Subject:
|
Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 May 2003 14:34:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1474 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
Watchful concerned community members who are willing to kindly guide and
inform abusers.
|
Abusers sounds like such a nasty word. If someone embedded a 6000x6000-pixel
Hubble Telescope image 10 times in a row as a prank, that would be abuse. If
someone wanted a sig image just a little bit bigger than “normal,” would that
be abuse?
|
If not abuse, what would it be? It would be a violation of netiquette, so after
the “abuser” is made aware of such guidelines, further violations would at the
least be considered rude.
Perhaps they aren’t an ‘abuser’ until they’re conscious there’s a norm that
they’re abusing?
Anyways, I’d prever not to quibble over wording. I’d rather see something in
place that defines appropriate and inappropriate use of FTX, so it can be posted
and used as a guideline to prevent misuse.
| |
| |
| |
| |
and avatars to no larger than 75x75,
|
What about 50x80?
|
If you prefer :-)
|
Oh I meant: If the rule was no larger than 75x75, what would you think if
someone used 50x80? 120x60? 200x20? --Todd
|
I’d like to see avatars kept as small as possible. I may even use one of my own,
but I believe it’s only 48x48.
-Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) Abusers sounds like such a nasty word. If someone embedded a 6000x6000-pixel Hubble Telescope image 10 times in a row as a prank, that would be abuse. If someone wanted a sig image just a little bit bigger than "normal," would that be abuse? (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
