Title.

Just curious as to the reasoning behind it.

I want an avatar

I would put Conker as my avatar.

Read this: http://www.jazz2online.com/jcf/showthread.php?t=10963

Doesn't seem to answer anything. Only one admin commented on the subject. No reason was put forth why they are disabled. Need I go on?

This has probably been brought up in this forum more than any other topic. It's not going to happen. I encourage you to look back at this forum for more information. I'm not sure the administrators ever posted an opinion, but it has been debated in #jj2, and their opinion is fairly clear.

My personal opinion is that if we had text-only signatures and avatars, the board would arguably load faster. After all, a lot of users have signatures with large images (yes, I am included in that vague generalization) that are at least bigger than your average signature image. Just keep the avatar size limit small (60x60 pixels or something) and there shouldn't be any problems. I have a few good avatar worthy images.

It's not just the size I oppose, it's the fact that some avatars are, well, ugly and eye-hurting.

That thread I posted above pretty much covers all the pros and cons of avatars. It does lack any sort of final statement by the administration, but lets try to keep the subject to the thread that already has more details in it.

I don't care about what the users say... I want to hear Fquist, Derby, Link, and any other italic bold people.

I don't think the administration has ever actually formalized an opinion on avatars. I've stated my opinion in the topic Monolith cited, in addition to Disguise and Fquist.

If avatars are uploaded to the JCF, they would use extra bandwidth. This would be negligible though. A maximum 2KB uploaded avatar combined with a signature reduction to 500 bytes would result in a net gain of 500 bytes maximum per user (the current signature limit is 2KB). Even if we kept signatures at the current limit, that would only be a total of 4KB per user and I doubt it would cause significant bandwidth problems. Images are also cached by browsers, unlike signatures.

There is no option in (this version of) vBulletin for remotely-hosted avatars. It would be too difficult to enforce size restrictions on them anyway.

Just to (re)state my opinion: I'm in favour of allowing avatars, if reasonable limits (such as 2KB and 48x48 pixels, and no animated images) are put in place. I would also be in favour of smaller signatures, maybe with a maximum of 500 bytes.

Agreed. People need to find creative ways of reducing the load of their signature. I have made my signature with a style sheet. My signature is not an image. This greatly reduces load time. If other people can be as bandwidth thrifty as me then this could be possible. Go and edit down your signatures... use creative ways. I think a lot of you have forgotten what signature means.

"A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity"

Derby, do not edit the following list of people. It is not flaming.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following people have examples of signatures that are too big:

SkulLTF, Iam Canadian, Derivative, Enigma, Fawriel, Gr33n Pl4nt, KRSplat, NeoBlaze, defalcon, EvilMike, *Fireball*, Rýû Å$, Batty Buddy, Doubble Dutch, PHT2, Bliss AKA Blink, etc. There are more.

DrazenX's signature messes up the formatting.

A lot of you could just use your lines more efficiently, and make the font size smaller. I'm not so concerned about images.... for me it's how tall your signature is. You can tell if someone is being unreasonable with their signature.

Clear this up, and avatars are more of a reality.

...hang on a second...


EDIT: ... you call that too big? ..oh well. I was planning to change it anyways. *shrugs*

Faw's sig isn't poor ripoff from mine as yours is.

"A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity" Pfft.

one more thing.... I think 2 quotes max in a signature is not a lot to ask. No one reads a signature that has a lot of.... junk... in it.

*raises hand* I do.

Originally Posted by ConkerHS

No one reads a signature that has a lot of.... junk... in it.

You really must learn a lot of JCF.

Originally Posted by Coppertop

*raises hand* I do.

So do I.

I prefer big signatures over avatars. Avatars sucks, if you want a avatar, just post a pic in yor sig which you would use as your avatar, that [CC]Tublear thing or something else, would proably be my avatar.

Conker, I read signature's that have a lot of stuff in it. Ironic how people could always find a reason to (*) about my signature, when there are a few other's who have always had a bigger sig that me.

How the hell are you going to forget 'Xion' in that statistic, Conker, really you need to recheck your sources.

Personally, if you want to talk about annoying signature's. Probably yours and Cooba's are out of everyone in the whole board. Basically just because of the Bush logo . And especially yours Conker with the bright red outline.

Well, Xion says he will trim down his sig if avatars are allowed, so he sorta isn't a problem.

Originally Posted by ConkerHS

...Batty Buddy, Doubble Dutch, PHT2, Bliss AKA Blink, etc. There are more.

^^^^
Xion's is only slightly worse than yours, Derivative...


As for my sig.... I'm just showing support for the winner. ;D

For the winner, pfft, don't make me laugh. lol. too late.

Originally Posted by Derivative

Personally, if you want to talk about annoying signatures. Probably yours and Cooba's are out of everyone in the whole board. Basically just because of the Bush logo . And especially yours Conker with the bright red outline.

Would you mind Trafton having Kerry logo if you would vote for Bush?

I don't care, I think they are corrupt white men in politics. Bush is the most corrupt. It would be a snowball's chance in hell, before I would ever vote bush. I prefer Kerry at least 45% to Bush, and the other 55% goes to Nader.

hey.

Everybody look at Trafton.

!

Can we talk a little less about politics and a little more about avatars, please?

LOOK AT YOU!

I WANT ONE (-)!

[Filter bypass -FQ]

I read long signatures all the time, and don't mind them. I don't care about avatars and imo compared to sigs they wouldn't be all that useful imo.

Xion, we're testing the avatar system in case they are implemented. That's why a few people have avatars.

Here's a proposal for avatars:

Avatars must be exactly 48x48 pixels in size, under 3KB, and cannot be animated. In addition to enabling avatars, signatures will be further restricted. They will have a maximum of 512 visible characters (doesn't include HTML, vB code, etc) and a total image size\placement maximum of 750x250 pixels and 80KB file size.

What does everyone think of that?

Better than the proposed alternatives, but I still think avatars are just ugly.

Originally Posted by Link

Xion, we're testing the avatar system in case they are implemented. That's why a few people have avatars.

Here's a proposal for avatars:

Avatars must be exactly 48x48 pixels in size, under 3KB, and cannot be animated. In addition to enabling avatars, signatures will be further restricted. They will have a maximum of 512 visible characters (doesn't include HTML, vB code, etc) and a total image size\placement maximum of 750x250 pixels and 80KB file size.

What does everyone think of that?

I guess I could live with that...but make the avatars 50x50...something reasonable.

I'm not sure how many metres my jaw dropped when I saw Trafton's avatar. I dunno, it was just a shock.

^^^

He's apparently a tester along with Link. You know, Trafton seems like a joke sometimes. He seems to know everything going on behind the scenes here, makes me wonder why he isn't just a mod or admin by now.

Link your rule was all good, until you had to say no animated.

I have a better idea, in addition to what you said, allow animated avatars, but with a rule like they can only be like 10x10 or less or something pixels. Or like the size of Trafton's avatar.

Originally Posted by Derivative

Link your rule sucks, everything was fine, until you had to say no animated.

Need I bring up the topic of http://www.foxmage.com/Annoying.gif (warning: annoying D=) again?

Originally Posted by Derivative

I have a better idea, in addition to what you said, allow animated avatars, but with a rule like they can only be like 10x10 or less or something pixels. Or like the size of Trafton's avatar.

Uniformity is a good thing. Too small, or too big (or animated period) and things begin to look messy.

^^^

Hmm, there can still be restrictions set. Like, this would be mine:

Not my fault Radium. Everyone isn't going to suffer because of something you made up or did. That's dumb.

Originally Posted by Derivative

Hmm, there can still be restrictions set. Like, this would be mine:
Not my fault Radium. Everyone isn't going to suffer because of something you made up or did. That's dumb.

The point of the RAD image is that constantly looping animated avatars are distracting and nauseating. Yours is no better.

Originally Posted by Derivative

^^^

Hmm, there can still be restrictions set. Like, this would be mine:

That image is 6k anyway, double the size of what JCF would allow. Even if we did allow animated avatars (which I can almost pretty much assure you we won't) you wouln't be able to use it.

^^^

Mine is better, a lot better. Mine won't give seizures, because it isn't flashing lights. And It's cooler anyway. Besides I'm part of so many forums like 20, no one ever had a problem with it. Some complimented me.

I'll find an avatar somewhere, that fits these rules, then, somehow.

Look at me! I'm... REGEDIT!