At 10/3/06 08:53 PM, DFox wrote:

Yeah, like a congress, but top hundred or top 250 based on what?

Maybe something like how long they have been posting for, how intellegent the post are, and if the majority respects their opinions.

But, I don't know.

At 10/3/06 08:53 PM, DFox wrote: It can't be experience points, and I'm not sure if you want to do it by posts... So that would be tricky but I'm sure the admins could work something out.

I'd say posts. And only posts. Experience, batting average, blam/protect, awrds... none of them have anything to do with the BBS. Somebody with 10,000+ posts, though, would probably know and care alot more about it.

The mods and admins should probably be included, too. After all, they work for the site.

At 10/3/06 08:56 PM, PirateMale24 wrote:
The mods and admins should probably be included, too. After all, they work for the site.

And me because it was my idea. :)

I don't really care if sigs aren't allowed to be animated anymore. I agree that quite a few of those are obnoxious. Static siggies are alright with me...although I don't make my own sigs because I don't have Photoshop...and MS Paint is crap for making sigs.

Just to make it, 100% clear, are the sigs going to be 595x40?
I'm going to start making my future sigs :\

Make the size 500x100 pixels, that sounds good.

If you get rid of gif sigs, I'm totally fucked...

At 10/3/06 08:54 PM, liljim wrote: Stuff

I sent you a PM. You should check your inbox.

At 10/3/06 08:57 PM, Suicidal-kid wrote: And me because it was my idea. :)

And a grande idea it is. To parliment with ye.

I really disagree with this, some of the best sigs are animated.

Maybe just something that detects and deletes MSpaint sigs?

At 10/3/06 09:37 PM, Pimplediddy wrote: Maybe just something that detects and deletes MSpaint sigs?

First off, how would that be possible?

Second, people who only have MSpaint should be allowed to have sigs as much as the next guy.

Sig maker opinion:

I don't care about the lack of animation, but the size is awkward. It obliterates effective use of renders. I'd prefer a 300 x 100 signature size with all signatures centered in the table. Of course, if we're talking about what we'd prefer, I'd prefer a 400 x 100 with animation and a 100kb filesize limit.

I already checked out the physical size of the signature, by making a test in photoshop, and I'll live.

Basically, I'm not happy, but I'll live.

Second, people who only have MSpaint should be allowed to have sigs as much as the next guy.

NGSM? Alot of people don't make their sigs, they request them.

At 10/3/06 09:09 PM, Dr-Octagon wrote:

At 10/3/06 09:06 PM, Platinum wrote: Make the size 500x100 pixels, that sounds good.

Eww, wtf no.

This isn't some lame ass jconserv site where more than half the bandwidth is signatures.

>:(

I think they should either make sigs heigh like, 75, or not bother making the change at all.
Because right now, the options we have Chode sigs(wide and short), or, if you think of it sideways, penicl dick(long and skinny) sigs :|

At 10/3/06 09:40 PM, Pimplediddy wrote: NGSM? Alot of people don't make their sigs, they request them.

Yeah, but people who want to make their sigs in MSpaint should be allowed to. This is Newgrounds. If you want to police quality, go to the portal.

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote:

The new format is 20 pixels SHORTER than the current sigs

Great, just when I thought I was having sig problems.

Scrap the sigs and put in the new site.

The fact that you're posting about it makes me love this site even more. :D

I say: i don't mind having other people work on my sigs to make them useable. :D

At 10/3/06 09:43 PM, BinaryClock wrote: Scrap the sigs and put in the new site.

No sigs would be hilarious.

do i still get to keep my buns? :(

At 10/3/06 09:41 PM, PirateMale24 wrote:

At 10/3/06 09:40 PM, Pimplediddy wrote: NGSM? Alot of people don't make their sigs, they request them.

Yeah, but people who want to make their sigs in MSpaint should be allowed to. This is Newgrounds. If you want to police quality, go to the portal.

I see your point, but one of the reasons for the sig requirment change is that animated sigs can be "obnoxious". Wouldn't you agree that MSpaint sigs are more obnoxious than animated sigs, in general?

At 10/3/06 09:48 PM, Pimplediddy wrote: I see your point, but one of the reasons for the sig requirment change is that animated sigs can be "obnoxious". Wouldn't you agree that MSpaint sigs are more obnoxious than animated sigs, in general?

I actually find your sig to be annoying as fuck because the drawing is as bad as an MSPaint drawing, but animated.

At 10/3/06 09:46 PM, Undeadsoldier wrote: do i still get to keep my buns? :(

No, basically, this new sig height bullshit means no more renders in sigs.
From now on sigs are going to be either just stupid abstract or wallpaper screentshots :\

At 10/3/06 09:48 PM, Pimplediddy wrote: I see your point, but one of the reasons for the sig requirment change is that animated sigs can be "obnoxious". Wouldn't you agree that MSpaint sigs are more obnoxious than animated sigs, in general?

If the case were solely on the fact that sigs "look obnoxious" and "clash with the new layout", that would pretty much make everyone working on the new style a shallow dickhead who couldn't give a rat's ass about originality. I have a bit more faith in the NG staff than that. I'm glad Tom decided to take this to the people beforehand.

If that were the case, however, the motto could be changed to "Everything, by everyone. (if it fits in our new style).

Signatures serve an important purpose...they show who is posting. For example, I use mine to tell where I posted by quickly scanning and looking for the rocker chick duck. It's easy.

At 10/3/06 09:55 PM, GoddessOfDanger wrote: Signatures serve an important purpose...they show who is posting. For example, I use mine to tell where I posted by quickly scanning and looking for the rocker chick duck. It's easy.

USERNAMES show who is posting. A signiture is a place where someone can whore out their "individuality".

At 10/3/06 09:52 PM, MadCow wrote:

At 10/3/06 09:46 PM, Undeadsoldier wrote: do i still get to keep my buns? :(

No, basically, this new sig height bullshit means no more renders in sigs.
From now on sigs are going to be either just stupid abstract or wallpaper screentshots :\

NNNOOOO!!! why! Oh dear god why!
this saddens and depresses me.

I love my buns :'(

fuck no!dont change the fourms

At 10/3/06 09:38 PM, NGCA wrote: Sig maker opinion:

I don't care about the lack of animation, but the size is awkward. It obliterates effective use of renders. I'd prefer a 300 x 100 signature size with all signatures centered in the table. Of course, if we're talking about what we'd prefer, I'd prefer a 400 x 100 with animation and a 100kb filesize limit.

I already checked out the physical size of the signature, by making a test in photoshop, and I'll live.

Basically, I'm not happy, but I'll live.

My point exactly, 450 pixels is my ideal size for use of renders you don't have to squint in order to see. These thin sigs however, do bring out the best in most of us, since we try our hardest to make them look good no matter how small they are.

At 10/3/06 10:42 PM, siranco wrote: I think the sigs should change. Right now they seem alot like a banner ad (8px off?) and just generally need to be wider.

They are wide enough, it's the height that's not enough. They must be taller! It's much easier to put in cool pictures rather than just pictures of eyes or whatever.

At 10/3/06 11:09 PM, twessel wrote: They are wide enough, it's the height that's not enough. They must be taller! It's much easier to put in cool pictures rather than just pictures of eyes or whatever.

Use your main account, dude.