Aartemys Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I turned off signatures ages ago since I log on mostly from work and I've gotten more than one "E-safe" warning on sigs. Better not tempt the Devil, methinks... Yeah, I wish I could see/let alone remember what my signature looks like, but then again all I have to do is go to My Controls and view it there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stilly Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 no, it doesn't, because there are many people here with interesting sigs that are a reasonable size that we can no longer look at because ONE person decides he wants to be a prick. This also stops other people from making/updating THEIR sigs, since they're not going to look at it, and they can't enjoy other people's, why bother? again: the actions of one person are forcing the behavior change of the entire boards just so he can be an ass. Unless Nick manages to make an option that blocks ONE PERSON'S sig an option for everyone, then there's no happy medium. The only logical solution is to put a reasonable limit on sigs. Eh, good point there. Well, while mine certainly wasn't the worst of them all, it was still fairly bad...and I just cut it down, finally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Cap'n Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Much like in Democracies, Free Speech is a cornerstone of this community. It's what allows us to contribute freely and openly without fear of reprisal or censorship. However, like in any community, and any democracy, there are (by necessity) some limmits imposed on Free Speech for the sake of order, safety, and sanity. You are not allowed to falsely cry 'fire' in a crowded room, for example, nor are you allowed to threaten someone. In some states (and countries) racial slurs are not protected under Free Speech and neither are other forms of harrasment. When aspects of Free Speech become an obsticle to the daily management of life and business, cities place some restrictions on it, enough to allow the daily business to continue without infringing too much on the right of the individual to express themselves. I think its important that we have the same limmitations on Hondo's. While I agree that everyone has the right to say pretty much what they want, there is also a public outcry that signatures here have become long for the sake of being long. For no other reason than to be an asshole, Jax and Baytor have made their signatures unbearably long. It's gotten to the point where people are either unilaterally ignoring sigs (which makes it unfair to both people with regular sigs and to those blocking them, since it deprives them the ability to view the wittier ones) or they aren't going to threads because they're page down button no longer works from over use. So propose the following solution in a democratic way: If a plurality of us vote and decide that a sensible limmit be placed on signatures, then so be it. If not, then so be it. But I would really like this to be binding one way or another, since it's really annoying many people. Feel free to bitch and complain below, since it IS the suggestion box. WAH, WAH, WAH! Yes, we are a community, BUT we are NOT a democracy. To be a democracy we need government. I don't see no established government on Hondos! That said, I propose that we hold elections to establish government on here. You know like the student governments in school with all respective positions. In a bold move I throw my hat into the fray as Vice-President with my running mate Jax as the 1st... PRESIDENT OF HONDO'S BAR! And yes, I'm dead serious! First order of business... FREE SPEECH! My opinion has always been that free speech is the cornerstone of Hondo's and it should stay that way. People like Archangel are trying to destroy that. What do you say Jax? You in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 WAH, WAH, WAH! Yes, we are a community, BUT we are NOT a democracy. To be a democracy we need government. I don't see no established government on Hondos! That said, I propose that we hold elections to establish government on here. You know like the student governments in school with all respective positions. In a bold move I throw my hat into the fray as Vice-President with my running mate Jax as the 1st... PRESIDENT OF HONDO'S BAR! And yes, I'm dead serious! First order of business... FREE SPEECH! My opinion has always been that free speech is the cornerstone of Hondo's and it should stay that way. People like Archangel are trying to destroy that. What do you say Jax? You in? I can do fantastic propaghanda/spin doctorisms if you need help with your bloody coup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signal08 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Cap'n Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Had to be Sig to come on here and hate on me. Since he's been showin' hostility towards me I'm sure he'll be voting conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 Socialists don't become Presidents, son, they become DICKtators. And that's not entirely true: we've had this board go through votes for changes before. And for the last time, this is NOT about Free Speech. At all. Geez, read a friggin book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperEeyore Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Just a suggestion... if you don't like the signatures or are tired of scrolling through them TURN THEM OFF AND DON'T BITCH ABOUT IT. The end.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalHeart Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Just a suggestion... if you don't like the signatures or are tired of scrolling through them TURN THEM OFF AND DON'T BITCH ABOUT IT.The end.. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signal08 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Just a suggestion... if you don't like the signatures or are tired of scrolling through them TURN THEM OFF AND DON'T BITCH ABOUT IT.The end.. yea, cuz noone has said that until just now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalHeart Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 yea, cuz noone has said that until just now. Well it doesn't seem to be reaching anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signal08 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 mebbe it will work this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycaon Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 And for the last time, this is NOT about Free Speech. At all. Geez, read a friggin book Then why did you bring it up at the beginning of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signal08 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 dont political agendas change as you see fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 wow, this is like my favorite thread today. irony from acalis, arch and so many others, before panch 'd the thread, with logic no less. again, no option to limit specific person's or viewing that person's, though jax did post a solid idea for those familiar with firefox, however mildly complicated. the most i ever had to do, sig-wise, was ask oppai to do something about the lovely, lovely titties in his so people could post here from work. as with that, its been case-by-case: something like that time when 2T ate everybody's signatures into his own, i had to say something 'cause it was horribly clogging the board. that said, voting's somewhat close, and with these things, i never really know how long shit should go for to get everybody's voice and not be tampered with and such. if you guys reach a compromise, fair enough, but....is putting a specific, no-exceptions cap really what you'd want here? I'm not saying huge sigs arent obnoxious, im saying the alternative is a bit uncomfortable, unless that's really what the lot of you think is the only option somehow. ps i hate to borrow LL/def's grammar nazi badge after opposing it so, but i move to campaign for proper thread titles. i mean, come on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stilly Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 This post is to illustrate a point that this entire debate is useless. Note my sig, which will currently only be active until I go to sleep tonight (for those of you that cannot see it or read this thread later, my sig is comprised of the image gallery from my website in a nice, neat little iframe). Now, this sig isn't huge by any means, but still probably too big and uses bandwidth, etc., etc., etc. However, the proposed solution of limiting signature length (in number of characters I presume) would do nothing here. This sig uses 3 lines of code and a grand total of 175 characters....far below anything reasonable, such as the length of this post, even. Ok, back to evil genius land. Reason for Edit: Added more evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 shit, its cool though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 Just a suggestion... if you don't like the signatures or are tired of scrolling through them TURN THEM OFF AND DON'T BITCH ABOUT IT. again, and the flaw of this argument is that the actions of one individual require the entire board to modify THEIR behavior and limit the amount of content THEY are able to enjoy for no other reason than to, and again everyone is ignoring this, BE A PRICK. That's the problem. So now I turn off sigs, and I can't enjoy Crimson's sig or SiBob's sig or anyone else's, all because Jax wants to be a jerk, since that is his SPECIFIC reason for having this up. Then why did you bring it up at the beginning of this thread? because it was going to be the inevitable (wrong) argument. It's called 'pre-emptive strike'. but....is putting a specific, no-exceptions cap really what you'd want here? I'm not saying huge sigs arent obnoxious, im saying the alternative is a bit uncomfortable, yes, because the alternative isn't fair. If everyone plays by the same rules, then there isn't a problem. To continue with this fallacious 'free speech' argument, Protestors are required to file for a permit and are given a specific area to protest in, and anything outside of that is an arrestable offense. It doesn't matter if your Code Pink, PETA, or the KKK: everyone gets the same. However, the proposed solution of limiting signature length (in number of characters I presume) would do nothing here. This sig uses 3 lines of code and a grand total of 175 characters....far below anything reasonable, such as the length of this post, even. not so. There's another option you can add that limits the size of pics, as well. I think it's done automatically, actually. If the rule is your sig can only be x size, and it's programmed, then the computer will either a. shrink the size to accomodate it or b. give you an error. That being said, vote's currrently 12-8. I don't know how much longer to give it, but I think a week is fair. I guess play it by ear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycaon Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 because it was going to be the inevitable (wrong) argument. It's called 'pre-emptive strike'. Ah, but it didn't argue how this wasn't an issue of free speech. Instead, It brought up reasons for existing limits on free speech and why you believe there should be limits here . Then you start saying that it's not about free speech, which kinda makes it seems like you are playing it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Pancho, I accept your offer. You can be the Dan Quayle to my George HW Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 more like the Dan Quayle to your Jimmy Carter. Ah, but it didn't argue how this wasn't an issue of free speech. nor was it meant to. We've had this discussion before and have tried (unsuccessfully) to point out that this isn't a free speech argument, but to no avail. In that light, I made a compelling argument with the presumption that free speech was going to be the prism by which this was viewed. I don't like it, but I know what the reality is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperEeyore Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 again, and the flaw of this argument is that the actions of one individual require the entire board to modify THEIR behavior and limit the amount of content THEY are able to enjoy for no other reason than to, and again everyone is ignoring this, BE A PRICK. That's the problem. So now I turn off sigs, and I can't enjoy Crimson's sig or SiBob's sig or anyone else's, all because Jax wants to be a jerk, since that is his SPECIFIC reason for having this up. because it was going to be the inevitable (wrong) argument. It's called 'pre-emptive strike'. yes, because the alternative isn't fair. If everyone plays by the same rules, then there isn't a problem. To continue with this fallacious 'free speech' argument, Protestors are required to file for a permit and are given a specific area to protest in, and anything outside of that is an arrestable offense. It doesn't matter if your Code Pink, PETA, or the KKK: everyone gets the same. not so. There's another option you can add that limits the size of pics, as well. I think it's done automatically, actually. If the rule is your sig can only be x size, and it's programmed, then the computer will either a. shrink the size to accomodate it or b. give you an error. That being said, vote's currrently 12-8. I don't know how much longer to give it, but I think a week is fair. I guess play it by ear? By doing this your being an asshole (yes I said it)... and no I don't care about what you have to say. And if you don't like the way I express myself then thats too bad too. Like I said turn it off if you don't like it. Seriously you have been on the boards for what? 3 years now and now is when you start complaining. Put on your big boy pants and leave peoples signatures alone. They have the right to make it as long as they want to. I don't have mine on cause they are long but it's their option. Just like you and I we all donate money to keep this place going right? So who are you to change what they have in their signature. TURN THEM OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stilly Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 There's another option you can add that limits the size of pics, as well. I think it's done automatically, actually. If the rule is your sig can only be x size, and it's programmed, then the computer will either a. shrink the size to accomodate it or b. give you an error. I really don't think that method would do anything to this. This is not a picture, this is another webpage loading inside of my signature. I highly doubt that a script that limits image size is also "smart" enough to look for iframes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 its not. I dont have a built-in sig limit feature that ive seen here, only the ability to take HMTL away which id rather not do. Were i to do a custom mod to limit them, its based on lines or characters, as i recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Howsit work with our posts when images get shrunk down automatically? Like so: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.