Subject:
|
Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 May 2003 03:46:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1258 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
Can there be ground rules laid down about tasteful images - at least when
relating to dimensions and animation?
|
Let’s wait a bit and see how it ends up being used first. I think the best
way to define ground rules would be with tasteful netiquette examples.
|
I don’t think we’ll have to wait that long...
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=23992
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=23972
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=23943
(I know Chris was just joking here -- we were chatting about it at the time, but
he was trying to prove a point by giving an example of overdoing it)
I suggest limiting signature banners to no larger than standard banner size
(468x60) and avatars to no larger than 75x75, and not allowing animated images.
There is probably no way to enforce this in the software, but an etiquette guide
as well as people watchful of abuses will help.
I know that if posts continue to abuse formatting that way, it will seriously
diminish my enjoyment of LUGNET. I come here for information and intellectual
conversation (with some lightheartedness on the side). I feel strongly that
over-using formatting draws attention away from the words being said and onto
how
big
bold
or italic one can make them.
If people put more emphasis on how they format messages than they put thought
into what they’re saying, communication on LUGNET will degrade.
| |
| |
I welcome the ability to format text as it’s useful for large documents or
multi-point announcements. The same with pictures - they’re fun and useful
for MOC or event posts. But, both have the potential to be abused, and I’d
like to see some rules or norms established that discourage such abuse.
|
Yup, there’s definitely the potential for abuse. This isn’t a full chainsaw
like HTML is, but it’s a pretty powerful axe. Before we can discourage abuse
of course we have to be able to define it.
|
Though two of the three cites I have above aren’t major, the first one I think
is abuse. Now, it’s natural for people to get the freedom out of their system
right away and settle down, so I don’t fault Austin. But were that post to have
been made down the road a bit once FTX was a normal part of life on LUGNET, I
would consider that way over the top.
-Tim (who’s very thankful you didn’t implement blink!)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) How do you suggest knowing which images are signature banners? (...) What about 50x80? How do you suggest knowing which images are avatars? (...) Even if they're pornographic? (...) Oh that's -=(*text*)=- but you don't want to try that out. (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) Let's wait a bit and see how it ends up being used first. I think the best way to define ground rules would be with tasteful netiquette examples. (...) Yup, there's definitely the potential for abuse. This isn't a full chainsaw like HTML is, (...) (22 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
