Why don't we have just an all text website?

Oh right, because someone will find something to [female dog] about anyway.

Please, disregard my question.

Do you people really have such a freakin problem about this??? Seriously you all need to just shut up and deal with it. You are complaining about rules being applied to a website you go to. These are not your personal freedoms or something! It's simply a bit of text that always follows your posts!
Why can't you understand that doing things like THIS is annoying and visually distracting?

If you are getting distraught about something so minor, I suggest you take a break from the internet and try some social activities.

Yes, I'm not saying you should allow any more tags than there are already. Heaven forbid <marquee> or <blink> in the forums. I don't know how forums work, but considering the "HTML is OFF", I'm guessing there's a way to enable HTML and configure some parameters? vB code doesn't actually do anything different, it's just a different syntax.

Actually, having said that the 'quote' tag is quite nice. That is one plus side of the vb code.



No, I don't think anyone is assuming that we have any 'rights' here. We're just discussing what makes sense and what doesn't.

The general consensus is that this would make sense if links in signatures worked, but without any other formatting.

Sounds like you're more upset than anyone, MBeggar.

MBeggar, you should really take your own advice.






And no, I do not find that in the least bit annoying. The only problem that exists is when someone abuses it. And you can simply amend the rules to address it.

In all honesty, I find the people crying about being able to use color more annoying than anything here.

It seems to me that some of you only come out and post when you feel like whining about the administration oppressing your rights.

I have something to say;

Bugger off, wankers.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The forums were fine before, save for the admin cp. So steps were taken to fix it. Stop behaving like mongols.

I have to agree with the setiments of Morfildor et al. The reactionary thing done was to completely turn off vB code in sigs. Now people who wish to link to their work can no longer do so. And to get this feature back w/o the rest of vB code will just mean useless work. The rules should have been amended for the new board features. Just like in #massassi, use color IN MODERATION. I, for one, want the vB code back in sigs. I think TheJkWhoSaysNi's sig was brilliant! Now it's A LOT more text...and a lot more annoying.

Fine by me. My sorry-*** sig is unaffected.

VBcode is a way of restricting exactly what html users have access too. I checked the cp, and I can't find any way of enable html but restrict what html tags users can or cannot use. Which means that if someone knew what they were doing with html enabled, they could potentially cause a lot of damage. This is why, if you look around, you'll see that most forums have html disabled.

Bah. I want my sig back

If people can choose to disable sigs in their profile I really dont see why VBcode should be disallowed

Sweet Jehovah!

I think TheJkWhoSaysNi's sig is a huge reason to re-enable the sigs... Perhaps you could limit the sigs to tags such as "size" (1 or 2 only), "i", "b", "url", and "color" (though perhaps removing any of the red, orange, and yellow colors). Quotes just don't look right if they aren't italicized, and not having links to our precious projects just stinks!

Can someone link me to the post where everyone started complaining about vbCode in sigs? I'd really like to see it. Or was it just the admins who were bothered by it? If that's the case, don't they know there's an option in their CPs to turn off sigs for themselves. I don't really see the point of ruining the sig experience for all of the users who don't care, just to make four or five admins happy.

omg TheJkWhoSaysNi.... look what thay did to your sig...

/wines some more

I thought something was screwy. Besides, when you disable vbcode, all the signatures become messes of coding and random ahrefs. It's ugly and not cool. just make people shorten their sigs and limit font size. And there ain't nothin' wrong with a little color.

[edit] JESUS MARY AND JOSEPH> I just saw Ni's sig! By all means, turn vbcode back on![/edit]

Not that I am a heavy user of this forum anymore, but here is my $0.02:

When we first switched forum systems, and colors and font sizing options were available I was a little skeptical. One of the great things about these forums has always been that you didn't have to risk a seizue on every page because some [wonderful person] decides he wants to use 200 point font in vibrant orange for every fourth word. (Okay, I exaggerated a bit, but you know what I'm talking about.)

As it turns out, I have actually liked having the colors a lot. I must say, the TheJkWhoSaysNi's sig is very cool. So I guess I don't mind the colors in sigs, but I don't think you should be able to change the text size. As long as sigs remain concise (ie take up less space than the post itself), I think you should be able to do just about whatever you want.

So, in sigs, I am Pro: Links, Colors, Bold, Italic, Underline, and Font

and Con: Images, Size Changes, and Quote (takes up too much space)

The problem with enabling only a couple tags for sigs and disabling the rest is that there is no way to do it on the cp. You have to modify the actual code for the forums.

Every modern forum is easier to administrate than the old UBB was. PHPBB2, for example, or invision. THOSE two are free.

instead, we (brian) buys a what, $300 forum system? and what does he do? he disables all the useful, interesting features. we could've gotten this amount of functionality for free.

red or white?

I'm thinking that I shpuld switch my sig to something that makes sense only if vB Code is is enabled, and is really annoying if it's off... Kinda like that of TheJkWhoSaysNi. Perhaps we should all do that, and see how much Brian liked disabling code in sigs.

I'm still scartching my head trying to figure out why people can't just turn sigs off themselves. This is ridiculous.

Red [/B]

what do people have aginst the warm color spectrum?

He wanted something fast, and PHPBB isn't exactly the fastest out there. And personally, I don't like invision.

And all the "useful, interesting" features are generally pointless and aggarvating, such as avatars and sig banners. The lack of features is what appeals to me for these forums. It makes posting quick, and uncomplicated.

I think the largest reason we even upgraded was for speed, and stability. The old boards were literally falling apart, requiring a pruning every few months.

So yeah, URLs in sigs would be nice to have back, please.

Also, how often do people check their PM boxes? I have no idea if Brian has checked his or not since I sent a PM to him...

I say just put a character/line limit, and see how much people can fit in. 300 characters or 5 lines should be plenty, I'd say.

As to everyone else: Maybe some of us LIKE signatures, just not 10 line multi-coloured bold italic huge font signatures, so maybe we don't WANT to turn them off just because some people have no sense of moderation.

OMG LEIK BIG PINK COLOURS! IT BURNS MYE EYEZ!!!!!!


Hey, I have an idea. How about we disable colors in posts, too? I mean... what's "annoying" in a sig is just as annoying in posts, right? Apparently, colors burn people's brains out around here.

Except 300 characters can be taken up easily by one or two urls, and 5 lines doesn't take into account shrinking or enlarging your sig font.

one or two URLs is plenty for a sig. But let's up it to 500 characters, and as for the other... well that code shouldn't even exist.

YOU BAD MAN, BRIAN! *giggles*

Like mine. (the one I made yesterday) I took mine off because Vinny PMed me to. This thread had nothing to do with it. (to be honest, I didn't really like it anyway.)

I think the admins should just PM those who have questionable sigs, and if they don't fix them, then take action (you decide from there).

All you have to do is ask, Brian...
I'm pretty sure most any member here would kindly adhere to an admin's request that's so simple.

Fi><or ur s1g 0r ur b4nn0r4t3d!

Brian = cool ; removing vb != cool

Then banned I shall be.
Why is it that so often when a few people do something the admins don't like, they take it out on the entire community instead dealing with the people who were the problem?
I'd honestly like an answer for this.

First off, PHPBB is a wretched piece of steamy poo. vBulletin really is the best available, and I'm really glad Brian got it.

Second, I think we should re-enable vb code in sigs, and then the admins can notify users who have signatures that need to be changed.

Regardless. There are lots of other forums out there, and nearly all of them are free.

There are lots more features that are disabled than avatars and sig pics. Have you ever administrated a vB?

Oh, right.

I don't think anyone could do anything damaging with HTML alone. Well, the old <img src=con/con> might make a few old machines BSOD, but for anything else you'd need Javascript or ActiveX. But while it might not be damaging, it'll almost certainly be incredibly irritating, if there's no way of limiting the tags used, so vbcode it is then. Still, it'd be nice if they had kept to < >.

Mort-Hog: It has been done before. I dont know the specifics, but people have figured out how to do some pretty nasty stuff using html enabled forums. The one thing that comes to mind is creating a form with plenty of hidden fields and a button that says something like "click me for a good time" that causes a logged in user to post a new thread with offensive content. This is similar to what happened on the SA forums the other day and got a lot of people banned who didnt do anything wrong.

Also, its important to note that this isnt permanent by any means... Brian just disabled vbcode in sigs temporarily to see how it worked, and to get public feedback about it. So for those of you who are cursing at Brian to just off sigs in his personal cp, I have news for you... he already has them turned off. Most likely it will be re-enabled shortly, and the admins will just start editing the especially annoying sigs (if thats what we decide to do).

All means nothing now, so meh.

hurray!

Hip hip.

I just think font size in signatures should be small by default. It would make it a little easier to see where the post content ends and the signature begins, and it would look more tidy.