Dear Rolygate ...

[Spence]

While the new rule that ani--ed signatures is with no doubt there are who will because they sites that resemble children's party sites !!!
Since ... "The single biggest complaint about websites in some surveys is flashing gfx. They aggravate a large number of people." ... is there a chance that we could do away with this junk too?

 

[rolygate]

You mean, get rid of the smilies?

8-o8-o

Don't think so. If people want to use the occasional smilie, why not, it's standard forum usage. And if they want to junk up their posts with a zillion of them, you can fast-forward past that post.

Maybe you can get a NoSmilie plugin for Firefox?

Or - is your post a sarcastic one, meaning that all this bling is A1 and you it? Who knows, there aren't enough animated smilies in your post to clarify the meaning sufficiently. Perhaps you can do better next time.


___________________________________

 

[Spence]

You mean, get rid of the smilies?

8-o8-o

Don't think so. If people want to use the occasional smilie, why not, it's standard forum usage. And if they want to junk up their posts with a zillion of them, you can fast-forward past that post.

Maybe you can get a NoSmilie plugin for Firefox?

Or - is your post a sarcastic one, meaning that all this bling is A1 and you it? Who knows, there aren't enough animated smilies in your post to clarify the meaning sufficiently. Perhaps you can do better next time.

It's a love/hate kinda thing for me ... I like some of them, and I do think sometimes they help clarify a point ... whether someone is being facetious or serious. But, I do think in the spirit of trying to keep the forum a tad bit more sophisticated or "grown up" that not all of them are necessary. Maybe this guy: could find another home?

And, BTW, thanks for not taking offense at my post. None was intended.

 

[spaky]

It's a love/hate kinda thing for me ... I like some of them, and I do think sometimes they help clarify a point ... whether someone is being facetious or serious. But, I do think in the spirit of trying to keep the forum a tad bit more sophisticated or "grown up" that not all of them are necessary. Maybe this guy: could find another home?

I'm pretty sure the new rule for the sigs was just do to the number of the flashing stop ecig bans in peoples sigs. It was starting to get a little overboard with those. When that happens on a forum like this, then new rules are made to keep everything in line. Just like the rules for posting videos. I'm pretty sure there weren't many rules for the videos until after BigJim posted his rant against TW on here where I think the cuss words outnumbered the noncuss words.

 

[rolygate]

@Spence
OK. But it doesn't seem practical to ask Angus to censor smilies on some form of acceptability rating. I think we just have to put up with them, love 'em or hate 'em, and if somebody uses ones you don't like, well, just skim past their post. The fact is, there are far more requests to use them, and to have more of them available, than there are to chop them. Post content is a matter of taste in several ways, so we either stop at and read a post or pass over it.

Somehow a balance has to be struck between what the majority want and whether that is a good thing or not. In this case I think it's about right. Animated sig gfx is going too far though, they swiftly become a problem.

@Spaky
Exactly. Nobody likes rules including us because we have to do all the work needed to bring them in, then we get all the flak for being heavy-handed.

So in general we don't have a rule until a point has been passed where it is needed. Flashing sigs are a major pain and not wanted, they were absent from here for a long time but when they arrived we had to act. Offensive vids started to become a problem so had to be looked at. At the same time, video spamming became popular - since text link spam is easily stopped, the spammers started putting their links in vids instead. So some form of control of vid content was needed.

There's always something...

___________________________________________

 

[Spence]

Okay. So, I'll stop playing the 's advocate.
Peace!

 

[Happy Domino38]

OMG!! You can't remove the 'pervy' smilie!!!!

 

[JerryRM]

I don't think the management is going to get rid of the smileys. Besides they are very useful to show the posters emotions, something that can not be done with text.

Now I have to add a long, retracting tongue to Gandalf, before the new rules take place. I was also thinking of putting a flashing, neon sign around "The Hounds". (silly and all in fun)

 

[jj2]

I don't think the management is going to get rid of the smileys. Besides they are very useful to show the posters emotions, something that can not be done with text.

Now I have to add a long, retracting tongue to Gandalf, before the new rules take place. I was also thinking of putting a flashing, neon sign around "The Hounds". (silly and all in fun)

Jerry, U R so.

 

[JerryRM]

Jerry, U R so.

jj, wouldn't Gandalf look great, with a tongue like MastiffMike has ?!!!! 8-o

 

[jj2]

Trouble is Gandalf looks a bit on the wise side.

MastiffMike tongue would kill that, and just destroy my image of you.

 

[Mickirette]

Gandalf looks good just the way he is,leave him alone.

 

[nicotime]

jj, wouldn't Gandalf look great, with a tongue like MastiffMike has ?!!!! 8-o

You should make his beard grow down to the ground and back Jerry.

 

[JerryRM]

You should make his beard grow down to the ground and back Jerry.

That would work, thanks nicotime. Now if I only knew how to do that !!!

 

[5cardstud]

Or maybe a little lightning coming out of his staff.

 

[JerryRM]

I was fooling around with an animated avatar and I got a notice that after May 15, they will not be permitted on the forum. (No, I'm not going to do it, I was just doing a test).

 

[MastiffMike]

I was fooling around with an animated avatar and I got a notice that after May 15, they will not be permitted on the forum. (No, I'm not going to do it, I was just doing a test).

Waaaa huh? I thought it was just animated SIGs that were not permitted as of the 15th. I understood it to be that animated avatars are still being decided on. (of course I've only even seen 3 animated avatars counting mine so it's not nearly as big of an issue. Also, since you have to be a "supporting member" to do it helps cut back on the people who could do it).

If there was a rash of people poping up with animated avatars I could see it becoming a problem but then I'm sure they'd grandfather in the people with more than 1,000 posts?!?!?

 

[JerryRM]

I don't know Mike, maybe it was a mistake. All I know is that it popped up on my screen, when I was playing around with the animated avatar. Maybe it's just new ones they won't allow.

 

[MastiffMike]

Jerry,

You should get involved with "The Movement". More info here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ion/91211-help-sign-petition-save-tongue.html

 

[spaky]

I don't know Mike, maybe it was a mistake. All I know is that it popped up on my screen, when I was playing around with the animated avatar. Maybe it's just new ones they won't allow.

I think they're only not allowed if you're an instigator.