At 10/4/06 03:31 PM, John-Wayne wrote: I have your perfect tradeoff. Build a sig portal where offensive or crappy sigs are blammed. Good ones pass trial and get to go on the account, which can like store let's say 3 interchangeable sig pics. For the people who can't make their own there could be template NG ones that just put their name in. Think about it; I know I haven't.

Perfect.

At 10/4/06 04:35 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: I said it first!

You had the right idea, Tom has the wrong one. We need HIGHER sigs, not short ones. As James demonstrated, the render is just eyes, and with a sig that thin, the renders would be not much more than that, but with a taller, wider sig like you suggested, the renders could include much more.

Go with wwwyzzerdd's idea Tom, Go with it.

And animated sigs are very nice, That would realy make many great sig makers loose there positons. And no bouncing tits?!? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I think 595x80, no animation, 595x40 animated would be a good compromise.

Anything over 400x60, which doesn't really fit the BBS now to begin with.

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote: How much would it piss you off if you had to make a new sig, with expanded width but less height and no animation?

Very much.

Just give mods tools to deal with people with flashing, obnoxious sigs. Sure, we can delete them, but they'll just put it back up. Maybe make it so we can ban them from having a sig pic if they abuse it in that way. Taking away the ability to have them entirely would just be pointless. And anyway, you can still have annoying sigs that aren't animated.

That would be like removing television, movies, computers, and anything else with a screen that can transmit moving images because there's a possibility someone could make something flash on them and just stick with printed ways of communication and entertainment.

If you're going to get rid of animated gifs because they have the potential to have obnoxious, flashing images.. Then just get rid of sigs altogether. You can have a jpg that just says the N word in white text on a yellow background. That's more annoying and offensive than Stephen Colbert smiling/frowning.

At 10/4/06 05:43 PM, TurtleLove117 wrote: Perfect.

You really think so? Thanks, I appreciate it.

At 10/3/06 10:59 AM, Xurch wrote:

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

they dont take that long to make.

oh really?

At 10/3/06 10:56 AM, Onnet wrote: REFORMAT, We can remake them with a size change, it would be so awesome.

Agreed. I am ok with animated sigs , as long as they aren't advertising crap.

At 10/4/06 08:19 PM, Placebo wrote: Hrmm, that pic liljim posted looked good... But it way too slim, jim. It's hard enough to crop pictures into a 60 pixels height. I spose I could adjust but it's just kind of a hastle for now.

Did you see some of the image examples that Jeff posted?

Well this whole sig reform thing won't really effect me, so go right ahead.

I like my subtle blinks, but do what you have to do. Would I mind, of course. Some sigs are entertaining and we'd be losing out in the process of all this, but at the same time I understand.

I'm on the fence.

The Topic So Far
The argument goes on. Here are post of the points that people have made, I thought that maybe this will help people brainstorm more:

Pros:
New layout will probably make it look better
Some people may have acutally wanted sigs to look ridiculously long.
No more annoying animated sigs
Some people (the admin) don't think they look that bad.

Cons:
Lower quality of sigs
Less space for creativity
No more renders in sigs
They look stupid
No more animated sigs

Suggestions:
Less room for animated sigs
More room for non-animated sigs
No change at all
Make width shorter, and height a little tallers
500x75 sigs(my personal fav idea)

At 10/4/06 08:35 PM, Placebo wrote: Uh uh, what page were they on?

Page 7

At 10/4/06 08:27 PM, MadCow wrote: Make width shorter, and height a little tallers

Any sig over 60 pixels high will steal too much attention from the actual content. If it were my design, I'd never allow sig pics to exceed 60 pixels of height.

At 10/4/06 08:49 PM, Placebo wrote: Hmm yeah I still donno. The sigs do look good, but it will take some getting used to. If it makes the BBS look cleaner tho then I guess its worth it. At least the staff is trying to cater to us anyways.

I think part of the problem (as has already been stated by many users and some of the staff) here is that you guys can't picture how things are going to look in the context of the new design and I can totally understand all of you getting upset by the removal of the height and animation when I have that in mind.

I'm not going to risk a leak in how the design's going to look by posting a screenshot of that stuff, though and I doubt any of the rest of the team would be careless enough to do so, either.

I like how it is now, the change would ruin me D:

P.s. Placebo, you need to fix yout sig.

Fell free to steal this sig pic. It's the cool thing to do.

If it is for the good of Newgrounds, then do what you must... I will find a way to deal with it. Too bad a bunch of people are still gonna bitch because they can't be assed to do a little sig modification.

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote: How much would it piss you off if you had to make a new sig, with expanded width but less height and no animation?

it would kind of suck

At 10/4/06 09:09 PM, liljim wrote:

At 10/4/06 08:49 PM, Placebo wrote: Hmm yeah I still donno. The sigs do look good, but it will take some getting used to. If it makes the BBS look cleaner tho then I guess its worth it. At least the staff is trying to cater to us anyways.

I think part of the problem (as has already been stated by many users and some of the staff) here is that you guys can't picture how things are going to look in the context of the new design and I can totally understand all of you getting upset by the removal of the height and animation when I have that in mind.

I'm not going to risk a leak in how the design's going to look by posting a screenshot of that stuff, though and I doubt any of the rest of the team would be careless enough to do so, either.

For God's sakes, if you want people to stop bitching, post the fricken screenshots of the new layout so we can get a good idea of what it looks like! Apparently the new layout is the secks, and the small sigs would look really good on them, but you refuse to show us how it would look!

At 10/4/06 09:11 PM, liljim wrote: P.s. Placebo, you need to fix yout sig.

Fell free to steal this sig pic. It's the cool thing to do.

He made a typo, you made a typo. You're even.

If in the end, you do decide to change the dimensions(please don't), do away with the auto-border. BBS cut-outs would be made useless. This is what my sig would look like 20 pixels smaller, without the cutouts.

This render wasn't actually that bad with the smaller sigs, but most others will be bad.

Re-format. I'm sick of those flashy sigs as you mentioned. I think it'd be much nicer, and it would certainly scrape the crust off this BBS.

At 10/4/06 09:37 PM, Peregrinus wrote:

At 10/4/06 09:11 PM, liljim wrote: P.s. Placebo, you need to fix yout sig.

Fell free to steal this sig pic. It's the cool thing to do.

He made a typo, you made a typo. You're even.

I made a joke and you didn't understand it. The failure is on your part.

At 10/4/06 09:47 PM, liljim wrote:

At 10/4/06 09:37 PM, Peregrinus wrote:

At 10/4/06 09:11 PM, liljim wrote: P.s. Placebo, you need to fix yout sig.

Fell free to steal this sig pic. It's the cool thing to do.

He made a typo, you made a typo. You're even.

I made a joke and you didn't understand it. The failure is on your part.

Clicky Clacky.

At 10/4/06 09:09 PM, liljim wrote: I think part of the problem (as has already been stated by many users and some of the staff) here is that you guys can't picture how things are going to look in the context of the new design and I can totally understand all of you getting upset by the removal of the height and animation when I have that in mind.

and still, even without context.. most of us can get over the loss of height..
i always liked newgrounds because of its small sigs..
so i have faIth it will still look good.
however, animation is cool.
definatly need animation.

At 10/4/06 08:27 PM, MadCow wrote:
Suggestions:
Less room for animated sigs
More room for non-animated sigs
No change at all
Make width shorter, and height a little tallers
500x75 sigs(my personal fav idea)

And have a vote.

At 10/3/06 12:13 PM, liljim wrote: Sample... The border is automatically added around the signature in this example.

at first i was skeptic about the new changes, but after looking at your example i agree it would look much nicer and present a classyer or more well cut side to ng. also the cool/interesting animated sigs ratio to the non cool ones is about 1:30 so i dont see it as much of a sacrifise.

At 10/4/06 09:59 PM, Suicidal-kid wrote:

At 10/4/06 08:27 PM, MadCow wrote:
Suggestions:
Less room for animated sigs
More room for non-animated sigs
No change at all
Make width shorter, and height a little tallers
500x75 sigs(my personal fav idea)

And have a vote.

We should have a parliament type thing, like Britain in the colonial days. WIth the house of commons(regulars) And the house of lords(Mods/admins) And perhaps a king, being Tom.

I didnt made my sig... so I couldt photoshop it... and It would end up being a problem yeah.