[Suggestions] Rule extensions, emoticon options
0
MESSRS.,
may it please you to hear the following most humble MOTION to put in place the proposals listed below, for the greater good of all.
I PROPOSE:
1.) NEW RULE: Tags in nosebleed thread titles.
I propose the introduction of a new rule, which obliges users to use tags in nosebleed threads indicating "out of the norm" content, or (perhaps better yet) simply denoting the nature of the content in the thread.
This might well take the following form:
This would allow users to circumnavigate content which is either not to their tastes, or blatantly illegal in their nation of residence, whilst still having the opportunity to enjoy the nosebleed section. The crux of this matter was briefly mentioned once in the Rules! thread by the Hon. Member doswillrule
but never discussed at length afterwards. I am well aware that this might be intentional, as our Laird Jacob has opined on the issue of potentially problematic content that he'd want people to be discreet about such content, thus possibly making the proposed tagging system too blatant to be implemented. I humbly thought it not unwise to bring up the matter in this form, so that it may be settled properly.
2.) NEW RULE: Signature sizes.
I propose the introduction of a rule that limits signatures not in character, but in dimension. This will address the recent deluge of related threads in one fell swoop, and enable people like me to browse the forums without disabling signatures altogether.
I furthermore propose these dimensions to be the old Internet standard for signatures, 55 (H) by 400 (W) pixels:
This true and tried standard size provides ample room for both text and imagery; when used for text, it equals four lines at size 10 (see below)
and whether imagery or text, it provides ample room for user self-expression,
without cluttering the post or disturbing the flow of discussion.
Admittedly, enforcement of this rule is not quite as easy as the automated check against the 255 character limit, but if a corresponding warning were to be added to the interface - kindly consult the mock-up below - I am (perhaps foolishly) confident, that the majority of the user-base would find it within them to comply.
3.) NEW TECH: Emoticon options.
I propose the introduction of two separate, but related features:
One, the option to disable display of graphical emoticons, preferably via the user profile, across the entire BBS.
Two, the option to disable emoticons, preferably via a checkbox below the post form, for the next post one is about to make.
On one hand it would make for a not insignificant elevation of comfort, on the other it would eliminate much hair-pulling when the emoticon parser collides with, say, lists. (A:, B:, C:, D:)
In closing, I am well aware that the Hon. Members of the Staff have more pressing matters on their hands; however, the implementation of two of the aforementioned suggestions would require little effort from the staff once such conventions as discussed above could be agreed upon. Furthermore, I consulted with staff before putting this proposal up for discussion to ensure it not being insolent, and received a go-ahead from Matt, Esq.
Many thanks!
may it please you to hear the following most humble MOTION to put in place the proposals listed below, for the greater good of all.
I PROPOSE:
1.) NEW RULE: Tags in nosebleed thread titles.
I propose the introduction of a new rule, which obliges users to use tags in nosebleed threads indicating "out of the norm" content, or (perhaps better yet) simply denoting the nature of the content in the thread.
This might well take the following form:
Spoiler:
This would allow users to circumnavigate content which is either not to their tastes, or blatantly illegal in their nation of residence, whilst still having the opportunity to enjoy the nosebleed section. The crux of this matter was briefly mentioned once in the Rules! thread by the Hon. Member doswillrule
Spoiler:
but never discussed at length afterwards. I am well aware that this might be intentional, as our Laird Jacob has opined on the issue of potentially problematic content that he'd want people to be discreet about such content, thus possibly making the proposed tagging system too blatant to be implemented. I humbly thought it not unwise to bring up the matter in this form, so that it may be settled properly.
2.) NEW RULE: Signature sizes.
I propose the introduction of a rule that limits signatures not in character, but in dimension. This will address the recent deluge of related threads in one fell swoop, and enable people like me to browse the forums without disabling signatures altogether.
I furthermore propose these dimensions to be the old Internet standard for signatures, 55 (H) by 400 (W) pixels:
This true and tried standard size provides ample room for both text and imagery; when used for text, it equals four lines at size 10 (see below)
Spoiler:
and whether imagery or text, it provides ample room for user self-expression,
Spoiler:
without cluttering the post or disturbing the flow of discussion.
Admittedly, enforcement of this rule is not quite as easy as the automated check against the 255 character limit, but if a corresponding warning were to be added to the interface - kindly consult the mock-up below - I am (perhaps foolishly) confident, that the majority of the user-base would find it within them to comply.
Spoiler:
3.) NEW TECH: Emoticon options.
I propose the introduction of two separate, but related features:
One, the option to disable display of graphical emoticons, preferably via the user profile, across the entire BBS.
Two, the option to disable emoticons, preferably via a checkbox below the post form, for the next post one is about to make.
On one hand it would make for a not insignificant elevation of comfort, on the other it would eliminate much hair-pulling when the emoticon parser collides with, say, lists. (A:, B:, C:, D:)
In closing, I am well aware that the Hon. Members of the Staff have more pressing matters on their hands; however, the implementation of two of the aforementioned suggestions would require little effort from the staff once such conventions as discussed above could be agreed upon. Furthermore, I consulted with staff before putting this proposal up for discussion to ensure it not being insolent, and received a go-ahead from Matt, Esq.
Many thanks!
0
I agree with it all, personally I'm against graphic signatures all together, but i don't think we will be limiting the signature size.
As for the other options, I definitely agree with them.
Actually the ability to enable/disable graphical smilies already exists in Fakku, it just isn't toggable in the profile.
As for the other options, I definitely agree with them.
Actually the ability to enable/disable graphical smilies already exists in Fakku, it just isn't toggable in the profile.
0
gibbous wrote...
and enable people like me to browse the forums without disabling signatures altogether.I furthermore propose these dimensions to be the old Internet standard for signatures, 55 (H) by 400 (W) pixels:
I reject your dimension proposal and propose my own:
245 (H) by 605 (W)
0
I could do without the pompousness in the writing, regardless of your validity and soundness of your arguments. Keep it simple, but not arrogant would've served your purpose better.
Much like Tranquility and many others, I agree with everything you mentioned, but enforcing the signature size is going to make a whole bunch of people cry, not that I care. My own sig size is 450 x 150; the 400 I don't mind but 55? That's really small, but I would like to point out that 450 x 150 was a standard signature size from a pervious forum I used to go to. Basically I'm arguing for a more lenient sig size but a restriction nonetheless from the monster crap I've seen.
I just disable signatures all together since the beginning though. Makes my life so much easier.
I applaud your efforts in making the forums a better place though, I do. Reminds me of my own attempt a year ago to overhaul the rules and FAQs.
Much like Tranquility and many others, I agree with everything you mentioned, but enforcing the signature size is going to make a whole bunch of people cry, not that I care. My own sig size is 450 x 150; the 400 I don't mind but 55? That's really small, but I would like to point out that 450 x 150 was a standard signature size from a pervious forum I used to go to. Basically I'm arguing for a more lenient sig size but a restriction nonetheless from the monster crap I've seen.
I just disable signatures all together since the beginning though. Makes my life so much easier.
I applaud your efforts in making the forums a better place though, I do. Reminds me of my own attempt a year ago to overhaul the rules and FAQs.
0
g-money wrote...
I could do without the pompousness in the writing, regardless of your validity and soundness of your arguments. Keep it simple, but not arrogant would've served your purpose better. That's just the way gibbous is; classy as fuck.
I for one applaud all of these suggestions, especially the sig. one.
0
I don't agree with the signature rule at all, or rather the size that you're suggesting, but a sig-limit of some sort would probably be in order as i've seen certain users who have full sized pictures in their sigs.
The other suggestions i could go for.
The other suggestions i could go for.
0
I agree with both posts 1 and 3 of yours gibbous. After carefully thinking this over, option 2 will probably not get alot of popularity with alot of the forum users. Big signature can be easily turned off in signatures, but I can understand your view on a size restriction, I've come across alot of obscenely large signatures.
I always apriciate your suggestion to the forums as always gibbous.
This hostility was uncalled for.
I always apriciate your suggestion to the forums as always gibbous.
g-money wrote...
I could do without the pompousness in the writing, regardless of your validity and soundness of your arguments. Keep it simple, but not arrogant would've served your purpose better.This hostility was uncalled for.
0
I do not agree with the signature suggestion at all as far as those height and width restrictions are concerned. The suggested restrictions especially the height are too small. The limit should be 200 height and 600 Width imo (this is also the size of my Sig). I agree with everything else I suppose. It's not really a big concern of mine if they get implemented or not.
0
Mattarat wrote...
g-money wrote...
I could do without the pompousness in the writing, regardless of your validity and soundness of your arguments. Keep it simple, but not arrogant would've served your purpose better.This hostility was uncalled for.
It wasn't meant as hostility in the slightest, but I guess my tone was uncalled for. Point is, I'm reading a serious, well-argued post, but then I see a whole bunch of honey-coating that's unecessary and detracts from his otherwise excellent argument. We all take gibbous's posts seriously because he's earned it as a witty and highly intelligent user; I thought there wasn't a need for all the extraneous, which at this point I will shut up.
0
Every forum I've been a part of always had some sort of sig limit but it seems on fakku(like college clothing wear) its up to the user though in many cases users seem to use sigs a bit too big for my taste though my proposal is to have a "limit" on the said sigs. the display one can be a certain size but it it goes over that put it in a spoiler tag or something meaning they can have a small display sig then their waifu sig :lol:
0
Raven_Addict wrote...
Every forum I've been a part of always had some sort of sig limit but it seems on fakku(like college clothing wear) its up to the user though in many cases users seem to use sigs a bit too big for my taste though my proposal is to have a "limit" on the said sigs. the display one can be a certain size but it it goes over that put it in a spoiler tag or something meaning they can have a small display sig then their waifu sig :lol:gibbous wrote...
Spoiler:
He said if the images surpass the size limit, they should be spoilered.
I don't really care about the signature thing. I've had them off since the day I got here, and I have no intentions of putting it on. If I wanna see someone's signature I go to their profile, which is just one click away.
Everything else I aprove.
0
TehMikuruSlave wrote...
Remember when signatures didn't even show in the forums, only user profiles? Those were the days.Nope too young :P
0
TehMikuruSlave wrote...
Remember when signatures didn't even show in the forums, only user profiles? Those were the days.Sigs makes the forum look more fun and lively imo, and for the people who wanna go old school-forum there's always the option to turn the sigs off, then you'll be right back to how it used to be
0
Thank you, everyone, for your comments.
A few words of explanation as to my motives:
I am well aware that proposal #2 is by far the most controversial one. I am also aware that you can just turn signatures off (I have had them disabled since the beginning) if annoyed by them, and that it thus is a not very pressing matter and unlikely to ever see implementation.
It was simply something that came to mind when I read about one user having a 3000px high signature, leading me to reminisce about the age of 400x55 signatures - a dimension which, in my view, presents itself as a pretty good compromise between forum usability and user self-expression.
It also appeals to my rampant aestheticism, viz. the spoilered mock-up below. If you play around a bit with different signature limits in that mock-up, it quickly becomes obvious why the 55px height makes so much sense.
A few words of explanation as to my motives:
I am well aware that proposal #2 is by far the most controversial one. I am also aware that you can just turn signatures off (I have had them disabled since the beginning) if annoyed by them, and that it thus is a not very pressing matter and unlikely to ever see implementation.
It was simply something that came to mind when I read about one user having a 3000px high signature, leading me to reminisce about the age of 400x55 signatures - a dimension which, in my view, presents itself as a pretty good compromise between forum usability and user self-expression.
It also appeals to my rampant aestheticism, viz. the spoilered mock-up below. If you play around a bit with different signature limits in that mock-up, it quickly becomes obvious why the 55px height makes so much sense.
Spoiler:
