But the rules don't SAY that.
Kane's sig was 540 x 120 and under 50 KB, safely under the sig limits. If you want to make a rule stating you can only have X number of images in your sig, go right ahead, but make it a RULE. You shouldn't just ban someone from using sigs because they broke some secret rule. Make it a rule now, go ahead, it's a good one. But it wasn't a rule THEN, and he shouldn't be punished under some ex post facto ruling.
Do we really have to hold you guys by the hand like mommy used to do in kindergarden and tell you what's right, what's wrong, and what's just plain annoying (which gives us the right to enact some sort of punishment for being annoying)? Please don't say yes.
Some things are just plain obvious. But this is the Internet, so I guess you're right.
This wouldn't of happened if Kane hadn't put it back after it was removed once already.
Mr Thou! Mr Thou!
Yes, that has been EoFF's tendency in the past. There's no UYFB Rule here.Originally Posted by Yamaneko
Recognized Member
And also from the Signature Limits:
Any signatures not following these or any signatures with questionable or problematic content will be removed/edited by staff, and you may have your signature editing privileges temporarily disabled if this happens several times.
It was problematic and questionable so it was removed. End of story.
Hello Pika Art by Dr Unne ~~~ godhatesfraggles
Also two pictures of the same source still eat the same bandwidth worth from both, meaning two images = two images bandwidth, not everyone has a cache you know
The two WEREN'T. Of course he shouldn't have put 24 in, because inconveniencing others to prove a point is downright Dingo-ish. It DID plainly show that the load time was nowhere near 1.2 MB. His sig was removed incorrectly. If it had been edited to say "don't put 24 images in your sig" you'd be completely right. But it didn't, it stated the sig filesize limits, and so he put up a sig that (still) complied with that.
EDIT: testing baloki's statement now, hold on
EDIT2: Firefox still behaves exactly like I said with the cache off, it only downloads the image once and displays it as many times as needed. Of course, it has to load the image every time you visit the page, now. As for IE, I don't know or care.
Last edited by Doomgaze; 01-18-2005 at 08:54 PM.
IE is a different kettle of fish and still the most used browser out there, whether anyone likes it or not.
Exactly.
Mr Thou! Mr Thou!
Ok, I'll admit it, I don't know how to turn off IE's cache to test it >_>
EDIT: I set the cache size to 1 MB but it still caches a 1.7 MB image. Damn IE >o
Last edited by Doomgaze; 01-18-2005 at 09:47 PM.
Green! So it was Leeza who deleted it the second time, but added it back a few minutes later, before Matt banned me. Interesting.
Also: There's no normal way to set the cache less than 1MB on IE, so Doom's right.
Last edited by MecaKane; 01-18-2005 at 10:24 PM.
It doesn't appear to work any different with IE. At least, not to me. However, I didn't disable the cache but instead reset it while looking at two .bmps of the same image. Dunno if that'd change anything, but I wouldn't think so.IE is a different kettle of fish and still the most used browser out there, whether anyone likes it or not.
Also, Yams: if you guys don't want people using multiples of the same image, you should make a rule, because it's fairly obvious to us that Kane did nothing against the rules, or even wrong, except for being an ass by putting 24 of the same image in his sig - but it was to make a point(successfully, I should add).
Leeza: yes, it may have been questionable to someone unfamiliar with how the cache works. However, once that was cleared up, it should've been the end of that.
If Kane wants to make a point he should do so in a mature way. Like PMing a mod or admin and talking about it. Not acting like a child and filling his signature with even more images. If he had gone about it that way I wouldn't of put him in the no sig group and everyone would be happy.
Mr Thou! Mr Thou!
We should just disable all sigs.
Recognized Member
Interesting indeed. Yes, I added you back because I was under the impression from your one post that you actually had a discussion with one of the other mods regarding a wrongful removal of your sig. I see that I was wrong about that. Why would you put back again if it was already removed?
Raistlin: 24 images that are 49 kbs each linked together are questionable and problematic to me regardless of whether or not I know how the cache works. The sig limits are set to 50 kbs total and anything over that is going to be gone.
eestlinc: I'm beginning to almost agree with that idea.
Hello Pika Art by Dr Unne ~~~ godhatesfraggles
Posting Permissions
