redboy: Did this policy have to do with with the gif i had of olivia munn? no, it cant be?
Did this policy have to do with with the gif i had of olivia munn?
no, it cant be?
I found one of Olivia Munn accidentally pulling her boob out on AOTS
Mechazawa005: cheeznrice: kevlar51:Thank you!!!!!!! The truth comes out Chambered: Too bad! I was just considering the other day at joining the ranks of those with the multiple line stacked, animated, flashy sigs...it'd be like one of those cars with bumper stickers all over the back of it, except animated! LOL Technically you still can...just for a limited time. Off topic, but about a change in forum rules. I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above). I assume that the "rule" changed...again?
cheeznrice: kevlar51:Thank you!!!!!!! The truth comes out Chambered: Too bad! I was just considering the other day at joining the ranks of those with the multiple line stacked, animated, flashy sigs...it'd be like one of those cars with bumper stickers all over the back of it, except animated! LOL Technically you still can...just for a limited time.
kevlar51:Thank you!!!!!!!
The truth comes out
Chambered: Too bad! I was just considering the other day at joining the ranks of those with the multiple line stacked, animated, flashy sigs...it'd be like one of those cars with bumper stickers all over the back of it, except animated!
Too bad! I was just considering the other day at joining the ranks of those with the multiple line stacked, animated, flashy sigs...it'd be like one of those cars with bumper stickers all over the back of it, except animated!
LOL
Technically you still can...just for a limited time.
Off topic, but about a change in forum rules.
I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above).
I assume that the "rule" changed...again?
lol...it was only in place long enough for me to get yelled at across two threads....then it went back to normal. It's used by mods and non mods alike, so I figure it's OK again, but I try to note 'For emphasis' when I do it now...just in case the monthly 'Haze Kenny' rolls by again.
Anyways, I'm pleased to see this change, as I too had to worry about my employer going 'WTF is with all the twitchy asian chicks!?' and having to use the excuse 'Must be spyware' over and over.
Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!
GreenManGaming
txa1265: Mechazawa005: I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above). I assume that the "rule" changed...again? No it hasn't, the rule is still "no touching someone else's post when you quote" ... the mods are too busy creating ASCII art to police this rule
Mechazawa005: I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above). I assume that the "rule" changed...again?
No it hasn't, the rule is still "no touching someone else's post when you quote" ... the mods are too busy creating ASCII art to police this rule
I think I have seen mods doing this lately as well. If they are they should be fired and we should get new mods. All in favour of new mods raise your hand. Good I saw more than 50% of hands raised so the motion has been passed.
I was expecting a poll first.
killmak: txa1265: Mechazawa005: I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above). I assume that the "rule" changed...again? No it hasn't, the rule is still "no touching someone else's post when you quote" ... the mods are too busy creating ASCII art to police this rule I think I have seen mods doing this lately as well. If they are they should be fired and we should get new mods. All in favour of new mods raise your hand. Good I saw more than 50% of hands raised so the motion has been passed.
Holy crap, it's going to be Lord of the Flies: Goozex Forum edition...
[starts building his camp site and prepares to go scavenge for old game carts]
Goozex Forum Moderator
Mechazawa005: killmak: txa1265: Mechazawa005: I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above). I assume that the "rule" changed...again? No it hasn't, the rule is still "no touching someone else's post when you quote" ... the mods are too busy creating ASCII art to police this rule I think I have seen mods doing this lately as well. If they are they should be fired and we should get new mods. All in favour of new mods raise your hand. Good I saw more than 50% of hands raised so the motion has been passed. Holy crap, it's going to be Lord of the Flies: Goozex Forum edition... [starts building his camp site and prepares to go scavenge for old game carts]
I want the conch
Gary Johnson For President 2012!
Even though I think animated gif signatures are stupid and annoying, even with hot korean models, this reeks of pointless mod censorship. What does it mean to be 'distracted' by a signature? It's too pretty that it becomes physically difficult to read the person's post? I find the constant zero post threads for discussing games to be much more 'distracting' because they constantly saturate the front page. And I have not seen any egregious example of thread derailment due to animated gif sigs, let alone anything worse than what usually happens to long running threads.
And no, I did not read this whole thread before posting
mrkekeru: Even though I think animated gif signatures are stupid and annoying, even with hot korean models, this reeks of pointless mod censorship. What does it mean to be 'distracted' by a signature? It's too pretty that it becomes physically difficult to read the person's post? I find the constant zero post threads for discussing games to be much more 'distracting' because they constantly saturate the front page. And I have not seen any egregious example of thread derailment due to animated gif sigs, let alone anything worse than what usually happens to long running threads. And no, I did not read this whole thread before posting
...you might not want to look at the derail post right above you........
txa1265: Perhaps it is my ancient-ness coming out, but in my opinion the general move from USENET to web forums has led to fragmentation that has already eroded discourse, and adding loads of obnoxious and flashy graphics serves *no* purpose in terms of adding to the level of discussion in these forums. I'd be thrilled with a forum with no graphics of any type at all.
Perhaps it is my ancient-ness coming out, but in my opinion the general move from USENET to web forums has led to fragmentation that has already eroded discourse, and adding loads of obnoxious and flashy graphics serves *no* purpose in terms of adding to the level of discussion in these forums. I'd be thrilled with a forum with no graphics of any type at all.
One of the best forums I've ever read was like this, but like USENET it's now defunct
I actually don't mind the sigs too much but the animated ones did make my browser lag on their first run through every time they loaded. I'll probably turn the sigs back on after the 10th.
Kenny007: Mechazawa005: cheeznrice: kevlar51:Thank you!!!!!!! The truth comes out Chambered: Too bad! I was just considering the other day at joining the ranks of those with the multiple line stacked, animated, flashy sigs...it'd be like one of those cars with bumper stickers all over the back of it, except animated! LOL Technically you still can...just for a limited time. Off topic, but about a change in forum rules. I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above). I assume that the "rule" changed...again? lol...it was only in place long enough for me to get yelled at across two threads....then it went back to normal. It's used by mods and non mods alike, so I figure it's OK again, but I try to note 'For emphasis' when I do it now...just in case the monthly 'Haze Kenny' rolls by again.
I the core of the rule was to prevent users for changing the context of another user's post. Much like quoting a G-Team member and editing percentages so they exceed 100% That is frowned upon.
Forum Moderator
cheeznrice: Kenny007: Mechazawa005: cheeznrice: kevlar51:Thank you!!!!!!! The truth comes out Chambered: Too bad! I was just considering the other day at joining the ranks of those with the multiple line stacked, animated, flashy sigs...it'd be like one of those cars with bumper stickers all over the back of it, except animated! LOL Technically you still can...just for a limited time. Off topic, but about a change in forum rules. I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above). I assume that the "rule" changed...again? lol...it was only in place long enough for me to get yelled at across two threads....then it went back to normal. It's used by mods and non mods alike, so I figure it's OK again, but I try to note 'For emphasis' when I do it now...just in case the monthly 'Haze Kenny' rolls by again. I the core of the rule was to prevent users for changing the context of another user's post. Much like quoting a G-Team member and editing percentages so they exceed 100% That is frowned upon.
The power of bold'll do that.
Kenny007: mrkekeru: And no, I did not read this whole thread before posting ...you might not want to look at the derail post right above you........
mrkekeru: And no, I did not read this whole thread before posting
At least the derail started as a valid (if unrelated) sidebar question before tuning into a derail.
No animated .gif sigs ---> edit/highlight in quote question ---> ASCII art ----> Mods overthrown ---> Lord of the Flies
Seems like a natural progression of conversation to me...
EDIT:
cheeznrice:I the core of the rule was to prevent users for changing the context of another user's post. Much like quoting a G-Team member and editing percentages so they exceed 100% That is frowned upon.
Soooo...it's okay to do so if we notate something along the lines of "bolded for emphasis" and as long as we avoid directly changing the content?
Or is it something we should just avoid altogether? Or am I analyzing this FAR too much and should just STFU?
...and where's my sammich?
txa1265: Mechazawa005: I thought there was a silly rule in place to not bold selection of another user's text when quoting, but i've seen this pop up many times in the last week (Ex: see above). I assume that the "rule" changed...again? No it hasn't, the rule is still "no touching someone else's post when you quote"
No it hasn't, the rule is still "no touching someone else's post when you quote"
Perhaps the G-Team should add this rule to the forum rules when they add the 'No animated GIFs' rule.
Mechazawa005: Kenny007: mrkekeru: And no, I did not read this whole thread before posting ...you might not want to look at the derail post right above you........ At least the derail started as a valid (if unrelated) sidebar question before tuning into a derail. No animated .gif sigs ---> edit/highlight in quote question ---> ASCII art ----> Mods overthrown ---> Lord of the Flies Seems like a natural progression of conversation to me... EDIT: cheeznrice:I the core of the rule was to prevent users for changing the context of another user's post. Much like quoting a G-Team member and editing percentages so they exceed 100% That is frowned upon. Soooo...it's okay to do so if we notate something along the lines of "bolded for emphasis" and as long as we avoid directly changing the content? Or is it something we should just avoid altogether? Or am I analyzing this FAR too much and should just STFU? ...and where's my sammich?
lol...I personally enjoy the roller coaster ride that is the Goozex forums.
As for the bolding, I still find it the best way to leave a person's comment in tact while replying to a small portion of it; as opposed to the other popular option of cutting up someones thread to only show a section of a given sentence, letting the rest of the context fall to the way side.
The latter method does make for smaller quote windows though!
EDIT: Holy crap. 4000.
Actaully, I find the quoting the 5 billion quotes before you and the giant still pics at LEAST as annoying as the animated pics. Animated pics I found at least added some measure of personality, as I easily recognized when Larpi and G-nitro posted responses. So. Do we really need to be able to use a quote function to quote something DIRECTLY IN THE SAME DAMNED POST? Some 1 line posts almost become a whole page by themselves because of this. Even look at this thread it's almost becoming the case. It's not so bad when you quote one line, but do you really need to quote the quote of a quote to say "this is funny"? And then the pictures people post get quoted on top of that and it's a screen of the same picture over and over as well. How are these NOT more annoying than something that everyone can turn off in their settings anyway?