon, over there.

I have a challenge to anyone in here, who is a member of CF. My screen name is completely different, on CF. See if you can figure out what my CF screen name is and PM me, on this site. I will let you know if you are right.
Would this be a good time to go ahead and confess that I'm chief designer of the CF dollies? It's bound to get out eventually.I do like your dollies, but they really aren't for me. CF has way too much going on, in the way of ads, sigs, dollies, icons, etc. The people I have encountered seem real friendly, though. Then again, I'm not making it widely know that I am Atheist, if you know what I mean.

[Autodidact]

Sounds Baby Bear perfect to me, Christina.

[hecaterin]

Here's mine (http://christianforums.com/~ravenscape), all Leprauchanned out.If we had a rep system I would have given you & Garnet a quick posrep, "Thanks", rather than having to write it in the thread...

[ravenscape]

I'm bumping this thread back up because we're planning to work on firming up this policy.

[ravenscape]

How is this now?

- Avatars should not be animated or NSFW
- signatures should be no longer than five lines and no larger than the default font. They should not contain any animated images or those larger than a standard emoticon. In other words, no bling.
- NSFW threads will go in the After Dark forum
- NSFW images and content will go in hide tags in threads not marked NSFW

Does anyone disagree or have anything that they think that we should add to this?

I'd like to add that sigs can't be in color, and then that raised the question in my mind about using colored text at all other than to highlight a word here and there. I'd rather not, because it annoys me and it also makes it hard to see moderator comments in the thread unless we use some ugly mod box.
Here's the most recent agreement in this thread. But, I think downthread we discussed not disallowing colored font in posts.

[David B]

Perhaps we could just agree on - Avatars should not be animated or NSFW
- signatures should be no longer than five lines and no larger than the default font. They should not contain any animated images or those larger than a standard emoticon. In other words, no bling.
- NSFW threads will go in the After Dark forum
- NSFW images and content will go in hide tags in threads not marked NSFW

And worry about the finer points later on.

David B

[Christina]

We did decide to drop that, Raven, so that part can be edited out as a personal comment.

[ravenscape]

Sounds good to me.

[Christina]

My guess is that unfortunately someone with nothing better to do will test it by posting things that sound like mod comments in a colored font so we probably need to at least consider that. Newbies might not realize that we all have staff titles in a different place than member titles.

[Febble]

I agree about the avatars (though I did like the animated Monkey Pants on on RnR, also LuisGarcia's Calvin).

But sigs can seriously get in the way of reading the posts, especially if they are full of links and quotes and fancy fonts and stuff.

(But David's caterpillar was lovely).

[JamesBannon]

Meh, I'm easy. I recognise people by their handles anyway.

[RBH]

Meh, I'm easy. I recognise people by their handles anyway.Yup, me too. And avatars give me hives. :D

[JamesBannon]

Meh, I'm easy. I recognise people by their handles anyway.Yup, me too. And avatars give me hives. :D
I noticed :D I like my animal :)

[Octavia]

I turn all the damn things off anyway - can't stand 'em.

What David's got looks good to me, though.

[Magdlyn]

Well! I didnt see this discussion til now. Why so serious? I like colorful sigs, I like interesting quotes in sigs, I like pictures of pretty ppl or member's kids in sigs. Smilies in sigs are good too. It all tells me something about the poster, and helps me get to know them.

I don't mind scrolling past them, once they are familiar. I enjoy when ppl change sigs and avs.

I just get annoyed by blinkies.

Well, that's the $.02 from the new member with the "bad reputation." :cool:

[Bright Life]

As long as pics aren't glittery and giffy, I think they should be allowed the same space that a sig would take, i.e. no bigger than a few lines.

[Magdlyn]

OK, so the limit to picture size in a sig is to make it be the same size as FIVE lines of text, not THREE, as I thought. Or wait, are there to be NO images, just no blinking ones, or smilies only?

- Avatars should not be animated or NSFW
- signatures should be no longer than five lines and no larger than the default font. They should not contain any animated images or those larger than a standard emoticon. In other words, no bling.
- NSFW threads will go in the After Dark forum
- NSFW images and content will go in hide tags in threads not marked NSFW


Testing

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Faces/blue.jpg


Yes, so I was going to be in the army when I was a kid. Yes. I say that, and people go, “Oh, yeah, yeah!” No, I was, I was going to be in the army when I was a kid. ‘Cause if you're a transvestite, you're actually a male tomboy, that's where the sexuality is. Yeah, it's not drag queen, no; gay men have got that covered. This is male tomboy, and people do get that mixed up, they put transvestite there - no no no no! Little bit of a crowbar separation, thank you! And gay men, I think, would agree. It's male lesbian, that's really where it is, ok? Because… it's true! ‘Cause most transvestites fancy girls, fancy women. So that's where it is. So it’s “running, jumping, climbing trees, putting on makeup when you're up there.” That's where it is!

5 lines of text is just shy of 1" high, on my screen anyway.

[Bright Life]

Nope, it comes up much bigger.

[RBH]

Nope, it comes up much bigger.For those of us with older eyes, who magnify text a dab to help with reading, that particular instance is a massive waste of screen space.

[Magdlyn]

Nope, it comes up much bigger.

What does? The text, or the picture? Can I have a picture? Or just one smilie?

My eyes are not young, nor am I. I still like siggies. :) I wear glasses to help me read.

I tested that text as a sig but it wouldnt let me save it. I guess it has to be 5 lines of text in the box you try and enter it into, not 5 lines of text as it would appear in a post.

Can we have an example of a "suitable" signature? Do members get a vote, or is this at the discretion of staff only? If staff only, why?

[Jet Black]

the bit you should be looking at tis this:

signatures should be no longer than five lines and no larger than the default font. They should not contain any animated images or those larger than a standard emoticon. In other words, no bling.

standard emoticon-> :)

[Magdlyn]

Will there be a poll?

[Jet Black]

feel free to start one.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Do members get a vote, or is this at the discretion of staff only? If staff only, why?

No, members don't get to vote on policy.

Or rather, members are free to start and participate in polls on policy, but the administration is under no obligation to make policy as a result.

By all means convince us, and show that the community at large has your support - if someone makes a good case for something and everyone wants it, that'll likely influence us as well.

But this is not a direct democracy; the populace has no direct right to dictate policy.

[Magdlyn]

All right. Just trying to get a feeling for the climate here. Thanks.

[Worldtraveller]

Just FYI, avatars and sigs can all be turned off in the user CP for those who don't want to see it.

[RBH]

Just FYI, avatars and sigs can all be turned off in the user CP for those who don't want to see it.And thank IPU for that! :D

[Magdlyn]

Bumping. I was told by Bright Life that a sig that is a non-blinking icon is OK.

[ravenscape]

Banner-sized signatures are not ok.

[Magdlyn]

Where was this decreed and posted for the membership?

[ravenscape]

Hmm. ToK might have a point.

That sig isn't really offensive to me.

Maybe just a single smiley, or something - but then things do tend to get very complicated and legalistic.

Not easy to find the best solution.

David

How about limiting it to one standard-size smiley per sig? I like the levitating guy.

And no colors, maybe?

No, we should just use some judgment.

No bling. If your sig is too blingy, a mod taps you on the shoulder and asks you to tone it down. 5 lines of plaintext and/or discreet emoticons are the guideline, with moderator discretion as the deciding principle.

From earlier in the thread.

We don't want to write a five volume manual on what is and is not allowed in sigs. As a matter of philosophy we don't want to go that route. But, in the cases of banners, bling, glitter, blinkies, etc., less is definitely more. In cases where a signature goes beyond "less is more", we contact the member and ask them to change it.

[Magdlyn]

I still don't find this clear, and don't understand the "philosophy" behind it. Can you (plural) please address this so-called philosophy?

There doesnt seem to be a consensus.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Simply, the philosophy is that we want to avoid bling. Check out a site like christianforums, and you'll see what we're trying to curtail, and why.

Big garish images repeated through a thread are distracting and annoying to many, and make the place look cheap, tacky and childish. While the option exists to block signatures entirely, many people quite like discreet sigs, which do go with the atmosphere we're aiming for.

[Magdlyn]

Thanks for the input Noodle. But since you are imo, one of the least tolerant, least fun ppl on this board, I would like to hear from more mods/admins.

Here's TR philosophy.


This forum was created to serve a community, so it is important to share the defining vision of that community. The community that the founders of this forum envisioned is inclusive of all respectful and thoughtful voices, thriving on a culture that is secular, freethinking, tolerant, outreaching, self-organizing, harmless, inviting, charming, intelligent, progressive, caring, interesting, and fun.

I find my sig to embody the majority of the adjectives listed. My sig is neither big, garish, sparkly or moving.

[hecaterin]

It looks garish to me.

[Arctish]

Your sig is neither huge nor sparkly but it's big enough and colorful enough to completely overshadow your words. I think a forum page full of sigs like yours would look something like this:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k264/Arctish/times_square_billboards.jpg

I'm in favor of letting people personalize their avatars and signatures but I think your current sig detracts from your posts rather than enhancing them.

[Christina]

Madlyn has a point in that although we had hammered out a policy out here in TH during the first few weeks and people followed it voluntarily we never formally adopted it. In as much as I wish that we didn't need to make formal policies over little things like this, I suppose that we have to now. I'll start a public staff vote thread when I wake up a bit more.

[Garnet]

At risk of being called intolerant and no fun, I've turned signatures off, Magdlyn, because I found yours to be annoying. It's not the subject matter, it's the bright blocks of colors in every single post. Things like that have a tendency to give me a headache. My personal taste is for a clean, streamlined look. Of course, I realize that my personal taste is not the controlling factor on the board.

One possible solution is to add the hack that allows a user to ignore a specific users signature. I realize that admins probably want to keep custom hacks to a minimum to keep upgrades and improvements as simple as possible.

I'll just keep sigs turned off until the issues are hashed out.

ETA: Another solution is to use the hack that only shows the sig in the first post in a thread.

[BWE]

I saw the thread title and wondered if my new avatar sparked the conversation. But I knew somehow that it must be someone else since mine is a piece of classical art.

I don't mind the sig Magdlyn. It's bright but you tend to stand out anyway. Do you also have body jewelry?

[Christina]

Maybe something that we should hash out for the long run is what to do when almost all of the members voluntarily comply with a guideline but one or two people won't. I hate to have us turn guidelines into strict policies because a small number of people won't just go along with it in order to be considerate of others.

[dug_down_deep]

I don't find Magdlyn's sig particularly troubling, but I'm in general agreement with the idea that we don't want a bunch of garish images distracting from the words. I think the overall philosophy is to serve the community as a whole, and I'm thinking most people here don't want all of that visual noise.

[Febble]

I find my sig to embody the majority of the adjectives listed. My sig is neither big, garish, sparkly or moving.


Big: check
Garish: check
Sparkly: check (isn't that what eyeliner is for?)
Moving: mercifully, no.


Your sig attracts the eye, Magdlyn. That's what's wrong with it. It elicits involuntary exogenous saccades. That's why advertisers use those features on web sites (faces, and eyes, especially).

That's why I don't like garish sigs in posts. Makes it harder to read the post.

[Magdlyn]

Your sig is neither huge nor sparkly but it's big enough and colorful enough to completely overshadow your words. I think a forum page full of sigs like yours would look something like this:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k264/Arctish/times_square_billboards.jpg

I'm in favor of letting people personalize their avatars and signatures but I think your current sig detracts from your posts rather than enhancing them.

My sig is much narrower than that.

I saw the thread title and wondered if my new avatar sparked the conversation. But I knew somehow that it must be someone else since mine is a piece of classical art.

I don't mind the sig Magdlyn. It's bright but you tend to stand out anyway. Do you also have body jewelry?

LOL, no. And I only have one tattoo.

I don't find Magdlyn's sig particularly troubling, but I'm in general agreement with the idea that we don't want a bunch of garish images distracting from the words. I think the overall philosophy is to serve the community as a whole, and I'm thinking most people here don't want all of that visual noise.

How would you know unless you asked them?

I still hold that "garish" is a subjective term, and "colorful" better describes my sig, and my personality. Plus, the rainbow colors make a political statement close to my heart.

OTOH, if a colorful sig is really and truly giving ppl headaches and making it difficult for some to even read my posts, while I find this extremely surprising, I will take it under consideration. I don't wish to cause bodily harm!

signatures should be no longer than five lines and no larger than the default font. They should not contain any animated images or those larger than a standard emoticon. In other words, no bling.

I see you are discussing this in a STAFF ONLY thread right now. May I add here, since i am not worthy to post over there, that the "bling" expression was not clear to me. I thought bling meant no moving images, no animated sparkles (and no, there is no glittery eyeliner in my sig!). The list of non-nons did not address banners. I was told by bright life that, contrary to the suggestion of small "smilie" type icons only listed, a small square icon, such as those in my sig, were acceptable. Sure, I've got 7 of the suckers now. Well, never let it be said I don't know where the edges of an envelope are...

[Febble]

I'ts not that I don't like it as art, Madlyn. It's that it make it harder to keep my eye on the text, which is generally what I want to read!

But I actually find it less bothersome that sigs that look like part of the post.

[Christina]

I think that the one small one you had before was fine. Yeah, it was bigger than a smiley but it wasn't garish at all. That's why I don't want us to have to make a rigid policy and define it that strictly because the general idea of no bling or distracting sigs leaves some room for creativity.

[Alethias]

I'm not all that bothered by your sig, Magdlyn.

That also might in part be influenced by being partially colorblind.

If you're at all curious, I'm gonna give you a little bluntness, presented in the spirit of helpfulness.

What it does do from my perspective is communicate that this is a person whose posts are fluff and not to be taken seriously. I've read past it and seen some posts of value doing so, but it has the off-the-cuff effect of trivializing your posts, at least for me.

Do you want to be taken seriously? If so, I'd like to ask you(not demand, ask) to replace it with something less attention getting. That'll make it much easier for some people(me included) to read your posts.

I'll look past it if I have to, but it would be a help.

Ale

[dug_down_deep]

I actually find the art itself quite pleasing. But it clashes with the furniture, and if everyone does it, we'll have ourselves a tacky garage sale look going here.

[Magdlyn]

I'ts not that I don't like it as art, Madlyn. It's that it make it harder to keep my eye on the text, which is generally what I want to read!

But I actually find it less bothersome that sigs that look like part of the post.

Personally, I like art and literature, you see. Science and emotions. Heart and head. If some ppl can't see past a colorful sig, not to be too blunt, but, kinda, it's their loss. iykwim

I'm artsy fartsy. I like (some) pop culture, but I can also be wicked serious about subjects that interest me, such as Biblical criticism and health.

But I actually find it less bothersome that sigs that look like part of the post.

Interesting! So, you'll vote for a colorful banner over a black colored one liner sig? Or will you be able to vote somewhere in the middle?

[Bright Life]

I was thinking that the pic would be no higher than yours, but that it would have the same width.

[DMB]

I have to say that I find Magdlyn's sig irritating and distracting. It so often seems to accompany a minimal amount of text, which it therefore overwhelms.

I don't want to turn all sigs off, because I enjoy reading a lot of the text ones. But I'm afraid that since Magdlyn has had that sig, I've started skipping over her posts, which is a shame, because she often posts interesting stuff. The trouble is that I just can't bear to let my eyes linger in the vicinity of the sig.

[Magdlyn]

I guess it just shows how diverse ppl can be. I like interesting sigs. I like pictures, and I like the variety when they change them. Maybe some ppl here are more sensitive than the folks on other boards I go to?

[Magdlyn]

I was thinking that the pic would be no higher than yours, but that it would have the same width.

You mean, just a square, not a rectangle?

Maybe when you guys vote, you just want to vote down "banners" of all kinds, instead of using a less clear term like bling.

So, 5 lines of text, small emoticon/square icon type pictures, no banners, no blinking images?

Are you going to allow colored text?

[Teshi]

Things like that have a tendency to give me a headache. My personal taste is for a clean, streamlined look. Of course, I realize that my personal taste is not the controlling factor on the board.

Same here. Picture sigs in general make it really difficult for me to read, even the small ones. Black and white pics are almost okay, but still pushing it for me.

I'd rather not turn them all off, since I enjoy the text ones (and they help me remember and recognize posters) but it's a sacrifice I'll make for legibility if image sigs are approved.

[DMB]

Magdlyn's new one is a great improvement for me.

[Alethias]

Magdlyn's new one is a great improvement for me.agreed. I like it.

[Magdlyn]

Well, OK. I have several points to make.

1) If we are talking about comfort, could I request that all mods and admins have Mod or Admin under their names from now on? B/c I really can't remember who is what.

Since you all get to dictate policy here for your own personal comfort, with little to no regard for the comfort or preferences of the membership in general, I'd like to always be aware which of our Authorities I am speaking to. I am not asking this out of spite. I just really need to know. Thanks in advance.

2) I posted part of the so-called philosophy of your board upthread. In there, I saw words such as "fun," "tolerant," "charming" and "interesting." Obviously I thought my sig reflected all of the above. Also now obvious, is that my understanding of these words differs greatly from the majority on this thread (some of whom are admins and mods, but again, I am not sure). It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess. "Fun" as in, church supper fun, not dancing at the club fun, seems to be what's going on here. Now I know.

3) I have been lurking over on your Staff Only sig discussion thread. Seems you all can't decide if you want 3 or 5 lines of text, nor how big images should be in sigs, nor if colored text is allowed. Some mods/admins are more distracted by bright sigs than others. Some prefer images and bling to lines of text however... You don't want "rules" about text, just "guidelines" about them, which are open to interpretation by whichever mod is on the board at any time. You want to be able to slap ppl down in PM warnings, without any clear guidelines/rules about what they should do in the first place. This just seems arbitrary and sort of power mad to me. If not in intent, in how it can or will be played.

4) Is David B a mod or admin? B/c he took the "miracle" thread which inspired me to bump this one, completely off topic to mock my sig, even when I repeatedly requested him not to. To me, this is much more concerning (in light of the similar HisNoodlyAppendage/Eddie Izzard debacle I was involved in earlier) as far as modeling/enforcing board behavior, and creating a tolerant and dignified atmosphere, than me having a colorful LGBT advocacy sig.

hugs and kisses, Magdlyn

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/Pagan_dar/Stripped/stripcloseup.jpg

[ravenscape]

Well, OK. I have several points to make.

1) If we are talking about comfort, could I request that all mods and admins have Mod or Admin under their names from now on? B/c I really can't remember who is what.

Since you all get to dictate policy here for your own personal comfort, with little to no regard for the comfort or preferences of the membership in general, I'd like to always be aware which of our Authorities I am speaking to. I am not asking this out of spite. I just really need to know. Thanks in advance.

I believe all mods and admins have this header under their names in posts. Please let me know if that is not the case.

2) I posted part of the so-called philosophy of your board upthread. In there, I saw words such as "fun," "tolerant," "charming" and "interesting." Obviously I thought my sig reflected all of the above. Also now obvious, is that my understanding of these words differs greatly from the majority on this thread (some of whom are admins and mods, but again, I am not sure). It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess. "Fun" as in, church supper fun, not dancing at the club fun, seems to be what's going on here. Now I know. Since these terms are subjective, I suppose it's no surprise that people may not agree entirely as to their scope.

3) I have been lurking over on your Staff Only sig discussion thread. Seems you all can't decide if you want 3 or 5 lines of text, nor how big images should be in sigs, nor if colored text is allowed. Some mods/admins are more distracted by bright sigs than others. Some prefer images and bling to lines of text however... You don't want "rules" about text, just "guidelines" about them, which are open to interpretation by whichever mod is on the board at any time. You want to be able to slap ppl down in PM warnings, without any clear guidelines/rules about what they should do in the first place. This just seems arbitrary and sort of power mad to me. If not in intent, in how it can or will be played.
We don't have a warning system. And you are right, we prefer not to have a detailed do/don't list because that way lies legalism and rules lawyering, as so many sites have proven in the past. We'll no doubt run into different issues as a result of our preference for more fuzzy guidelines.

4) Is David B a mod or admin? B/c he took the "miracle" thread which inspired me to bump this one, completely off topic to mock my sig, even when I repeatedly requested him not to. To me, this is much more concerning (in light of the similar HisNoodlyAppendage/Eddie Izzard debacle I was involved in earlier) as far as modeling/enforcing board behavior, and creating a tolerant and dignified atmosphere, than me having a colorful LGBT advocacy sig.As his post title indicates, he is a mod. Your feedback is received, in the spirit in which it so graciously is given.

hugs and kisses, Magdlyn

<snipped image>
backatcha.

[umop apisdn w,I]

1) If we are talking about comfort, could I request that all mods and admins have Mod or Admin under their names from now on? B/c I really can't remember who is what.

We do have that, or at least we did - but the software upgrade on the board wiped them out. I think we've all got them back by now...

2) I posted part of the so-called philosophy of your board upthread. In there, I saw words such as "fun," "tolerant," "charming" and "interesting." Obviously I thought my sig reflected all of the above.

One person's "fun" is another person's "irritating" and one person's "interesting" is another person's "tedious because it is over-done".

3) I have been lurking over on your Staff Only sig discussion thread. Seems you all can't decide if you want 3 or 5 lines of text, nor how big images should be in sigs, nor if colored text is allowed.

Such difference of opinion is normal. We'll argue discuss it for a while and then come to some kind of consensus.

My preference in this case is to have thing as non-subjective as possible; for example:

1) Have a software-determined character limit rather than a line limit, that way there's no need for enforcement and no need for subjective quibbling about under what screen resolution the number of lines is measured.

2) Don't even attempt to have limits on image size or "bling" - because again they are too subjective. Simply have a rule that if there are images, they have to be in tags - making viewing them opt-in rather than opt-out.

That way people who want large or flashy images for whatever reason (whether to send some kind of "message" or simply because they like them) can have them - and people who appreciate them can look at them, but people who don't like them don't have them thrust in their face to the extent that they have to turn off the viewing of signatures completely in order to get rid of them.

4) Is David B a mod or admin?

He's a mod - as you can see from his title.

Edited to add: Ah - I see Ravenscape got here first, while I was typing this...

[Magdlyn]

I believe all mods and admins have this header under their names in posts. Please let me know if that is not the case.

Are you a mod/admin? I see no such title, nor do I see one on HNA's posts, or Christina's, nor anyones else's.

His Noodly Appendage
Hell fellow, whale meat!

No mod designation

Christina

Nothing under her name


RexT
Senior Member

Garnet
Reprobate Rat

ravenscape
Pagan Pantheist Pulpiteer

etc...



We don't have a warning system. And you are right, we prefer not to have a detailed do/don't list because that way lies legalism and rules lawyering, as so many sites have proven in the past. We'll no doubt run into different issues as a result of our preference for more fuzzy guidelines.

Right. And so, we, the members, have no recourse at all, and should just suck it. ???

As his post title indicates, he is a mod.

David B
Have a banana

:confused:

He has no mod title that I can see, and he took me to task about my "grey area" sig, using profanity no less, completely off topic, on the miracle thread. WTF is up with these rude mods, who are supposed to be setting the tone of the board, as per what rules yall DO actually have? If mods can't even follow their own rules, how can we trust them to use mature judgment in more grey areas?

I personally am a co-admin of a small private bd (under 100 members). My co-admins and I are careful about avoiding creating drama. Why is it different here?

[Christina]

I see staff titles under all of our names.

[ravenscape]

Hm...we appear to have a post vb3.7 bug with the staff titles. mods and admins can see them...

I'll look into that and see what's up.

[Matty]

Hey Magdalyn.

Well, OK. I have several points to make.

1) If we are talking about comfort, could I request that all mods and admins have Mod or Admin under their names from now on? B/c I really can't remember who is what. I thought we already did. Dont we? If not then you certainly have a point but I'm pretty sure that is already the case.

eta i only just saw ravens response. In which case yeah you have a good point and it is being looked into. I guess some of our supermod powers include a staff version of X ray vision for the moment too. Anyway there is/was no intent to hide such a thing, the opposite in fact . It sounds like a techblip. thanks for pointing it out though, i for one wouldn't have known otherwise.

Since you all get to dictate policy here for your own personal comfort, with little to no regard for the comfort or preferences of the membership in general, I'd like to always be aware which of our Authorities I am speaking to. I am not asking this out of spite. I just really need to know. Thanks in advance. Easy tiger. Much as you have a point about knowing the status of the person you are discussing things with, the bolded bit is rather misleading dont you think. I think the whole point is to make it as user friendly as possible for the majority of people and i thought we were doing a pretty good job so far.

The little to no regard for users bit is simply bollocks i'm afraifd. Give us a bit of credit please. Lets not take a discussion on animated sigs and blow it out of proportion eh.

Now as for the sig size issue. Your Eddie box compared exactly to five lines of text on my display too, and i personally dont give a toss about such things one way or the other, (i loved the baguette chat up line one for example, as you know) but it isnt the same for every one. Mostly though the sig "rule/guideline" is to try and prevent train wrecks like RR where the sig banners take up more space than the posts, blink flash and jump about enough to induce seizures and can be pretty abhorrent in content to boot. Now whilst you are not in that vein (obviously) that is the reason, as i understand it, for having limitation on the sig size and it would seem a fair enough reason to me even if i dont really care 0ne way or the other for the most part.

You may be cool and using witty/funny avatars (indeed you are in my opinion) but some other fucking idiot will want to take advantage of such things to post 24 lines of godspam, racism, or porn links. Animated sigs, especially when there are multiple on a page can also cause lock up and slowdowns for users, especially those with slightly older computers. Thats the reason Magdalyn, its really nothing against tasteful or funny sigs simply that a line has to be drawn. Now taking that on board, is it really that much of a hardship to only use smaller non animated avatars?

My take on sigs/avs is that i have no issues with them at all right up to the point that i have issues with them. :) . Its hard to draw a line on a subjective matter (and one that is seen/perceived differently by multiple people) so the consensus when setting the place up was to err on the side of minimising them.

2) I posted part of the so-called philosophy of your board upthread. In there, I saw words such as "fun," "tolerant," "charming" and "interesting." Obviously I thought my sig reflected all of the above. Also now obvious, is that my understanding of these words differs greatly from the majority on this thread (some of whom are admins and mods, but again, I am not sure). It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess. "Fun" as in, church supper fun, not dancing at the club fun, seems to be what's going on here. Now I know. I'm finding a lot of everything fun charming for teh most part very much tolerant. Despite this sig thing, you dont? Really?

dont you get free wine and a great argument at church suppers? Sounds like fun to me. :)

3) I have been lurking over on your Staff Only sig discussion thread. Seems you all can't decide if you want 3 or 5 lines of text, nor how big images should be in sigs, nor if colored text is allowed. Some mods/admins are more distracted by bright sigs than others. Some prefer images and bling to lines of text however... You don't want "rules" about text, just "guidelines" about them, which are open to interpretation by whichever mod is on the board at any time. You want to be able to slap ppl down in PM warnings, without any clear guidelines/rules about what they should do in the first place. This just seems arbitrary and sort of power mad to me. If not in intent, in how it can or will be played.
as i said, the sigs are viewed differently by different users according to display settings etc, and the whole topic is pretty much subjective, so deciding on an objective rule or guideline is pretty tricky. PLUS there is a pretty wavy line between pissing off the well meaning sig users like yourself, and minimising the opportunity for huge text blinking animated messages of godspam, racism or anything else that might be insulting as fuck to a lot of people but strictly speaking "acceptable". Thats why there needs to be a line drawn, and for it to be applied to everyone, unfortunately it would seem to be at a place that you are uncomfortable with at the moment, but i hope you see the reasoning behind it?

4) Is David B a mod or admin? B/c he took the "miracle" thread which inspired me to bump this one, completely off topic to mock my sig, even when I repeatedly requested him not to. To me, this is much more concerning (in light of the similar HisNoodlyAppendage/Eddie Izzard debacle I was involved in earlier) as far as modeling/enforcing board behavior, and creating a tolerant and dignified atmosphere, than me having a colorful LGBT advocacy sig.
I honestly dont know how you rub so raw against what i see as the more rational guys on the board and not gobby assholes like me, but yeah, Dave is a mod in Religion and TCH.

Got a link to the thread/dig in question?

[Magdlyn]

I see staff titles under all of our names.

Hm...we appear to have a post vb3.7 bug with the staff titles. mods and admins can see them...

I'll look into that and see what's up.


OK, thanks.

[Magdlyn]

Matty, here's a link to the thread wherein DavidB went off topic. Link to the split I requested is in the thread.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=2210

I honestly dont know how you rub so raw against what i see as the more rational guys on the board and not gobby assholes like me...

B/c you actually are fun, charming and tolerant. And respectful, as well.

[Matty]

heh. thanks though i'm pretty sure some people might disagree



eta that does seem more agrro than usual for dave in my experience. dunno what to say.

i take it this was the Eddie banner? with him on the far left looking a bit like Kate Winslet?

[Loren Pechtel]

I see staff titles under all of our names.

You have a config problem then--I agree that there are no such titles visible. They are probably only showing up for other mods.

[Magdlyn]

heh. thanks though i'm pretty sure some people might disagree



eta that does seem more agrro than usual for dave in my experience. dunno what to say.

i take it this was the Eddie banner? with him on the far left looking a bit like Kate Winslet?

Evidence

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Eddie%20Icons/littlefaces.jpg

I see Judy Garland, ca Carnegie Hall. :)

Edit: BTW, I can now see all the mods' and admins' titles, thanks for fixing it, somebody.

[dug_down_deep]

I personally am a co-admin of a small private bd (under 100 members). My co-admins and I are careful about avoiding creating drama. Why is it different here?
Because many of us got burnt over at IIDB, where silence about administrative bullshit is considered golden.

There's been talk about 'professionalism' here, and I've tried largely unsuccessfully to point out that vaporware ethical standards are often the cause of problems, rather than the solution to them. IMO, crap from mods goes to the Compost Heap or the charred remains, just like crap from any other member. To hell with the priestly caste and social manipulation. We don't need that crap here.

[Matty]

nicely put. I agree, i think the reason there is a bit of dram from time to time is precisely becasue feedback, policy discussion and criticism are openly invited.

I'd much rather that than a "STFU moaning or fuck off" as was the IIDB policy.


and FWIW Magdalyn, that was the banner i was thinking of and i dont know what the issue is with it. 4 lines of text as i see it and pretty tastefull, all things considered.

[Magdlyn]

[... To hell with the priestly caste and social manipulation. We don't need that crap here.

Then you do not appear to agree with Moderator Guidelines as listed at the top of this forum. Why then, are you a mod?

Matty, I am guessing you are done editing your long post? It's safe to respond now? ;)

[dug_down_deep]

[... To hell with the priestly caste and social manipulation. We don't need that crap here.

Then you do not appear to agree with Moderator Guidelines as listed at the top of this forum. Why then, are you a mod?
I helped write them. Could you be more specific?

[Matty]

Matty, I am guessing you are done editing your long post? It's safe to respond now?

lol. go for it.:)

[dug_down_deep]

Oh crap. :o

Yeah, I guess there is that one. Oy. Never mind.

Anyway, I'm a mod because I was allowed to sneak in and become one. And I continue as such by the good graces of the staff and the membership in general. And I am not normally rude to people. Just one member so far, but he started it. :p

ETA: Hey, can a mod split this derail to TCH? For the sake of my credibility, I mean?

[Worldtraveller]

I have sigs and avatars turned off. :D I don't know what ya'll are complaining about.

On a side note, there seems to be a technical glitch in this new version that when viewing a member profile, some sigs don't show up. (And FWIW, I loath the new member page layout).

[Magdlyn]

Suggestion: I think all the mods need to have a wee discussion about adhering to the Moderator Guidelines, b/c it seems dug down deep, David B and Noodle are not clear on their roles...

JMHO. :)

Matty:

I think the whole point is to make it as user friendly as possible for the majority of people and i thought we were doing a pretty good job so far.

The little to no regard for users bit is simply bollocks i'm afraifd. Give us a bit of credit please. Lets not take a discussion on animated sigs and blow it out of proportion eh.

Well, to be fair, it's not just sigs I've been burnt on. It was also the horrific thing Noodle did to me on the "hotties" thread, about Eddie. The thread splits, the rudeness, etc. (No, he never apologized.)

Also, I had to go toe to toe with several mods to get Rathpig's posts to me about what a bitch, cunt and/or twat I was, moved from a discussion of the FLDS to Charred Remains. (However, i just looked over there and couldnt find any of the finally moved posts, I dont know what happened to them.) This was in a private discussion, but it was friggin ridiculous.

So... yeah. I've had a bit of a rocky introduction to moderator accountability and judgment here in a few short weeks.

I see your point about mods wanting to prevent huge, racist or fundie sigs. I also appreciate your support that my sig was none of the above. However, I acknowledge my now former sig was seen as almost painfully distracting by mods who are perhaps neurologically diverse from, or at least more conservative than, me.

Thats why there needs to be a line drawn, and for it to be applied to everyone, unfortunately it would seem to be at a place that you are uncomfortable with at the moment, but i hope you see the reasoning behind it?


Problem is, there isnt, as yet, a line. There's a fog, and a rude mod going off topic to curse at me, completely out of left field.

No, I dont get free wine at church suppers! I was raised Lutheran to please my grandparents, but my parents were atheists. We didnt go to those church suppers. A few yrs ago, I was involved in UU and did go to quite a few rather hilarious events, including one salsa night to fund-raise for a school in Nicaragua. My dh's band played. There was dancing. However, there was a cash bar for the Margaritas, Coronas and Sangria, dangit! (But you know I wasnt thinking UU when I made my crack about church suppers. ;) )

[Garnet]

Garnet
Reprobate Rat


I'm not a member of staff.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Some people look at things but not actually see what they are looking at. Or comprehend.

[dug_down_deep]

And btw. I'm clear. Me and Tom Cruise. We're both clear.

http://stash.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/tom-cruise-on-oprah.jpg

[Matty]

Well, to be fair, it's not just sigs I've been burnt on. It was also the horrific thing Noodle did to me on the "hotties" thread, about Eddie. The thread splits, the rudeness, etc. (No, he never apologized.)

Also, I had to go toe to toe with several mods to get Rathpig's posts to me about what a bitch, cunt and/or twat I was, moved from a discussion of the FLDS to Charred Remains. (However, i just looked over there and couldnt find any of the finally moved posts, I dont know what happened to them.) This was in a private discussion, but it was friggin ridiculous.

So... yeah. I've had a bit of a rocky introduction to moderator accountability and judgement here in a few short weeks.

Fair enough. I dont understand how it all gets so heated discussing a genius trannie comedian, myself, but i see your point. i know you've had "heated discussions" with a couple people, i was more commenting about generalising as the mods as an entity. Much as we are in many ways we are still individual personalities with all the pros and cons that implies.

I see your point about mods wanting to prevent huge, racist or fundie sigs. I also appreciate your support that my sig was none of the above. Cool thanks. Thats the main reason, its well known that wherever the line is (eventually) drawn, some smartarse will find a way to push the envelope without actually breaking rules so its simply a case of pre empting that and making that a pretty conservatively set line to begin with.

However, I acknowledge my now former sig was seen as almost painfully distracting by mods who are perhaps neurologically diverse from, or at least more conservative than, me.
I dont get it at all tbh. But if you are willing to switch as you have done than thats great.


Problem is, there isnt, as yet, a line.

You're right. It is under discussion. I think it was once of those things that got put on a back burner till it needed to be addressed, like now.Part of it is the whole subjectivity aspect which is hard to pin down.

No, I dont get free wine at church suppers! I was raised Lutheran to please my grandparents, but my parents were atheists. We didnt go to those church suppers.
Only joshing i wouldnt know a church supper from a bharmitsvah tbh. Although i AM the last person to be baptised in our family (similar thing, keep the great grannie from moaning too much) . Thats was one of teh handful of times i've been present at a church service of any kind in my life, (i doubt its above 20 and that includes weddings and funerals. )


And i hear the wine they use is crap anyway. Certainly no merlot.

[Magdlyn]

Eat this bread, it is delicious.
Drink this wine, it's a Merlot.


Bar Mitzvah, hon. LOL. I'm originally from Long Island, Jew York.


...

eta, I corrected your spelling before you had a chance to edit.

[Monad]

heh. thanks though i'm pretty sure some people might disagree



eta that does seem more agrro than usual for dave in my experience. dunno what to say.

i take it this was the Eddie banner? with him on the far left looking a bit like Kate Winslet?

Evidence

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Eddie%20Icons/littlefaces.jpg

I see Judy Garland, ca Carnegie Hall. :)

Edit: BTW, I can now see all the mods' and admins' titles, thanks for fixing it, somebody.

I love that sig - what's the problem with it? It's pretty and colourful and not too big at all.

[Magdlyn]

Thank you Monad. I've gotten positive PMs as well. :o

[Matty]

Bar Mitzvah, hon. LOL. I'm originally from Long Island, Jew York.
..

eta, I corrected your spelling before you had a chance to edit.

heh, hmm, kinda proves my point i guess.

i hate being so predictable. I'll have to leave it unedited now eh.
damn. well at least i got some of the letters right. Possibly more than i expected tbh.

Scuse my ignorance, we dont have many Jewish communities in Cornwall I'm afraid.
I'd never seen anyone wearing one of those hats like the buffer wheels before moving to N London.

:)

[JamesBannon]

Mags,
I can see the titles fine. Try clearing the TR cookies & resetting.

[DMB]

My problem with Magdlyn's banner sig was over its size and colour rather than its Izzardness. It was simply too noticeable and therefore distracting on the page. I don't want to turn off all sigs, because a lot of them are interesting, but this was like someone shouting through a megaphone (and yes, I know that the rat at the top is doing just that, but most of the time we're not really operating like that).

[Monad]

It's not that loud - I thought it was pretty discrete really and a splash of colour livens the place up.

[Arctish]

I agree Magdlyn's sig is pretty but my problem with it is I can imagine a page full of similar sigs. It's like a billboard. One isn't so bad especially if it's nicely done. Two or three is more intrusive but still not very hard to ignore. But put 50 of the damn things up and it's a garish, ugly, annoying, view obstructing mess.

If the majority decides they like that much color and imagery attached to every post I'll live with it. But as an individual I have to say I much preferred the smaller, one picture only sig Magdlyn was using 2 weeks ago. Even rotating the images and colors would be less distracting than the whole rainbow banner-full every time.

[Magdlyn]

Mags,
I can see the titles fine. Try clearing the TR cookies & resetting.

Thanks James. I already acknowledged one of them had fixed that bug a few posts ago.

[Magdlyn]

My problem with Magdlyn's banner sig was over its size and colour rather than its Izzardness. It was simply too noticeable and therefore distracting on the page. I don't want to turn off all sigs, because a lot of them are interesting, but this was like someone shouting through a megaphone (and yes, I know that the rat at the top is doing just that, but most of the time we're not really operating like that).

I agree Magdlyn's sig is pretty but my problem with it is I can imagine a page full of similar sigs. It's like a billboard. One isn't so bad especially if it's nicely done. Two or three is more intrusive but still not very hard to ignore. But put 50 of the damn things up and it's a garish, ugly, annoying, view obstructing mess.

If the majority decides they like that much color and imagery attached to every post I'll live with it. But as an individual I have to say I much preferred the smaller, one picture only sig Magdlyn was using 2 weeks ago. Even rotating the images and colors would be less distracting than the whole rainbow banner-full every time.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Eddie%20Icons/eddie21-1.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Eddie%20Icons/eddie15.jpg

[Arctish]

I agree Magdlyn's sig is pretty but my problem with it is I can imagine a page full of similar sigs. It's like a billboard. One isn't so bad especially if it's nicely done. Two or three is more intrusive but still not very hard to ignore. But put 50 of the damn things up and it's a garish, ugly, annoying, view obstructing mess.



http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Eddie%20Icons/eddie21-1.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Eddie%20Icons/eddie15.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k264/Arctish/izz3.jpg

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about.

Any content hidden by the billboards.

[Magdlyn]

Um, the icons were the whole content and my comment on the thread. :dunno:

[Arctish]

Um, the icons were the whole content and my comment on the thread. :dunno:

I know, and they demonstrated my point nicely.

[Monad]

I agree Magdlyn's sig is pretty but my problem with it is I can imagine a page full of similar sigs. It's like a billboard. One isn't so bad especially if it's nicely done. Two or three is more intrusive but still not very hard to ignore. But put 50 of the damn things up and it's a garish, ugly, annoying, view obstructing mess.

Come on, I'm inherently suspicious of arguments based on what people can imagine. It's very unlikely we will get pages of 50 odd posters with bright coloured sigs - even on RnR where there are no restrictions not that many have pictorial sigs and even if it did become a problem; well cross the bridge when it comes to it, don't make up rules for every threat you can imagine.

Magdlyns sig is discrete and not that different from the sig I would have to my website (that I use on some other forums) which is this:

http://www.fingermarks.co.uk/Fingermarks_copy.jpg

[Arctish]

I agree Magdlyn's sig is pretty but my problem with it is I can imagine a page full of similar sigs. It's like a billboard. One isn't so bad especially if it's nicely done. Two or three is more intrusive but still not very hard to ignore. But put 50 of the damn things up and it's a garish, ugly, annoying, view obstructing mess.

Come on, I'm inherently suspicious of arguments based on what people can imagine. It's very unlikely we will get pages of 50 odd posters with bright coloured sigs - even on RnR where there are no restrictions not that many have pictorial sigs and even if it did become a problem; well cross the bridge when it comes to it, don't make up rules for every threat you can imagine.

Magdlyns sig is discrete and not that different from the sig I would have to my website (that I use on some other forums) which is this:

http://www.fingermarks.co.uk/Fingermarks_copy.jpg

IMO Magdlyn's sig is not discrete and isn't meant to be. It's designed to be noticed. Also IMO your sig is the visual equivalent of a shout. There's nothing discrete about it.

As I said above, if the majority want brightly colored sigs I'll get used to them but I think they detract from people's posts. They all look like billboards to me.

[Febble]

Discreet guys, not discrete. [/nitpick]

I must say, I'm not wild about insults in sigs either. Anyone else?

[His Noodly Appendage]

[spelling nazi]
That's 'discreet'. The word 'discrete' means quantised / granular / separable. (hmm, as opposed to concrete?)

Perhaps that's the best way to remember it - I personally always flash on the weird loopy 'ee' in the poster for Alfred Hitchcock's 'Indiscreet'.
[/spelling nazi]

I personally dislike images in sigs, because they make the place look like christianforums.com, because they drown out the actual content of people's posts, and because they render the place effectively NSFW. Scrolling through a page of text doesn't get noticed. Scrolling through a constant explosion of glitterbling, however, never gets passed off as work-related.

The point of this site is ideas. I want my primary impression of the place to be people's ideas, not their goddamn bumper sticker. I don't want the signal-to-noise ratio going through the floor, and I don't want the kind of culture that gets put off by entire paragraphs of text without pretty pictures. Yes, I want to have fun here, but I want to do it with *smart* people, not the fucking ringtone crowd. Anything I can do to discourage the latter, I will do.

And Magdlyn, what an utter fucking surprise. Imagine that - posing pics of Eddie Fucking Izzard until people complain, then howling persecution from the rooftops. Gee, I didn't see THAT one coming. Again.

[Jet Black]

I personally dislike images in sigs, because they make the place look like christianforums.com,


you mean all our plans for dolls and pets and bigger avatars and coloured usernames are to go to waste?

[Garnet]

Monad, I'm sorry, but I don't see your picture block as discreet either. It makes my eyes cross.

[Magdlyn]

I agree Magdlyn's sig is pretty ...

Thank you.



Come on, I'm inherently suspicious of arguments based on what people can imagine. It's very unlikely we will get pages of 50 odd posters with bright coloured sigs - even on RnR where there are no restrictions not that many have pictorial sigs and even if it did become a problem; well cross the bridge when it comes to it, don't make up rules for every threat you can imagine.


Good point. However, it seems several of the staff here are highly perturbed by even one banner on a page... so I think we're outranked and pissin up a tree here, unfortunately. Oh well. I'll get over it. It's just the internet. :wave:

[Magdlyn]

Scuse my ignorance, we dont have many Jewish communities in Cornwall I'm afraid.
I'd never seen anyone wearing one of those hats like the buffer wheels before moving to N London.

:)

Yarmulkahs.

[Monad]

Monad, I'm sorry, but I don't see your picture block as discreet either. It makes my eyes cross.

I didn't say mine was discreet exactly - just similar in colour etc - in fact I usually use a smaller version and hers is more toned down than mine. The point is this is a silly rule - colour makes the place more fun - just because it's Talk rational doesn't mean everything has to be dull as dishwater grey, and more to the point it's based on an imaginary fear of every post having big screaming banners which I think is unlikely.

Anyway I prefer this sort of sig to all the ones quoting (or insulting) afDave (or whoever) which make me cringe and feel rather embarrassed tbh

[Matty]

no i know what they are, apparently the term is a barrette.

They weren't exactly common compared to the yamulkah or black felt hats but these ones were BIG circular and fuzzy/furry, by the looks of it, they are something of a throwback. Retro Jewish fashion if you like. heres the only pic i could find of one, an old one with no fur left on it.

Fits in with the very orthadox and old school area of Golders Green which is the only place i have ever seen them (i was there for the best bagels in London)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Ph2KawcDJZWX4M:http://bp1.blogger.com/_N61RVdo9I44/RokF5b6d7YI/AAAAAAAAAH4/axxj2hnXl7g/s400/jewish%2Bhat%2B18th%2Bc.%2Bbarrette.gif
from here http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://bp1.blogger.com/_N61RVdo9I44/RokF5b6d7YI/AAAAAAAAAH4/axxj2hnXl7g/s400/jewish%2Bhat%2B18th%2Bc.%2Bbarrette.gif&imgrefurl=http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2007/07/yekkes-in-black-hats.html&h=224&w=400&sz=78&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=Ph2KawcDJZWX4M:&tbnh=69&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djewish%2Bbarrette%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den% 26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN

well. i learnt something about another culture today.

[Christina]

The bright attention gathering ones feel like banner ads or unwanted commercial interruptions to me, especially when they're repeated over and over on a page. There isn't anything I feel like saying over and over all day and if there was I would do my best to not torture others with it or make the place NSFW based on my personal preference to advertise my thoughts repeatedly.

But if we're going to go for big loud sigs then we might as well be thinking about generating some income from banner ads since the equivalent is already there. At least the banner ads only show up once on a page.

[Magdlyn]

Um, the icons were the whole content and my comment on the thread. :dunno:

I know, and they demonstrated my point nicely.


Actually, they demonstrated the opposite of your point.

For me, one picture is worth a thousand words. And a couple Eddie lines is worth a thousand words by anyone else.

And a picture of Eddie just just divine.

[Garnet]

Monad, I'm sorry, but I don't see your picture block as discreet either. It makes my eyes cross.

I didn't say mine was discreet exactly - just similar in colour etc - in fact I usually use a smaller version and hers is more toned down than mine. The point is this is a silly rule - colour makes the place more fun - just because it's Talk rational doesn't mean everything has to be dull as dishwater grey, and more to the point it's based on an imaginary fear of every post having big screaming banners which I think is unlikely.

Anyway I prefer this sort of sig to all the ones quoting (or insulting) afDave (or whoever) which make me cringe and feel rather embarrassed tbh

It's a matter of personal taste. Brightly colored signatures do not make the site more fun for me. I find bright colors in signatures distracting and in some cases, they actually give me a headache. I disagree that this issue is based on an "imaginary fears." Instead, I see concerns being expressed due to real experiences of people (including myself) on other sites.

I agree with you about insulting sigs; they make me cringe too.

There are solutions that could be implemented in addition to rule changes. There are hacks available that will only show a sig one time in a thread or that allow users to not display the sig line of another user. Whether or not those will be implemented remains to be seen. The more custom hacks that are put in place, the more difficult each upgrade becomes. The administrators will have to make those decisions. Either way, I've turned signatures off until this is resolved.

[Matty]

Magdlyns sig is discrete and not that different from the sig I would have to my website (that I use on some other forums) which is this:

http://www.fingermarks.co.uk/Fingermarks_copy.jpg

I personally disagree. The Izzard one was a LOT more muted than that one.
With all respect i think that banner is a total eyesore.

Guess we are back to subjectivity eh?

[dug_down_deep]

So pretty. http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/62/t631643-windows-vista/

And...wtf? http://hell.oddwebsite.com/viewtopic.php?t=3912

[dug_down_deep]

Magdlyns sig is discrete and not that different from the sig I would have to my website (that I use on some other forums) which is this:

http://www.fingermarks.co.uk/Fingermarks_copy.jpg
I saw what you did there. ;)

And btw, I'm using Planes of Existence as my wallpaper. Hope you don't mind. :notworthy:

[Magdlyn]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Eddie%20Icons/eddie15.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/Eddie%20Icons/ambitionve3.gif

[umop apisdn w,I]

Since having strict rules about what is and is not acceptable is against the philosophy of the board - which is based on flexibility and staff discretion rather than to-the-letter rules interpretation, we seem to have two options here:

1) Take a "we know it when we see it" approach to whether a sig is too distracting or not. That way, if someone disagrees with us then they can't start trying to quibble with the specific rules - and if people in general are unhappy with our decisions then they can kick us out and get new staff they are happier with.

2) Alter the settings on the board to what we think are sensible values, that way people are simply physically unable to "break the rules" and we will avoid arguments about whether something is acceptable or not.

I favour doing both. We set the settings up with things like character limits (rather than have rules about number of lines) and we disallow most tags in sigs. That should take care of most issues and complaints that people will have - and then we simply use staff discretion on what is left.

[Octavia]

It's a matter of personal taste. Brightly colored signatures do not make the site more fun for me. I find bright colors in signatures distracting and in some cases, they actually give me a headache. I disagree that this issue is based on an "imaginary fears." Instead, I see concerns being expressed due to real experiences of people (including myself) on other sites.


It's the same for me. Regardless of the artistic merit of big bright look-at-me sigs, they just give me a headache. :( What can I say, my eyes are terrible. I have to turn the normal screen brightness down below 50% at the best of times, because even that's too much.

So they all get turned off, and the board looks nice and restful.

One thing all the arty sigs tell me, though, is that we need more creative arts threads!

[Monad]

Can't there just be a per user setting to turn them off? (as with themes etc) Then people who want them or don't care can have them and people who don't want to see them don't have to.

[Monad]

Magdlyns sig is discrete and not that different from the sig I would have to my website (that I use on some other forums) which is this:

http://www.fingermarks.co.uk/Fingermarks_copy.jpg
I saw what you did there. ;)

And btw, I'm using Planes of Existence as my wallpaper. Hope you don't mind. :notworthy:

hehe

[Worldtraveller]

Can't there just be a per user setting to turn them off? (as with themes etc) Then people who want them or don't care can have them and people who don't want to see them don't have to.

There already is (as I mentioned earlier). I have avatars and sigs turned off completely. It was one of the few things I liked about IIDB.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Can't there just be a per user setting to turn them off? (as with themes etc) Then people who want them or don't care can have them and people who don't want to see them don't have to.

There is, but that is too all-or-nothing for many people, who don't want to "have to" turn all signatures off in order to get rid of the tiny minority that they have a problem with.

[Garnet]

One more time. There are custom hacks available that allow a person to turn off another specific person's avatar and signature. Those hacks are in use at FF if anyone is interested in talking to liv or vm about them. It's a feature I use a lot over there.

[Magdlyn]

I would like to suggest that ppl who don't want any colorful sigs, but want to be able to read regular text only sigs, should just turn off sigs. Suggesting that once a week they could turn sigs on to read posts with text sigs in case there is something interesting (most ppl do not change their sig more often than once a week). They could just quickly scroll by the "offensive" sigs on their sig reading day. If they "can't" normally read posts with colorful sigs, they could read anything with sigs turned off.

That said, I can see limiting sig size to a banner about the size of the one of mine that was in dispute. Equivalent in size to 5 lines of text, not a full size photo, seems like a nice compromise to me. No moving images, no sparkling glitter.

However, it is interesting to me that somehow, the majority of staff here get headaches or are otherwise almost physically harmed by colorful sigs. Since you guys set this board up, you get the final word... if you want to use your power in that way.

Is there an understanding here that racism and fundie preaching are not allowed, which would prevent sigs with that content? "Tolerance" is in the board philosophy, which would seem to rule out racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

[dug_down_deep]

One more time. There are custom hacks available that allow a person to turn off another specific person's avatar and signature. Those hacks are in use at FF if anyone is interested in talking to liv or vm about them. It's a feature I use a lot over there.
Are any of the admins aware of this? (Raven, Alethias, Loren?) This sounds like the most desirable option to me.

[Christina]

How do people feel about the hack to have sigs show up once per page? I liked that a lot when Gurdur implemented it that way.

[Teshi]

How do people feel about the hack to have sigs show up once per page? I liked that a lot when Gurdur implemented it that way.

Personally, I like it when text sigs to show up every time, as it's one way of recognizing a poster. That's just a vague preference, though - it's not like people aren't recognizable otherwise.

[Magdlyn]

How do people feel about the hack to have sigs show up once per page? I liked that a lot when Gurdur implemented it that way.

I'm fine with that idea. I dont need sigs to recognize posters. Their name and av and post content/writing style serve that purpose for me.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Where did the idea come from that if 5 lines of text is OK, an image of the same dimensions must therefore also be OK?

That just doesn't follow. It's not the real estate (though that is a factor), but the signal-to-noise ratio and general distraction/blinginess that's the problem.

Why is it such a big deal to go along with the agreed-upon style of the board, which is high on the conversation, and low on the gimmicks?

[Magdlyn]

Where did the idea come from that if 5 lines of text is OK, an image of the same dimensions must therefore also be OK?

As said upthread, I got it from Bright Life, that it was OK to have a sig image that was 5 lines deep. I don't know who she discussed it with. I think maybe Christina? Maybe she/they can check in and clear that up.



That just doesn't follow. It's not the real estate (though that is a factor), but the signal-to-noise ratio and general distraction/blinginess that's the problem.

Why is it such a big deal to go along with the agreed-upon style of the board, which is high on the conversation, and low on the gimmicks?

Myself and others are not aware of an "agreed upon" style such as that. Other staff here have said this was an issue that was not resolved yet, as it was "low priority." It seems to me, it can't be considered "agreed upon" until discussion happens and a consensus is reached.

[ravenscape]

...

However, it is interesting to me that somehow, the majority of staff here get headaches or are otherwise almost physically harmed by colorful sigs. Since you guys set this board up, you get the final word... if you want to use your power in that way.


The majority of people who have complained about headaches, etc. from colorful images in this thread are not staff. And the majority of staff have not complained that the images give them headaches. I have no idea how you came by this misconception.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Why is it such a big deal to go along with the agreed-upon style of the board, which is high on the conversation, and low on the gimmicks?Because there are always nonconformists on every forum trying to compensate for their lack of ability.

[His Noodly Appendage]

We had not signed off on firm policy, but we did have consensus that the less bling the better.

(This was before we'd reached consensus on open staff discussion... :facepalm:)

We hadn't bothered making a formal policy out of it, because we didn't expect people to be such a PITA about being asked to de-bling their sig.

[Magdlyn]

...

However, it is interesting to me that somehow, the majority of staff here get headaches or are otherwise almost physically harmed by colorful sigs. Since you guys set this board up, you get the final word... if you want to use your power in that way.


The majority of people who have complained about headaches, etc. from colorful images in this thread are not staff. And the majority of staff have not complained that the images give them headaches. I have no idea how you came by this misconception.


I said, "headaches or almost physically harmed."

Recap of staff opinions on sigs, as read on this thread.

DMB, Octavia, Archtish, Febble, RBH, dugdowndeep and Noodle have all been quite vocal about how, one way or another, colorful sigs bother them and hamper their ability to read. Garnet, non-staff, has also complained more than once.

Christina doesnt want images at all.

David B wants at least 5 lines of text.

Other staff seem to be neutral.

[Magdlyn]

Why is it such a big deal to go along with the agreed-upon style of the board, which is high on the conversation, and low on the gimmicks?Because there are always nonconformists on every forum trying to compensate for their lack of ability.


Ad homs are so mature and helpful. My "ability" is pretty damn good, tyvm.

[ravenscape]

DMB is not a staff member. I think you're lumping people who find image-laden signatures annoying with people who have physical problems with them on a page. I don't view annoyance and "gives me headaches" as the same sort of complaint at all.

[Alethias]

...

However, it is interesting to me that somehow, the majority of staff here get headaches or are otherwise almost physically harmed by colorful sigs. Since you guys set this board up, you get the final word... if you want to use your power in that way.


The majority of people who have complained about headaches, etc. from colorful images in this thread are not staff. And the majority of staff have not complained that the images give them headaches. I have no idea how you came by this misconception.


I said, "headaches or almost physically harmed."

Recap of staff opinions on sigs, as read on this thread.

DMB, Octavia, Archtish, Febble, RBH, dugdowndeep and Noodle have all been quite vocal about how, one way or another, colorful sigs bother them and hamper their ability to read. Garnet, non-staff, has also complained more than once.

Christina doesnt want images at all.

David B wants at least 5 lines of text.

Other staff seem to be neutral.I don't get headaches from them(even though I have chronic severe migraines that I just started seeing a neurologist for), but I find them distracting from the post at hand.

BTW, your current siggy is fine. Tasteful and appealing. I am very appreciative of the efforts you've gone to to work with us on this, Magdlyn.

[Magdlyn]

DMB is not a staff member. I think you're lumping people who find image-laden signatures annoying with people who have physical problems with them on a page. I don't view annoyance and "gives me headaches" as the same sort of complaint at all.

OK, so noted.

[Magdlyn]

I am very appreciative of the efforts you've gone to to work with us on this, Magdlyn.

No problem.

How does this picture work for everyone? I had it as my sig at another bd for a while. It's a bit bigger, but black and white.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/D2K%20Book/22eddie_izzard.jpg

[Pendaric]

Personally, I'd view it as too big.

I have no problem with the image you have now (and no problems worth mentioning with the banner one you had previously), but this strikes me as too large.

However, if there is a workable hack that allows those who dislike the sigs to turn them off for a specific user then this seems to me to be the obvious solution. But I'm not a technical person, so I wouldn't like to comment on how feasible that is.

[Matty]

That looks pretty huge to me too tbh. belongs more in a cool pic thread than as a sig imsho

I'm not overly bothered by such things but if for example the sig is regularly taking up more space than the post content, or makes up a significant proportion of the post box itself (that example above must be near 20%) i'd say its too distracting.

[Bright Life]

Mags,

The whole point is to give the board a nice, uncluttered look, but with a bit of room for fun.

The standard sized text, no more than five lines, was discussed and had a general consensus. The picture, which was to be only as big as an emoticon (which is square) was discussed and I went out and found an Izzard pic that would fit as a larger "emoticon," no bigger than the standard sized text of five lines, square, like an emoticon.

I think you may be getting a bit of buzz-back, because it may appear that you are "pushing the envelope" just for shits and giggles. This could be seen as annoying, as there are so many other things to iron out right now.

That's my 2 cents.

[Magdlyn]

No, it's not shits and giggles, and that feels kind of hurtful. I just wanted to understand why the big objection to pictures. I'm just a pictures sort of person. Not to be annoying. I just see them as ambiance, not as "billboards." I dont see pix bigger than the post as a problem.

Just a difference of opinion. Why must that be seen as somehow sinister or suspect?

[Hedwig]

I am very appreciative of the efforts you've gone to to work with us on this, Magdlyn.

No problem.

How does this picture work for everyone? I had it as my sig at another bd for a while. It's a bit bigger, but black and white.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/queenfluffernutter/D2K%20Book/22eddie_izzard.jpg

Too big. It's not overwhelming on my laptop, but, for example, on my parents' desktop, which has been scaled up so that they can read text easier, it'd be frickin' huge.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Is anyone going to comment on my suggestion that we let people use pictures as big and/or garish as they like - but all pictures must be in tags (so people can opt-in to looking at them if they want to rather than having to opt-out if they don't care for them or are at work)?

Good idea? Bad idea?

[Jet Black]

Is anyone going to comment on my suggestion that we let people use pictures as big and/or garish as they like - but all pictures must be in tags (so people can opt-in to looking at them if they want to rather than having to opt-out if they don't care for them or are at work)?

Good idea? Bad idea?

excellent idea.

[hecaterin]

Is anyone going to comment on my suggestion that we let people use pictures as big and/or garish as they like - but all pictures must be in tags (so people can opt-in to looking at them if they want to rather than having to opt-out if they don't care for them or are at work)?

Good idea? Bad idea?

excellent idea.Agreed.

[Teshi]

Is anyone going to comment on my suggestion that we let people use pictures as big and/or garish as they like - but all pictures must be in tags (so people can opt-in to looking at them if they want to rather than having to opt-out if they don't care for them or are at work)?

Good idea? Bad idea?

Brilliant idea.

[Matty]

thumbs up from me too. good idea.

[Garnet]

Is anyone going to comment on my suggestion that we let people use pictures as big and/or garish as they like - but all pictures must be in tags (so people can opt-in to looking at them if they want to rather than having to opt-out if they don't care for them or are at work)?

Good idea? Bad idea?

I like it. :)

[Jet Black]

I vote umop for president.

[dug_down_deep]

Yep. Great idea.

[Hedwig]

Is anyone going to comment on my suggestion that we let people use pictures as big and/or garish as they like - but all pictures must be in tags (so people can opt-in to looking at them if they want to rather than having to opt-out if they don't care for them or are at work)?

Good idea? Bad idea?

I like that idea.

[Octavia]

One more time. There are custom hacks available that allow a person to turn off another specific person's avatar and signature. Those hacks are in use at FF if anyone is interested in talking to liv or vm about them. It's a feature I use a lot over there.

Good idea, thanks. Will contact liv/vm and see if they can tell us how to do it here. Though umop's idea is good too, it seems to me to ensure that people have to turn-off hide on the signatures they want to see.

It seems to me the hack might be easier.

[Magdlyn]

Just noting mod David B has not been back to the board since this thread split:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=2215

I don't suppose anyone knows where he went?

[umop apisdn w,I]

Though umop's idea is good too, it seems to me to ensure that people have to turn-off hide on the signatures they want to see.

Only graphical ones. The vast majority of (text-only) signatures would not be hidden, and would be seen by default.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Just noting mod David B has not been back to the board since this thread split:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=2215

I don't suppose anyone knows where he went?

He's been ill. I think he's back now.

[Febble]

Any views on insults in sigs?

I don't like them, and I'd like them to go.

[David B]

I like the hide tags idea, too.

I wasn't feeling my best when I was less than my diplomatic best with Magdlyn, too.

David B (also doesn't like bling on boards)

[Magdlyn]

Is that a stab at an apology? :)

[David B]

Is that a stab at an apology? :)

It is an acknowledgement that I regret my choice of words.

David b

[ravenscape]

Any views on insults in sigs?

I don't like them, and I'd like them to go.
I feel much the same. I'd like to know how the TR community feels about signatures that insult other members.

[Magdlyn]

I wasn't feeling my best when I was less than my diplomatic best with Magdlyn, too.



Is that a stab at an apology? :)

It is an acknowledgement that I regret my choice of words.

David b

Apology accepted.

[Garnet]

I think sigs that insult other members are sophomoric.

Unless the sig is a direct quote of the member being insulted. In that case, I usually find it screamingly funny.

Yes, I know that's also sophomoric. I can't help it. I'm that way. :D

[Bright Life]

I'm with Garnet on this one. Insulting, name-calling sigs are "not-so-fresh."

[Octavia]

I think sigs that insult other members are sophomoric.

Unless the sig is a direct quote of the member being insulted. In that case, I usually find it screamingly funny.

Yes, I know that's also sophomoric. I can't help it. I'm that way. :D

You're not the only sophomoric one. :D

[ravenscape]

How is this now?

- Avatars should not be animated or NSFW
- signatures should be no longer than five lines and no larger than the default font. They should not contain any animated images or those larger than a standard emoticon. In other words, no bling.
- NSFW threads will go in the After Dark forum
- NSFW images and content will go in hide tags in threads not marked NSFW

Does anyone disagree or have anything that they think that we should add to this?

I'd like to add that sigs can't be in color, and then that raised the question in my mind about using colored text at all other than to highlight a word here and there. I'd rather not, because it annoys me and it also makes it hard to see moderator comments in the thread unless we use some ugly mod box.
Here's the most recent agreement in this thread. But, I think downthread we discussed not disallowing colored font in posts.

Based on discussion, It sounds like we want to amend this to (changes in blue)

- Avatars should not be animated or NSFW

- signatures should be no longer than five lines and no larger than the default font. They should not contain any animated images or those larger than a standard emoticon. In other words, no bling. People who wish to add bling to their signatures will use hide tags.

- signatures should not contain insults or name-calling of other TR members. Quotes of other members are ok.