Star Forge
Online
Upcoming Events
HoloNet Feed
Drawing Board Feed
Latest Threads
Dulfy RSS
Donations
Container minimized. Expand
HoloTracker: Include (1) Character's In-Game Name, (2) Faction, and (3) Location
HoloTracker [1333]
Sun at 1:12
A bounty hunter in armor of vaguely-Mandalorian style has been spotted shopping on the Promenade. He appears to be looking for infant-sized clothes. (Eksa [alt code 0228 on the "a"] Bendak, Empire, Nar Shaddaa instance 3, coordinates X -1083 Y -712)
Sun at 2:45
The hunter has made his purchases and departed.
You do not have access to chat.
Welcome to HoloTracker

Working...

Page
of 12

Resolved [Suggestion] Forum Signature Size Limits: Part 2

107 replies
Vivek x
Posts:
1,892
Banned users
As I mentioned near the start of voting, and based on the first poll's results, a second poll is required to determine which maximum size limit will be implemented. Although Option #2 was the most popular in the first poll, it is out of a common courtesy for those who voted 'No' or 'Indifferent' to choose their second best option; or after the discussion that has taken place thus far, allow someone to switch their vote.

For posterity's sake, here are the first poll's results, and the original post below that. The polling options remain unchanged, with the exception of 'No' being omitted.

No: 22
Indifferent: 4
Yes: 41




I am posting this suggestion on behalf of an EBHawk Community member. They wish to institute limits to the maximize size of forum signatures to reduce bloated forum posts while browsing threads. The images below represent select example sizes, as well as correspond to poll options.

Spoiler: Current EBHawk Signature ExamplesShow


Voting Options

k7S3SLr.png


SSiGm1C.png


UOkqblV.png


65uIidk.png
Indifferent
0 votes
0%
Yes, implement OPTION #1 as the max forum signature limit
0 votes
0%
Yes, implement OPTION #2 as the max forum signature limit
0 votes
0%
Yes, implement OPTION #3 as the max forum signature limit
0 votes
0%
Yes, implement OPTION #4 as the max forum signature limit
0 votes
0%
Number of voters: 0
Posted Apr 14, 16 · OP · Last edited Oct 26, 16
Posts:
308
Republic
Put in a 56k warning to threads like its 2001 lol
p5EFBTv.jpg
Posted Apr 27, 16
Jawa-Appro...
x 2
x 2
List
Undo
Posts:
116
Republic
I'm going to quote Vivek here, because it seems certain people didn't read his post the first time. Emphasis mine.
wrote:
Hey guys, I'm glad this has gotten a fair amount of discussion, but do keep in mind that disagreement does not warrant personal remarks; one personal preference may not match another's personal preference, and that's alright. Violating the Forum Polices in any form will result in formal warnings. On that note, I would like to clarify that commentary about the thread and/or its participants will be considered Trolling. If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute, then I recommend voting accordingly and not posting at all.
Posted Apr 27, 16
Jawa-Appro...
x 2
x 2
List
Undo
Posts:
883
Neutral
The Passive Aggression against this topic is palpable.

On topic however, I personally agree with the forbidding of Animated Signatures, from a practical sense only. They're resource intensive in any quantity over 1 a webpage, they tank mobile browser speeds, and over the course of a month of browsing they can account for anywhere between a few hundred megabytes to several gigabytes depending on the number of folks with them and the frequency of their posts per page. That could be the difference between someone going over their ISP's Data limits (that's a thing for some folks) and not. Pixel sizes I don't mind, but I've disabled signatures all together.

Though the number of people who now have animated signatures, based on the statements of those who say they don't like them and the timing of their owner's acquiring of them , I agree, is blatant trolling, and it needs to be addressed.

If you are worried about signatures slowing down your load times simply because they are animated then you should probably just disable signatures period tbh, and the same applies to people who have data caps. Telling people they cant have animated signatures simply because someone who has a crappy computer or a data restricted ISP is too lazy to toggle the option to turn off signatures is frankly kind of ridiculous.

You're making the assumption that everyone who would be effected by it on this website (present and future):
A) is aware of the difference in data sizes between text and images
B) is aware of the cumulative effect of that difference
C) Chose to own an older or underperforming PC rather than an on par one
D) Aware of their service's data cap
E) Capable of paying for their Data Overages reliably
F) Know about the option to disable the Signatures universally on a website

Not everyone is in as comfortable a financial situation as you or I. Further, not everyone is as a competent with electronics, while a majority of us are -- not everyone is, and most certainly aren't as proficient as the more knowledgeable users on this site. I don't like Sigs, so I disabled them, but not everyone is in that position or willing to take an all-or-none solution like that. Their only alternative is a third party program that they have to configure on a case-by-case basis.


Why don't we get even more restrictive and demand everyone post in haiku because one person on the forums prefers to read Haiku to normal text?

Because Haiku's are the next logical step in this discussion. That's fallacious and you're painfully aware of it.

Adding constant random restrictions to things when there are already tools for people who don't like those things to avid them in place is just stupid and gets into the point of favoring certain peoples opinions over others which is a really dumb idea for a community that already has enough issue with people constantly yelling that they are ostracized or that the community doesn't care about them.

If it were favoring certain people's opinions over others, then there wouldn't be a poll on it -- it'd simply be inacted with no discourse, which you're also painfully aware of not being the case. The only reason this is a problem is because you're uncertain if you're in the majority or not. When (if) it comes to poll, make sure you VOTE against it, and make sure people who agree with you VOTE against it.
Posted Apr 27, 16 · Last edited Apr 27, 16
Posts:
337
Empire
The Passive Aggression against this topic is palpable.

On topic however, I personally agree with the forbidding of Animated Signatures, from a practical sense only. They're resource intensive in any quantity over 1 a webpage, they tank mobile browser speeds, and over the course of a month of browsing they can account for anywhere between a few hundred megabytes to several gigabytes depending on the number of folks with them and the frequency of their posts per page. That could be the difference between someone going over their ISP's Data limits (that's a thing for some folks) and not. Pixel sizes I don't mind, but I've disabled signatures all together.

Though the number of people who now have animated signatures, based on the statements of those who say they don't like them and the timing of their owner's acquiring of them , I agree, is blatant trolling, and it needs to be addressed.

If you are worried about signatures slowing down your load times simply because they are animated then you should probably just disable signatures period tbh, and the same applies to people who have data caps. Telling people they cant have animated signatures simply because someone who has a crappy computer or a data restricted ISP is too lazy to toggle the option to turn off signatures is frankly kind of ridiculous.

You're making the assumption that everyone who would be effected by it on this website (present and future):
A) is aware of the difference in data sizes between text and images
B) is aware of the cumulative effect of that difference
C) Chose to own an older or underperforming PC rather than an on par one
D) Aware of their service's data cap
E) Capable of paying for their Data Overages reliably
F) Know about the option to disable the Signatures universally on a website

Not everyone is in as comfortable a financial situation as you or I. Further, not everyone is as a competent with electronics, while a majority of us are -- not everyone is, and most certainly aren't as proficient as the more knowledgeable users on this site. I don't like Sigs, so I disabled them, but not everyone is in that position or willing to take an all-or-none solution like that. Their only alternative is a third party program that they have to configure on a case-by-case basis.


Why don't we get even more restrictive and demand everyone post in haiku because one person on the forums prefers to read Haiku to normal text?

Because Haiku's are the next logical step in this discussion. That's fallacious and you're painfully aware of it.

Adding constant random restrictions to things when there are already tools for people who don't like those things to avid them in place is just stupid and gets into the point of favoring certain peoples opinions over others which is a really dumb idea for a community that already has enough issue with people constantly yelling that they are ostracized or that the community doesn't care about them.

If it were favoring certain people's opinions over others, then there wouldn't be a poll on it -- it'd simply be inacted with no discourse, which you're also painfully aware of not being the case. The only reason this is a problem is because you're uncertain if you're in the majority or not. When (if) it comes to poll, make sure you VOTE against it, and make sure people who agree with you VOTE against it.


So other people need to be punished because some individuals do not take the time to properly learn about their own internet service? As for the unawareness that is much more simply solved by simply having a message that informs people about the data issues posed by images and explains how to disable signatures rather than limiting other people instead. Haikus themselves are not relevant no, but they serve to illustrate the point that just because someone thinks something should be this way because its best for them does not mean it should be that way.

And yes a poll would be great, though given the fact that it is a blind poll and we are unable to see who votes how can we even know its a fair poll and not manipulated by fake voting? such as people voting multiple times on multiple enjin accounts? We cant. This is the same issue that comes with allowing anonymous complaints about things/people which is also a practice i find to be a terrible Idea on the internet. If you allow people on the internet anonymity 9/10 times SOMEONE will exploit that anonymity to their own benefit.
Vph71bq.gif
Posted Apr 27, 16
Vivek x
Posts:
1,892
Banned users
Final day to vote and discuss!
Posted Apr 29, 16 · OP
Posts:
335
Empire
Alth, the hide signature thing is really, really hard to find. I have not know it even existed before this topic.
w40k%20player.jpg
Posted Apr 29, 16
Posts:
337
Empire
wrote:
Alth, the hide signature thing is really, really hard to find. I have not know it even existed before this topic.

I 100% agree with you, my point is that since it exists teaching people how to find it and disable them if signatures are an issue for them is better than restricting everyone for the sake of a few.
Vph71bq.gif
Posted Apr 29, 16
Posts:
163
Republic
Now this is just crazy, jeezo man

I'm pretty sure no one is committing voter fraud on this signature size thread on a Star Wars roleplay forum. Besides, it's a really close race, and in the admin module on enjin, you can see people based on their IP address.
Posted Apr 29, 16
Jawa-Appro...
x 1
x 1
List
Undo
Posts:
45
Empire
wrote:
Now this is just crazy, jeezo man

I'm pretty sure no one is committing voter fraud on this signature size thread on a Star Wars roleplay forum. Besides, it's a really close race, and in the admin module on enjin, you can see people based on their IP address.

You can only audit votes on Ultimate Plan, not Advanced.
Posted Apr 29, 16
Page
of 12
NoticeNotices