The real question is are the blocks coming out of or going into the larger block.

Page is owned.

I'm suddenly starting to regret supporting the implementation of avatars. Now that the novelty of seeing them has worn off (in a matter of hours and they're only on a small group of users), they're starting to look...cheap. Oh well.
*Disables visible avatars*
Look at me. As Bush would say, I've become more of a flip-flopper than Kerry.

Okay, if this avvy thing ever works out, I got mine here.

Originally Posted by Xion

Okay, if this avvy thing ever works out, I got mine here.

4.71 KB -- that's not under 3 KB. I can see filesize is going to be a nasty restriction. Saving that as a JPEG image at highest quality will get it down to 2.7 KB, but there's quality loss around the red (Unless you do some extra tricks in GIMP). Or if you palletize it, that'll get it down too, but also with quality loss. At least the good thing is, at high screen resolutions, it'll be hard to see the quality loss.

I think I overreacted about the avatars in my last post. They really don't look that bad. Anyway, in the spirit of the new avatars, here's a few I made up.

---Highly dissapointed---

Not as if I ever cared for Avatar's in the first place, but I'll say one thing, if avatars are enabled, then I shouldn't have to downsize or whatever my signature, if I don't use an avatar. Because I was never for avatar's anyway. It should be a choice, either one or the other.

I think some signature restrictions would have been enacted eventually anyway, whether or not we enabled avatars. Under the proposed rules, your images would be fine, but you would need to remove some text. You have about 650 visible characters, and would need to lower it to 512.

i really ythink we should enable avatars, with some rules however. Like no pron avatars, yeah like that.

Let's do 5kb instead of 3kb because 5kb is 1/2*10 and 10 is a magic number

Originally Posted by Olsen

Like no pron avatars, yeah like that.

OMG YES NO PR0N

I see no difference, and I was able to drop the filesize.

Because they are same.

Originally Posted by Cooba

OMG YES NO PR0N

ofcourse not, but ive seen forums with pron avatars.

Originally Posted by Olsen

ofcourse not, but ive seen forums with pron avatars.

likewise. ABSforums has an avatar with a woman getting her eyelid sliced...creepy disturbing.

I think shrinking signatures in favour of avatars is a good idea (especially for someone on dialup as that way the content appears quicker with less to load in signatures), but 50x50 avatars would be better. I know 48x48 is a nice power of 2 and all that, but 50x50 seems to be more common (that or 100x100, which is getting a bit large).

48 isn't a power of 2, it's just a common avatar size.

49's the power.

7²-1=48

Though AIM icons are usually 50x50...

7² would be a square, not a power. A power of 2 is more of the form 2ⁿ. 48 isn't a power itself, but it is half way between the two power numbers 32 and 64.

I think I'll stand corrected that 50x50 is a more common avatar size.

This is just nitpicking, but we might as well do that while avatars are not yet implemented.


A question to the admins concerning avatars. Do avatars have to go through an authorization process, where they can't be used until allowed by an admin? I think this would defenently be a good idea rather than suddenly noticing an unwanted avatar already in use. I know this task could possibly be time consuming, but I don't believe it would take much. I probably wouldn't mind even doing it, if there is a wish to find someone else.

My bad. I meant to say "...multiple of 2...". That'll teach me to post at 1 in the morning

Re getting the admins to check the avatars: It's a good idea, but this forum has, what, 50 pages worth of members (can't be bothered to work out the exact value)? Granted, not all of them will want avatars (or will have used this forum in the past year), but it's going to place a heavy workload on the admins. Just give them a BFG10k to use against anyone with a dodgy avatar, tho warning them first might be a good idea.

Originally Posted by Monolith

A question to the admins concerning avatars. Do avatars have to go through an authorization process, where they can't be used until allowed by an admin? I think this would defenently be a good idea rather than suddenly noticing an unwanted avatar already in use. I know this task could possibly be time consuming, but I don't believe it would take much. I probably wouldn't mind even doing it, if there is a wish to find someone else.

I guess not.

But my guess is that avatar offences would be much steeper than normal since they are ALL OVER THE BOARDS and, in most cases, SHOWN MULTIPLE TIMES.

Originally Posted by Xion

I guess not.

But my guess is that avatar offences would be much steeper than normal since they are ALL OVER THE BOARDS and, in most cases, SHOWN MULTIPLE TIMES.

Chances are they would be treated like signatures.

++Spiderman Avatar

But it's a grey spiderman ;(