-I want to preface this thread with this: this is not a petition thread. This thread is for discussion only of the things suggested by the OP and other members who post. Please do not reply with simple remarks like "I support this!" or "I support this idea/petition!" etc. These remarks do not contribute to discussion. If you want to voice your opinion, please do so in a discussion themed fashion. -

Thank you.

Hello there! I wanted to get started a discussion regarding these forums regulations on the avatar size cap and the lack of image signature feature.

Popular arguments against higher pixel avatars/signatures:

-Bandwidth!

I know that there are many who believe that the bandwidth required to view imaged signatures/higher pixel avatars would be too "great" for a lot of people, and I can honestly say I completely disagree with this point. This is 2013. The very high majority of people using the internet today are using high speed internet. Not to mention the fact that website images can be cached to further decrease bandwidth used. This just isn't a plausible argument.

-Mobile website data!

People who browse these forums on a cell phone or even anyone in general can go to the bottom of this page, click "Change theme", and click "IP Warrior Mobile". That takes you to the very streamlined mobile version of this website, in which avatars are MUCH smaller to begin with and signatures are not present anyway. Allowing both would not change anything regarding this whatsoever.

-Clutter!

Almost every website known to man with a log in and settings tab includes the option to turn off forum signature images. This is extremely easy to work around. You can also spoiler tag images in signatures.

I mean, I just don't agree that a couple of pictures on the site would literally slow down peoples browsing experience. And you can ALWAYS turn off both avatars, signatures, or both at the same time to make it even less cluttered for you.

From a couple of members that I spoke with regarding avatar size, it was stated that the reason was based on an older version of the website to max the pixels at 100x100, which decreased server load. Why does almost every other forum offer no avatar size (it resizes it if it's absurdly large anyway by default)? This is based on an archaic principle. Peoples browsing experience would not change in the slightest considering, again, this is 2013 and most people have high speed internet.

And for those who do not? Options in personal settings. It's really an easy fix. On satellite internet? Turn off signatures in your settings, and turn off avatars too. I mean, problem solved honestly.

Thoughts?

An even easier fix is to avoid the problem entirely by not having higher pixel avatars/signatures.

Well enough true, friend.

But there are two sides to every coin.

The thing is, though, it's personal customization. You can have it so that only YOU see signatures, only YOU see YOUR signature, or that you see everyones signature just not yours, I mean it's extremely simplistic. I don't see why more options aren't good.

The reason for the lack of signature images is due to mods not wanting to have to monitor them, no other reason.

The apparent reason for avatar size would appear to be just laziness on the forum maintainer's part, but the more likely reason is that the avatars are hosted on the forums rather than being linked. Beth has to pay for that bandwidth. They have to pay for their server monthly data transfer and then they have to pay for Amazon's CDN data usage too. It's not a bandwidth problem per se, but rather a tight-wallet problem since the forums are done pro bono.

What's the point in having a signature if you're just going to make it so vulgar/obscene you configure it to only display for yourself anyway?

This just sounds like feeding the trolls to me, though I did skim through this, so I'm most likely wrong.

Images in people's signatures was removed due to being easily abused from what I've heard.

I turned text signatures off because they were annoying. Imagine images!

Yeah, could you imagine people having horrendous dancing bunnies in their signature?

People like that would just be begging for a strangling.

If an option is optional, why would anyone have a problem with it? Its optional for a reason. It effects you none.

The whole forum is optional, but it still needs to be moderated because people are going to come here and look at it. Same with signatures. Not everyone's going to have it blocked 24/7, or there wouldn't be any reason to have them in the first place. They'll still need to be moderated, and that's extra work.

Why aren't sigs visible on mobile?

I'm happier without image sigs. It's nice not to see those 1999-2001 GHETTO CROO GAMAZ in bold rotating red. I like how clean, efficient and professional this forum's layout is.

Agreed. It's also tiresome having to scroll past huge sigs while trying to find the actual comments on other forums.