images page 1
oblivion
21st December 2011, 09:05 PM
I've disabled the ability to upload attachments, avatars, profile pictures, etc., for the registered user group. It looks like someone might have already done part of the configuration.
One thing I noticed was that img tags were disabled for signatures in the registered users group. blingy sigs do bother some folks, but I wasn't sure if we intend to disallow images in sigs. Since right now we plan to not enable avatars, people may want to put an externally hosted avatar-like picture in their sigs.
I'm going to go ahead and disable attachments, avatars, profile pics, etc., for admins, too. (and the moderator groups, though we may not use them. lol the only moderators MindRomp may ever have are GMs for mafia games. :D)
One thing I noticed was that img tags were disabled for signatures in the registered users group. blingy sigs do bother some folks, but I wasn't sure if we intend to disallow images in sigs. Since right now we plan to not enable avatars, people may want to put an externally hosted avatar-like picture in their sigs.
I'm going to go ahead and disable attachments, avatars, profile pics, etc., for admins, too. (and the moderator groups, though we may not use them. lol the only moderators MindRomp may ever have are GMs for mafia games. :D)
Adenosine
21st December 2011, 09:51 PM
Hang on! No avatars?! How will I be able to tell who has posted the bollocks?
charlou
21st December 2011, 10:27 PM
I don't recall a discussion about avatars?
Images in sigs? Personally I prefer not, but sometimes they can be useful, so each to their own (with some limit on size), so long as they're not hosted by us?
Images in sigs? Personally I prefer not, but sometimes they can be useful, so each to their own (with some limit on size), so long as they're not hosted by us?
oblivion
21st December 2011, 11:05 PM
lol. I think the avatars are going to be a sticking point, but they are images that are uploaded to the server, so...I think right now we are excluding them. We can make an exception for avatars, and maybe come up with some guidelines, like whether to permit animation, maximum file size, etc.
I personally would hate not having avatars, but I could live with it. I actually think sigs are much more intrusive looking than avatars.
I personally would hate not having avatars, but I could live with it. I actually think sigs are much more intrusive looking than avatars.
charlou
21st December 2011, 11:13 PM
I might be persuaded that no avatars is the better option ...
I dunno ... avatar's are a form of self expression and an aspect of identification that most people appreciate.
I dunno ... avatar's are a form of self expression and an aspect of identification that most people appreciate.
oblivion
21st December 2011, 11:16 PM
I have a feeling that no one but I thought avatars were included in "no images on our server". probably because people don't usually think about where avatars are stored.
Hermit
21st December 2011, 11:24 PM
Small avatars, say 60 x 60 pixels, and no animation, would have minimal impact on bandwidth. That size graphic easily comes in at under 2KB.
And yes, I am in favour of making signatures as inconspicuous as possible, or have none at all. No graphics, no coloured texts, no large fonts, thanks.
And yes, I am in favour of making signatures as inconspicuous as possible, or have none at all. No graphics, no coloured texts, no large fonts, thanks.
charlou
21st December 2011, 11:35 PM
I like text sigs and vote to allow those.
An example of a useful image sig is the one Pappa uses at rationalia showing the current fund level.
People who don't like seeing sigs can turn them off via their UCP.
If we allow avatars, I like the option for larger avatars ... up to say 200 x 200 ...
60 x 60 is somewhat limiting, as the detail can be lost in such a small size avatar.
An example of a useful image sig is the one Pappa uses at rationalia showing the current fund level.
People who don't like seeing sigs can turn them off via their UCP.
If we allow avatars, I like the option for larger avatars ... up to say 200 x 200 ...
60 x 60 is somewhat limiting, as the detail can be lost in such a small size avatar.
oblivion
21st December 2011, 11:38 PM
Small avatars, say 60 x 60 pixels, and no animation, would have minimal impact on bandwidth. That size graphic easily comes in at under 2KB.
And yes, I am in favour of making signatures as inconspicuous as possible, or have none at all. No graphics, no coloured texts, no large fonts, thanks.
We don't need to worry about avatar bandwidth at least wrt to our server. Not for years and years. :D Bandwidth for members might be a problem in some areas, but tbh I haven't seen bandwidth complaints from a member in about 2-3 years. If we have avatars at all, 100x100 should be fine. or 120x120. or 140x140.
And yes, I am in favour of making signatures as inconspicuous as possible, or have none at all. No graphics, no coloured texts, no large fonts, thanks.
We don't need to worry about avatar bandwidth at least wrt to our server. Not for years and years. :D Bandwidth for members might be a problem in some areas, but tbh I haven't seen bandwidth complaints from a member in about 2-3 years. If we have avatars at all, 100x100 should be fine. or 120x120. or 140x140.
Hermit
21st December 2011, 11:45 PM
If we allow avatars, I like the option for larger avatars ... up to say 200 x 200 ...
60 x 60 is somewhat limiting, as the detail can be lost in such a small size avatar.Oh, I don't know. No detail lost in this 60 x 60 pixel avatar at all, for example: http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Downloaded%20Photos/12def7ac.gif
:p
60 x 60 is somewhat limiting, as the detail can be lost in such a small size avatar.Oh, I don't know. No detail lost in this 60 x 60 pixel avatar at all, for example: http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Downloaded%20Photos/12def7ac.gif
:p
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 02:13 AM
I would like avatars AND sig images (of a VERY small size)
Trouble is, I would very much like for the server to NEVER find itself in the awkward position of hosting child porn images.
The easiest way I can think of is to require posters to host their avatars/signature images off-site (photofuckit or something)
Any of that reasonable?
Trouble is, I would very much like for the server to NEVER find itself in the awkward position of hosting child porn images.
The easiest way I can think of is to require posters to host their avatars/signature images off-site (photofuckit or something)
Any of that reasonable?
oblivion
22nd December 2011, 02:20 AM
sigs are not difficult. I think we could even use the image resizer to automatically resize sig images to a very modest size.
avatars are not that easy. vbulletin automatically uploads them.
I've never seen an add on that enabled avatars to be stored off site, but I'll have a look around for something like that.
But, with child porn, even if the image is not on our server, I think we'd need to remove the pictures, or at least convert them to links.
avatars are not that easy. vbulletin automatically uploads them.
I've never seen an add on that enabled avatars to be stored off site, but I'll have a look around for something like that.
But, with child porn, even if the image is not on our server, I think we'd need to remove the pictures, or at least convert them to links.
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 02:25 AM
I must admit that I don't know about the laws regarding those images. I guess we could simply delete someone's avatar if it was deemed inappropriate, but I am so reluctant to draw that line, I don't want to make anyone else do it (and cock it up lol)
If the image is hosted offline, and appears illegal, I as a good citizen could report it to the appropriate authority and the host could be pursued. (well, that was my thought about it anyway - paranoia)
If the image is hosted offline, and appears illegal, I as a good citizen could report it to the appropriate authority and the host could be pursued. (well, that was my thought about it anyway - paranoia)
nostrum
22nd December 2011, 02:26 AM
I really really want avs, it makes identifying who posted what much quicker and easier.
Can we have 140 x 140 minimum? On ratskept it's 130 x 130 and that's pretty stingy IMO.
Can we have 140 x 140 minimum? On ratskept it's 130 x 130 and that's pretty stingy IMO.
oblivion
22nd December 2011, 02:29 AM
we used to have 100x100 at TR. A few months ago we upped it to 140x140. That's a nice size. It's not so large that it stretches the postbit area.
nostrum
22nd December 2011, 02:40 AM
ah yep TR size is just about perfect without being too big (as I think the ratz ones could be)
oblivion
22nd December 2011, 03:42 AM
I must admit that I don't know about the laws regarding those images. I guess we could simply delete someone's avatar if it was deemed inappropriate, but I am so reluctant to draw that line, I don't want to make anyone else do it (and cock it up lol)
If the image is hosted offline, and appears illegal, I as a good citizen could report it to the appropriate authority and the host could be pursued. (well, that was my thought about it anyway - paranoia)
I would think we'd have to report the host and also remove the link from our site. Otherwise someone could report this site. child porn is content that I would not want to take chances with. Even if leaving it were on the right side of the law, the site would come under scrutiny and and overzealous law enforcement might shut us down at least temporarily.
Lawyers cost a lot of money even when you haven't done anything wrong.
If the image is hosted offline, and appears illegal, I as a good citizen could report it to the appropriate authority and the host could be pursued. (well, that was my thought about it anyway - paranoia)
I would think we'd have to report the host and also remove the link from our site. Otherwise someone could report this site. child porn is content that I would not want to take chances with. Even if leaving it were on the right side of the law, the site would come under scrutiny and and overzealous law enforcement might shut us down at least temporarily.
Lawyers cost a lot of money even when you haven't done anything wrong.
charlou
22nd December 2011, 04:54 AM
I would think we'd have to report the host and also remove the link from our site. Otherwise someone could report this site. child porn is content that I would not want to take chances with. Even if leaving it were on the right side of the law, the site would come under scrutiny and and overzealous law enforcement might shut us down at least temporarily.
Lawyers cost a lot of money even when you haven't done anything wrong.
Agreed.
Lawyers cost a lot of money even when you haven't done anything wrong.
Agreed.
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 06:01 AM
Of course we would remove the link (after reporting the host, presumably? To the local law enforcement c/c'ed to the ISP?)
Does forbidding the hosting of images mitigate the risk at all? Or am I just being over-paranoid?
Does forbidding the hosting of images mitigate the risk at all? Or am I just being over-paranoid?
oblivion
22nd December 2011, 06:11 AM
it definitely mitigates the risk. the web host could kick us off their server and prosecute if they found illegal material on the drives.
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 06:23 AM
Then it's worth doing.
It might be worth policing the avatars/signatures. I don't like it, but will do it if popular opinion overwhelms my surly attitude...
Could we set avatars to be limited to approved images (say, approved by 2 admins)?
It might be worth policing the avatars/signatures. I don't like it, but will do it if popular opinion overwhelms my surly attitude...
Could we set avatars to be limited to approved images (say, approved by 2 admins)?
charlou
22nd December 2011, 06:40 AM
Then it's worth doing.
It might be worth policing the avatars/signatures. I don't like it, but will do it if popular opinion overwhelms my surly attitude...
Could we set avatars to be limited to approved images (say, approved by 2 admins)?
I'm not into policing anything. If anything illegal is posted, including avatars and sigs, people report it and an admin can remove it, simply because it's not our business to override the law - we're not a law unto ourselves.
It might be worth policing the avatars/signatures. I don't like it, but will do it if popular opinion overwhelms my surly attitude...
Could we set avatars to be limited to approved images (say, approved by 2 admins)?
I'm not into policing anything. If anything illegal is posted, including avatars and sigs, people report it and an admin can remove it, simply because it's not our business to override the law - we're not a law unto ourselves.
charlou
22nd December 2011, 06:43 AM
And I'm not into canvassing anything for approval either. We work from the assumption that members will behave responsibly, and remove illegal content only as a pragmatic measure.
oblivion
22nd December 2011, 07:00 AM
And I'm not into canvassing anything for approval either. We work from the assumption that members will behave responsibly, and remove illegal content only as a pragmatic measure.
this sounds good to me.
There's no way to run a forum without using discretion, but the less that is up to discretion the better IMO.
this sounds good to me.
There's no way to run a forum without using discretion, but the less that is up to discretion the better IMO.
Hermit
22nd December 2011, 09:51 AM
Could we set avatars to be limited to approved images (say, approved by 2 admins)?Are you sure that is a good idea? If that is what you want, we may as well make every post subject to approval by two administrators. Let's just work on the assumption that nobody sets out to break the law via activities on this forum, and clean up swiftly after the rare exception has occurred.
This leads me to another issue, which is no provision for suspensions of members that flood the forum with posts that are plainly criminal, but a discussion of that belongs to another thread.
This leads me to another issue, which is no provision for suspensions of members that flood the forum with posts that are plainly criminal, but a discussion of that belongs to another thread.
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 02:16 PM
I don't so much think it's a good idea, but was looking for a way to not allow anyone to cause illegal material to be hosted by our forum/server. Probably responding to the unusual case is more practical than making a rule to interfere with everyone.
I think a criminal 'flood' would be spam, and could be treated as such.
I think a criminal 'flood' would be spam, and could be treated as such.
charlou
23rd December 2011, 12:47 AM
I think a criminal 'flood' would be spam, and could be treated as such.
Agreed .. with a degree of contextual analysis, though. For example, a member at rationalia posts in his usual way most of the time and occasionally goes on a spree of spamming for shock effect. I would not ban him, just remove any illegal content. I think there are enough admins that we ought to be able to keep up with that sort of thing.
Agreed .. with a degree of contextual analysis, though. For example, a member at rationalia posts in his usual way most of the time and occasionally goes on a spree of spamming for shock effect. I would not ban him, just remove any illegal content. I think there are enough admins that we ought to be able to keep up with that sort of thing.
nostrum
23rd December 2011, 03:49 AM
yup *nods*
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét