To those who find the rules "lame"

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:30 pm

I'm surprised that nobody's said anything about Nyar's sig being too big.........it is 350x200 after all.

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:30 pm

|darc| wrote:
az_bont wrote:
|darc| wrote:If your monitor can't do 800x600, then I have no sympathy for you.
My monitor can do 800x600. My television can't.
Then use your monitor.
I'm pretty sure that if you are running at 640x480, you'll have to start scrolling anyway.

One a 640x480 resolution, if you scroll to the right once you can see enough of people's avatars/names to see who's posting and see all of a post. And what about those who visit the site on a Dreamcast web browser? They're all stuck on 640x480.

Post by **|darc|** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:37 pm

az_bont wrote:
|darc| wrote:
az_bont wrote:
|darc| wrote:If your monitor can't do 800x600, then I have no sympathy for you.
My monitor can do 800x600. My television can't.
Then use your monitor.
I'm pretty sure that if you are running at 640x480, you'll have to start scrolling anyway.
One a 640x480 resolution, if you scroll to the right once you can see enough of people's avatars/names to see who's posting and see all of a post. And what about those who visit the site on a Dreamcast web browser? They're all stuck on 640x480.

Ok, What happens when you use a 625 image on it?

I bet there won't be too much of a difference.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:44 pm

Ender wrote:I'm surprised that nobody's said anything about Nyar's sig being too big.........it is 350x200 after all.

No it isn't. The image you have cached may be, my current sig isn't.
Try reloading image or emptying IE cache.

|darc| wrote:Ok, What happens when you use a 625 image on it?

Drop down to 640x480 and see for yourself.

625 + 112 = 737 - meaning you have to scroll every topic to see author and post at 640 width. And thats not even including the spacing needed by the forum, thats *just* avatar and sig.

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:46 pm

|darc| wrote:
az_bont wrote:
|darc| wrote:
az_bont wrote:
|darc| wrote:If your monitor can't do 800x600, then I have no sympathy for you.
My monitor can do 800x600. My television can't.
Then use your monitor.
I'm pretty sure that if you are running at 640x480, you'll have to start scrolling anyway.
One a 640x480 resolution, if you scroll to the right once you can see enough of people's avatars/names to see who's posting and see all of a post. And what about those who visit the site on a Dreamcast web browser? They're all stuck on 640x480.
Ok, What happens when you use a 625 image on it?

I bet there won't be too much of a difference.

It's enough to block off the entire left column of the page, making it impossible to know who made a post without going back and fowards all the time.

Post by **|darc|** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:48 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:Drop down to 640x480 and see for yourself.

I'm not going to restart my X server just for this...

Nyarlathotep wrote:625 + 112 = 737 - meaning you have to scroll every topic to see author and post at 640 width. And thats not even including the spacing needed by the forum, thats *just* avatar and sig.

I guess you're right, but I doubt many people browse this site on their Dreamcast anymore. I don't really care either way... I'm fine with my sig size.

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:51 pm

|darc| wrote:I guess you're right, but I doubt many people browse this site on their Dreamcast anymore. I don't really care either way... I'm fine with my sig size.

Not too many, but as it's hardly a sacrafice to reduce the sig size, it seems like thr right thing to do.

perry · Post by **perry** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:17 pm

WTF IS UP WITH PEOPLE LIKE THIS!?!

This one is 'Sickliquid's...Are you people trying to get yourselves banned ? Or are you just retarded ?

'We MUST revolt against the man. Please..Man..stop changing the rules and making us actually resize the images we worked so hard to search for...'

The man must be stopped.

404NotFound · Post by **404NotFound** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:45 pm

perry2175 wrote:

WTF IS UP WITH PEOPLE LIKE THIS!?!

This one is 'Sickliquid's...Are you people trying to get yourselves banned ? Or are you just retarded ?

'We MUST revolt against the man. Please..Man..stop changing the rules and making us actually resize the images we worked so hard to search for...'

The man must be stopped.

I'm just retarded

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:27 pm

|darc| wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:Drop down to 640x480 and see for yourself.
I'm not going to restart my X server just for this...

Alt Shift -
It will cycle through your resolutions without having to restart X.

jaredfogle · Post by **jaredfogle** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:14 pm

At another forum I post on (beastieboys.com), there is a rumor that minton (site admin) is Adrock (band member). Anyway, whenever someone posts about that rumor it gets deleted (some are led to believe the rumor is true by minton's deleting of the posts, but thats another story). Then they come on "FVCK YOU MINTON!!! THIS IS THE USA AND I HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEACH!!11"

They don't seem to understand that we are guests of the forum, not owners. They are free to do what they want, just as minton is free to delete/modify it.

Post by **|darc|** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:19 pm

toastman wrote:
|darc| wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:Drop down to 640x480 and see for yourself.
I'm not going to restart my X server just for this...
Alt Shift -
It will cycle through your resolutions without having to restart X.

I'm gonna try that O_o

Post by **I.M. Weasel** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:08 pm

Xylene wrote:
tenchi wrote:Get off yourselves whiners and let's try to have some freakin fun.
Thats the problem, this place isn't fun anymore, and I doubt it ever will be again.

what fun was taken away that you would like back? toning down on the cussing or invading other forums at other sites?

|darc| wrote:I agree, but I believe the sig limits are a bit conservative. They really should've been around 625x150, most notably because that was the size of all of NeonGenesis's signatuares. At one point whole pages of posts would have NeonGenesis's sigs.

yeah,that used to take so long.

Heres what i said in the staff forum

The fact is,56k users cant view the thread if multiple big sigs post,and that is a lot of people (xylene ,random troll & Mr.Siggler

..etc..). They can view the thread,but it will take quites some time. So, if said people want their posts read by 56kers,thats how its gotta be.

jaredfogle · Post by **jaredfogle** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:21 pm

Hmm thats true, I was on 56k for a couple weeks while I was in North Carolina. It was hell.

I wish it was an option to disable avatars and sig pics.

mkjones · Post by **mkjones** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:01 am

havent read all the messages but i think its a great rule!

about time.. even tho i have broadband and a 1600x1200 screen rez i hate waiting for massive sigz..

however, there is a simple way around the rule regarding the height of your sig..

Simply greate an image 520 wide and however high, then slise it into segments that are 112 high..

THEN simply use a <br> or whatever the forum code is for a <br> and 'stack' the images above one another..

dont try it however, we dont wanna make them mad

OneThirty8 · Post by **OneThirty8** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 7:21 am

mkjones wrote:havent read all the messages but i think its a great rule!

about time.. even tho i have broadband and a 1600x1200 screen rez i hate waiting for massive sigz..

however, there is a simple way around the rule regarding the height of your sig..

Simply greate an image 520 wide and however high, then slise it into segments that are 112 high..

THEN simply use a <br> or whatever the forum code is for a <br> and 'stack' the images above one another..

dont try it however, we dont wanna make them mad

That would still result in a sig that's taller than the maximum allowed height.

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 7:46 am

|darc| wrote:
toastman wrote:
|darc| wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:Drop down to 640x480 and see for yourself.
I'm not going to restart my X server just for this...
Alt Shift -
It will cycle through your resolutions without having to restart X.
I'm gonna try that O_o

Alt Shift Backspace also terminates an X Server. There are some other keyboard short cuts that I can't remember right now. Should be in the XFree86 docs.

Post by **|darc|** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:17 am

toastman wrote:
|darc| wrote:
toastman wrote:
|darc| wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:Drop down to 640x480 and see for yourself.
I'm not going to restart my X server just for this...
Alt Shift -
It will cycle through your resolutions without having to restart X.
I'm gonna try that O_o
Alt Shift Backspace also terminates an X Server. There are some other keyboard short cuts that I can't remember right now. Should be in the XFree86 docs.

Yeah, I knew about Alt-Ctrl-Backspace, and stuff like Alt-Ctrl-F1, but I didn't know about Alt-Shift.

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:40 am

It could be Alt Ctrl -
I hardly use them and when I do I'm hardly looking at the keyboard.

I can't believe we actually derailed a bitch topic to something worthwhile.

Post by **pixel** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:23 am

thanks toasty

To those who find the rules "lame"

Re: To those who find the rules "lame"