As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Sig shrink

MammalMammal Registered User regular
Would it be worth constraining the sig image dimensions to a standard size (80x500 like in G&T rules), similar to how the avatars are constrained to 64x64?

mkds9kt.png
Mammal on

Posts

  • ShiosaiShiosai Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    that wouldn't work unless they made it so you only had images for sigs and not text or bbcode.

    Plus any images smaller than that would be enlarged to that size.

    Shiosai on
    60353019xm5.jpg
  • MammalMammal Registered User regular
    edited September 2004
    Shiosai wrote:
    that wouldn't work unless they made it so you only had images for sigs and not text or bbcode.

    Plus any images smaller than that would be enlarged to that size.

    Yeah i'm not sure how they could control the text other than a char limit linked to the text size bbcode.
    Also, smaller images wouldn't be enlarged.

    Mammal on
    mkds9kt.png
  • DioretsaDioretsa Registered User regular
    edited September 2004
    I think they just have to enforce this on a case by case basis.

    Dioretsa on
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    MSPaint will even allow you to do that if you're concerned about your sig. If you're concerned about someone else's, PM away and it will get resolved, somehow.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • MammalMammal Registered User regular
    edited September 2004
    I'm sorry, I haven't made myself clear.
    This involves editing the phpBB TPL files in a similar way to how they were edited to force the avatars to be 64x64.

    This was mostly directed at Alpha, however I was interested in the feasibility and whether or not you guys might think it's worthwhile.

    Incidently, Alpha I'm still waiting patiently on your chash mod et al. Or did 2.0.10 make it unnecessary?

    Mammal on
    mkds9kt.png
  • ecchiecchi Registered User
    edited September 2004
    Uh.

    How would that work, exactly? You would have to specify the dimensions for every image... so they'd all be the same size. Just like avatars.

    ecchi on
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    Mammal wrote:
    I'm sorry, I haven't made myself clear.
    This involves editing the phpBB TPL files in a similar way to how they were edited to force the avatars to be 64x64.

    This was mostly directed at Alpha, however I was interested in the feasibility and whether or not you guys might think it's worthwhile.

    Incidently, Alpha I'm still waiting patiently on your chash mod et al. Or did 2.0.10 make it unnecessary?

    Sig size isn't really an issue. I can't speak for him, but I doubt it's going to ever be a priority to set up sigs for automatic enforcement, as the current case by case system mostly works.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • MammalMammal Registered User regular
    edited September 2004
    It's just one of those things that came to mind.
    But yeah, you're right pheezer, doubt it's warranted.
    Plus you fuzz have gotta have something to do right?

    Mammal on
    mkds9kt.png
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    Mammal wrote:
    It's just one of those things that came to mind.
    But yeah, you're right pheezer, doubt it's warranted.
    Plus you fuzz have gotta have something to do right?

    It really is the latter. It's oh so boring and time consuming to actively look for people to oppress.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • OrthancOrthanc Death Lite, Only 1 Calorie Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    Aside from the fact this would be near impossible to do, it would be stupid since I'd still have to download someone's huge sig image.

    It's quicker and easier to jail / ban people that have a huge sig.

    Orthanc on
    orthanc
  • ShiosaiShiosai Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    Mammal wrote:
    Shiosai wrote:
    that wouldn't work unless they made it so you only had images for sigs and not text or bbcode.

    Plus any images smaller than that would be enlarged to that size.

    Yeah i'm not sure how they could control the text other than a char limit linked to the text size bbcode.
    Also, smaller images wouldn't be enlarged.

    Well the reason I'd say they'd be enlarged is because currently if you put an image smaller than 64x64 as an avatar it is enlarged. So now we're talking about a adding code to work around autosize and enforcing a stricter character limit.

    Maybe a personal option to not see others' signatures at all would be easier to do.

    Shiosai on
    60353019xm5.jpg
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    Shiosai wrote:
    Mammal wrote:
    Shiosai wrote:
    that wouldn't work unless they made it so you only had images for sigs and not text or bbcode.

    Plus any images smaller than that would be enlarged to that size.

    Yeah i'm not sure how they could control the text other than a char limit linked to the text size bbcode.
    Also, smaller images wouldn't be enlarged.

    Well the reason I'd say they'd be enlarged is because currently if you put an image smaller than 64x64 as an avatar it is enlarged. So now we're talking about a adding code to work around autosize and enforcing a stricter character limit.

    Maybe a personal option to not see others' signatures at all would be easier to do.

    See, the thing is you don't get it.

    Look at some of the sigs with multiple images. Would the boards check each image, add them up, consider the layout and then deform them if necessary? How would it choose how to deform them?
    What about with text? How would the board know if the text in a sig caused the overall sig to be too large? How would it deal with that?

    On top of the fact that it may be impossible, and if it isn't, it's certainly way too fucking demanding of the forums, it's always, always going to be absolutely jackbooted about enforcing it. Whereas under the current scheme we can just solve the problems as they arise.

    As for the option to not view others' sigs, I don't see that as a necessarily good thing anyhow. So instead, let's all just be cool about sig limits, and if you ever have any concerns about anyone's sig, PM a mod. Hell, PM me, I promise I'll be discrete and make it look like I'm the jackass complaining to someone about their sig.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • ShiosaiShiosai Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    pheezer wrote:
    Shiosai wrote:
    Mammal wrote:
    Shiosai wrote:
    that wouldn't work unless they made it so you only had images for sigs and not text or bbcode.

    Plus any images smaller than that would be enlarged to that size.

    Yeah i'm not sure how they could control the text other than a char limit linked to the text size bbcode.
    Also, smaller images wouldn't be enlarged.

    Well the reason I'd say they'd be enlarged is because currently if you put an image smaller than 64x64 as an avatar it is enlarged. So now we're talking about a adding code to work around autosize and enforcing a stricter character limit.

    Maybe a personal option to not see others' signatures at all would be easier to do.

    See, the thing is you don't get it.

    Look at some of the sigs with multiple images. Would the boards check each image, add them up, consider the layout and then deform them if necessary? How would it choose how to deform them?
    What about with text? How would the board know if the text in a sig caused the overall sig to be too large? How would it deal with that?

    Yes pheezer, I understand there are about a million things wrong with the idea, but I thought I'd just disect a hypothetical situation in which signatures were made an image only box the way avatars are because that's what was discussed in the first post.

    I agree with all the things you have said, anyway. No reason to get snippy about it.

    Shiosai on
    60353019xm5.jpg
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited September 2004
    Shiosai wrote:
    pheezer wrote:
    Shiosai wrote:
    Mammal wrote:
    Shiosai wrote:
    that wouldn't work unless they made it so you only had images for sigs and not text or bbcode.

    Plus any images smaller than that would be enlarged to that size.

    Yeah i'm not sure how they could control the text other than a char limit linked to the text size bbcode.
    Also, smaller images wouldn't be enlarged.

    Well the reason I'd say they'd be enlarged is because currently if you put an image smaller than 64x64 as an avatar it is enlarged. So now we're talking about a adding code to work around autosize and enforcing a stricter character limit.

    Maybe a personal option to not see others' signatures at all would be easier to do.

    See, the thing is you don't get it.

    Look at some of the sigs with multiple images. Would the boards check each image, add them up, consider the layout and then deform them if necessary? How would it choose how to deform them?
    What about with text? How would the board know if the text in a sig caused the overall sig to be too large? How would it deal with that?

    Yes pheezer, I understand there are about a million things wrong with the idea, but I thought I'd just disect a hypothetical situation in which signatures were made an image only box the way avatars are because that's what was discussed in the first post.

    I agree with all the things you have said, anyway. No reason to get snippy about it.

    The avatar resizing program sucks anyway. I feel the urge to fix a lot of people's avatars to 64x64 because they are resized horribly. I forsee sig resizing's future as a surplus of crappy sigs that could have been made much better.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • ShiosaiShiosai Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2004
    Paladin wrote:
    The avatar resizing program sucks anyway. I feel the urge to fix a lot of people's avatars to 64x64 because they are resized horribly. I forsee sig resizing's future as a surplus of crappy sigs that could have been made much better.

    Oh man, I hear you! When Moral Defecit had that distorted image of spike for an avatar I offered to resize the thing and host it myself just so I could get a clear image when he posted. :D

    Shiosai on
    60353019xm5.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.