Forum Signature: Images vs. The Diatribe
Khazaad
✭✭✭
It appears that the forum already had the mechanics built in to handle images in the SIG for players wanting them or not. So, why not?
I can't imagine any purposeful reason to disallow it when using the space to stamp a personal QQ diatribe a page long is acceptable.
Is there something innately problematic with pictures? Honest question.
There. Got that out of the way so it doesn't need to be said.
I can't imagine any purposeful reason to disallow it when using the space to stamp a personal QQ diatribe a page long is acceptable.
Is there something innately problematic with pictures? Honest question.
Signatures are dumb! Pictures are dumb! I'm glad they don't exist!
There. Got that out of the way so it doesn't need to be said.
0
-
DenverRalphy✭✭✭✭✭
✭Simple explanation... Images can't be parsed to detect foul language, inappropriate content, etc.
In other words... It removes an avenue for the disreputable to embed naughty words and genitalia images into their posts and bypass the censors.Edited by DenverRalphy on 6 June 2014 21:310 -
Khazaad✭✭✭DenverRalphy wrote: »Simple explanation... Images can't be parsed to detect foul language, inappropriate content, etc.
In other words... It removes an avenue for the disreputable to embed naughty words and genitalia images into their posts and bypass the censors.
IC. So how do other forums deal with that? It's hard to believe it's an issue of policing as the forum is kept pretty tidy; they don't let you get away with much. @DenverRalphy
Gets me thinking though. Why isn't forum rank already the perfect privilege provider? In other words, you can't have sig until rank 3 or something. This sort of history based validation is used, well, ALL the time in Internet communities.
Edited by Khazaad on 6 June 2014 22:590 -
ErykGrimm✭✭✭DenverRalphy wrote: »Simple explanation... Images can't be parsed to detect foul language, inappropriate content, etc.
In other words... It removes an avenue for the disreputable to embed naughty words and genitalia images into their posts and bypass the censors.
IC. So how do other forums deal with that? It's hard to believe it's an issue of policing as the forum is kept pretty tidy; they don't let you get away with much. @DenverRalphy
Gets me thinking though. Why isn't forum rank already the perfect privilege provider? In other words, you can't have sig until rank 3 or something. This sort of history based validation is used, well, ALL the time in Internet communities.
Its too easy to get ranks trolling for that to work, methinks.0 -
Khazaad✭✭✭
@sakiri
Hey, I'm on board with the sentiment. Simple resolution restrictions are enough to tame most of the problem so you're primarily left with ones that just suck by design.
I'm not vying for the rights of sucky signatures but part of what makes the awesome ones awesome are the ones that suck.
As for any issue it may pose otherwise, signatures could be set off by default although I don't think that would be necessary.
0 -
VampiricOmen✭✭✭DenverRalphy wrote: »Simple explanation... Images can't be parsed to detect foul language, inappropriate content, etc.
In other words... It removes an avenue for the disreputable to embed naughty words and genitalia images into their posts and bypass the censors.
IC. So how do other forums deal with that? It's hard to believe it's an issue of policing as the forum is kept pretty tidy; they don't let you get away with much. @DenverRalphy
Gets me thinking though. Why isn't forum rank already the perfect privilege provider? In other words, you can't have sig until rank 3 or something. This sort of history based validation is used, well, ALL the time in Internet communities.
They're removed by moderators if it breaches the rules set by the administrator. Depending on the image and what rule it violates, the person might receive a warn (whether verbal or one that's marked against their profile), or a ban. Depending on the amount of staff the moderating team has, those images may remain for minutes to hours to days.
I've been a moderator and dealt with an explicit image spammer before, not a pretty sight by any stretch and at the time the only solution I had was to ban them and delete every single post containing those images. This was on a low traffic forum that had barely thirty members, if someone wanted to cause trouble on a forum with as much traffic as this, a lot of people would probably see whatever it is they're doing before a moderator has time to step in.
Of course, not everyone who uses images in their signature would post obscene or explicit content, but with privileges like that, all it takes is a few bad eggs to spoil the fun for the rest of the clutch.1 -
Khazaad✭✭✭Like @VampiricOmen said, most people play nice if given enough verbal and technical guidelines to abide by.
Having a modest post history should be an adequate credential by itself. Off by default covers another corner. Pending approval could work too. Resolution constants manages bulk.
The bottom line is, I'm a tremendous nerd for this game and will seek any form of expression possible to express it. I wear ESO underwear. Wanna know where I bought it? I MADE it! It's rough spun! Do you know what kind of devotion that takes?!
0 -
Thunderchief✭✭✭People usually read forums when they aren't in front of their game machine; phones, tablets. Last thing you want to is to scroll past everyones massive forum sigs and waste bandwidth to satisfy egos.0 -
Khazaad✭✭✭Thunderchief wrote: »People usually read forums when they aren't in front of their game machine; phones, tablets. Last thing you want to is to scroll past everyones massive forum sigs and waste bandwidth to satisfy egos.
You should read the thread. @Thunderchief It's like Burger King. You can have it your way.
0 -
Vlaxitov✭✭✭I don't mind the pics especially when you have some people who constantly write essay length posts.
Pics > self important essay length posts.0
