What's the story on Avatars and Signatures?

[Bill Tetley]

new tpb movie soon.. dont legalize it

edit: nm that article already says that. fuck

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by August [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd like to thank everyone who commented constructively and had reasonable arguments.

I think there's merit to both sides of the argument, and I think there's been a lot of popular argument styles here meant to derail what I was trying to impart.

Please keep in mind that the browsing habits of each side are trying to influence the others. One side doesn't want their freedoms restricted, so forces the other to disable part of the forums. The other side wants some things (sigs/avatars) to be less explicit (thus censoring those users) so they can view the forums without a handicap. Both sides create a censor, and the logic that one is self imposed doesn't really hold water because the users who have to disable them have stated that they wish they didn't have to.

Both sides of the argument cause the others to give something up. One side is a minority (or at least, a vocal minority). I had already disabled forum sigs/avatars prior to my post for my own protection, but wanted to have a civil discussion regarding the state of sigs/avatars, which I feel like is accomplished.

I won't be popping back in because frankly, it has reached RnF levels where I hoped it would not. Special shout out to Hailto who started on this thread rather derogatory but ended up contributing in a compelling manner.

good lord this is pathetic. compelling falling into a subjecive valuation

[loramin]

As pathetic as resurrecting a thread that's been dead for over a day just to get a Nelson-like "ha ha" in?

[Swish]

I thought we'd buried it.

[BigHurb]

HA HA

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As pathetic as resurrecting a thread that's been dead for over a day just to get a Nelson-like "ha ha" in?

recalling hbb "arguments"
there's an uncanny similarity there

Originally Posted by BigHurb [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

HA HA

jajajajajaja

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Rhambuk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh, those were excellent negotiation tactics you used, Patrick Swayze.

lol

[Argh]

If you want to disable signatures for browsing at work you can do the following:

1. Use Google Chrome.
2. Download the free chrome extension 'Stylebot'
3. Open Stylebot
4. Where it says 'Select an Element' type in div.sizedsig
5. Under Layout & Visibility click Hide

This will hide signatures whenever browsing the forums, and will remain so long as stylebot remains installed.

You can also use this extension to remove the 150px max-height on signatures by doing the following:

4. Where it says 'Select an Element' type in div.sizedsig
5. Click switch from Basic to Advanced.
6. Type: max-height:none;

Happy forum questing and continue not working.

[loramin]

There's also just a way to disable signatures entirely via the forum system, but that's not really the issue.

The issue is that some people don't want to see a very small subset of (arguably) NSFW signatures, but still want to see the rest of them. The only way they can achieve that is to ban bouncing boobs the same way we ban exposed boobs.

Other people however really like bouncing boobs in sigs, or maybe they're just anti-censorship in any form. These people don't want to ban bouncing boobs just to appease the other crowd.

[Swish]

Bouncing boob sigs for some.
No bouncing boob sigs for others.

...we've had the sig sized nerfed already (and there's some awesome gifs that don't fit into a "letterbox" size very well [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]), people demanding this kind of thing are just asking for all picture sigs to be disabled, rather than doing the right thing and unchecking a few boxes.