That graphic just makes me nauseated. :\
Makes me just not want anything animated allowed.

Darlene I'm positive that you just want to make forum users unhappy. There are a million ways that you could avoid looking at specific avatars and signatures, and so could the other (what, maybe 2?) forum users that don't want animated avatars. But you don't like the idea, and that means that no one could possibly be allowed to enjoy it if they do happen to like it.

Why don't you finally just get off your horse and start acting like a human being with compassion and understanding? Until you can do that, I don't see how anyone could find you an appropriate or effective forums administrator. Likewise, I don't see how posts like this one could stop appearing. But as I've said before, I really believe that you enjoy the negative attention and act like a pompous jerk just to get your daily masochistic e-fix.
(PS don't get me wrong, I'm happy to provide)

All Aeko's post is doing is pointing out the exaggerated opinion people have of anything animated. You see one flashing banner and you're suddenly saying, "MAN ANIMATED STUFF MUST ALL BE LIKE THAT". The only thing avatars need is moderation(though a more reasonable size and file limit would be fine if it's not too extreme), which is the same as sigs are getting(which Aeko's post is also clearly pointing out). He can 'legally' have that as his sig per the current rules, yet people think animated avatars are going to unleash the holy hell of seizure-inducing wall of animation if they're allowed because it opens up so many possibilities that aren't possible right now... oh wait.

ppl can have annoying flashy signatures but they dont now do they? get with the times, 2010 yo

animated avatars ftw

I now want to point at my signature. (More directed at the blue bear since i recently added aekos signature piece into mine because i support it)

Its animated. But is it annoying? No unless you HATE BIG BLUE THUNDERBEAR MONSTERPEOPLES?!?!?! :eek:.

And ya if you have a problem, Moderate it and remove or warn them. Its simple instead of completely ignoring the possibility and pissing a handful of people off. allow it. I mean what I've seen out of moderators on this forum is pretty much a human censoring system.

Fight the man! Or Woman!

For the banana phone!

Powah to da peepul?

Fight the power.

Get with the program and put on a signature if you support wanting it.

I dont know how to make a signature, I'll just link the image after every post.

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3...avatarsplz.gif

Quick Links -> edit signature :)

Go to User CP > Edit Signature is on the side

than

NPC Code:

---

"[IMG]linkhere[/IMG]"

---

i have 2 signatures now. nice.

Whos that ugly guy in your signature?

Still loving the forum upgrade.

Would like animated avatars though

i dont know, i adblocked it because that gif is 3MB.

Same here and to end the semi spam

Darlene it just seems that the reason your not allowing it is kind of biased and shouldn't you think about whats fair for both the forums and everybody?

I really wish Darlene would ban everyone who is using that signature (maybe not). It's unreasonable to expect everyone to use Adblock to block annoying images like that one. I'm all for animated avatars, but that's not the way to get it, and you should realize that (now that she's seen how annoying animated images can be, she'll definitely let us have animated avatars!).

To be honest this reminds me of a poem by Shakespeare.

'Tis better to be vile than vile esteem'd,
When not to be receives reproach of being,
And the just pleasure lost which is so deem'd
Not by our feeling but by others' seeing:
For why should others false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?
Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own:
I may be straight, though they themselves be bevel;
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown;
Unless this general evil they maintain,
All men are bad, and in their badness reign.

My interpretation is that if somebody thinks something ill of you, and they're not going to change their mind, then you have no reason to try and prove otherwise and may as well act they way that they already think you are.

If people call you a thief, then you might as well ****ing steal.

And it seems like Darlene thinks of us as stupid kids who are just out to ruin everything and annoy her at every turn.

Let's hop from one topic to another here.
The threads and posts of this whole forum have to be re-indexed for searching, everything from 2004 and above can't be searched for with the forum search. It's annoying!

Why? There is no rule being broken.

This isn't really a valid point. People have been asking the civil way for who knows how long. Yet nothing has changed even when we get an upgraded forum.

Agreed

It was a joke sig made by Clockwork or whatever his name is (love the sig just dont know your name)

But what your not seeming to understand is..

She's a moderator. What does she do? She removes unwanted posts and... Thats about it other than censor people. Wouldn't it make sense to simply moderate this as well? Shes not necessarily single handed.

I agree completely, but posting seizure-inducing images isn't going to make her want to enable animated avatars.

When my browser lags because I see this for the next 10 posts, I can easily see how stupidly animated avatars would be used by people. I would have added "Over time" to that last statement, but going from this to animated Avatars, I don't think time will be needed for stupidity of use kicks in.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2pzlocm.png

If ever you had a chance to be granted this request, you just blew it guys. Sorry.

Only Stefan or Unixmad can change it.
Your request for animated avatars are ok, but this kind of "demonstration" wouldn't help. The only thing what can probably happen is that there will be an addition to the rules to place a ban on such annoying images in signatures.

I dont see where you found in our posts AT ALL that this was a demonstration.

Maybe it was when i told a dude to put a signature on maybe? iunno anyways. This is actually a type of answer I was hoping for because its actually informative. Now dont you think perhaps something can be arranged? Maybe we could simply send a ticket in perhaps iunno. I don't see a reason why it cant be implemented other than piety and childish reasons. Now this isnt some form of Attempt. I simply said I support it than others followed. Simple as that.

You are a new member so you don't know about some things.
This image is annoying and when I see it in some signatures it reminds me of a child lurch to the floor and crying: I want that, I demand that...

And let me tell you, I know Unixmad very good, he don't like to be forced to something.

You better listen to Sam :p
Also, please get rid of that signature image. Thanks.

I'm not new to graal. Now the forums very little new. ive viewed in the past.
The image is annoying yes. It was just a joke. How many times may I repeat myself and if you believe its on just because I want it and demand it your talking to one of the most wrong people on wanting something.

Its not nesscarily "Forcing" when its asking. Not trying to get rude but id appreciate less assumptions. I will easily take it off because you Indirectly asked me to.

I still think theres no real trouble with it with said "moderation" i proposed earlier. The other people who put it on can go ahead and keep it on, hell its their asses that'll be chewed out for it not mine.

This:
wasn't a direct reply to your posts, it was a post about it in general.
I appreciate your decision to remove that image, thank you.
I don't know the reason why animated avatars are disabled for users. Maybe there is a reason, maybe they still forgot it.
I think there are much more important things that need to get implemented. ;)

I agree with you on that there is more important things but this is a topic about Forums.

And for darlene to be the Forum Admin i would think they'd give her high enough rights to change what type of format files and file size for avatars. Thats all.

also

this is what i was replying to.

Highly appreciate your input into this thread sam, If it wasnt for ya there would probably be more bickering and arguing which would probably lead to the thread just being plain closed off due to "bickering and arguing".

From what I've observed, Darlene doesn't really have much in the permissions department. Not to mention it's unixmad that has to make the decision to allow animated avatars.

But anyways, I'm pretty much in agreement with TSA. Animated avatars are so 2002 anyways.

see how far we're behind, we're still stuck in 2001.

Using Firefox, go to about:config, set image.animation_mode to "none".

The problem is we mods need to check these images, so we cannot disable it.

It isn't up to me whether to allow them. My opinion will not change just because you try to insult me. In the end, my opinion is only my opinion, the same as yours. Unixmad will only do as I want if HE agrees with it.

It isn't up to me. I basically gave my opinion, and after reading posts after mine, my opinion has definitely not changed.

Exactly right.

@ retards using the signature, you're making it worse. the people you are trying to convince are 40+ years old, acting immature will not help.

@ our old mods, lighten up. in the past 7 years i've posted here i have never seen signature animation abused and the same will apply for avatars and you know it. stop disagreeing with the community for the hell of it.

@ our prehistoric rock: (meant in a friedly way)

as you can see by looking at my avatar, I don't have a problem with it. If another user or mod dislike animated avatars the community should accept their opinion.
Once again: only Unixmad or Stefan decide about to enable animated avatars.

Wow your two points are incredibly contradictory