Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duke 2.0]

I'm for the move. There is one thing I would like to keep.

No multiple quotes inside quotes. Sure it could be useful and helpful, but I hate seeing threads filled with large walls of the space around quotes around quotes around quotes. Perhaps if we do have quotes inside quotes we could have a rule that we should not overuse 'em unless for discribing a recursive artifact.

[AlmostEverywhere]

I know very little about forum software, but I do really like the idea of the only allowed avatars being in-game graphics.  I'd go with 'S', or maybe '&'.

After you have some number of posts perhaps it's allowed to blink.

[ May 23, 2008: Message edited by: AlmostEverywhere ]

[Narushima]

No avatars nor image signatures for me. The nickname is enough to identify the poster, I think.

[Janus]

quote:Originally posted by AlmostEverywhere:
<STRONG>I know very little about forum software, but I do really like the idea of the only allowed avatars being in-game graphics.  I'd go with 'S', or maybe '&'.

After you have some number of posts perhaps it's allowed to blink.</STRONG>

Selectable avatars of in-game characters does sound like a neat idea, with the little bearded smiley face dwarf character in all of the different profession colors, 'g'oblins, 'k'obolds, 'H'umans, 'E'lves, '&' demons, and a few more. I could whip up an avatar pack of those myself.

In regards to any permissions whatsoever depending on post count, I strongly vote no.
As for forum ranks (based on post count or not), I'd also say probably not for this forum.

[ May 23, 2008: Message edited by: Janus ]

[Janus]

EDIT: sorry, another accidental double post when trying to edit. I won't miss doing that.  :p

[ May 23, 2008: Message edited by: Janus ]

[Eagleon]

I don't mind avatars at all, as long as they remain within a reasonable size limit. Large banner-style images in signatures and overly long signatures get on my nerves big-time, but I suppose if you had the option of disabling images in them it wouldn't be so bad. As for avatars hogging server space from one-post users, that isn't necessarily true. If you said explicitly that inactive users will have their avatar image deleted after a certain length of time, that'd cut down on most of that, and if it's still too much of an issue, you don't have to allow avatar uploading at all. Photobucket works nicely.

Also, I would much prefer post counts to be hidden within the user's profile page as it is now. From experiences in the past, it tends to lead to some silly elitism if it's visible straight away, and that's the last thing DF's community needs. Just my two cents. I don't really mind either way if we move.

[Torak]

quote:Originally posted by Eagleon:
<STRONG>Also, I would much prefer post counts to be hidden within the user's profile page as it is now. From experiences in the past, it tends to lead to some silly elitism if it's visible straight away, and that's the last thing DF's community needs. Just my two cents. I don't really mind either way if we move.</STRONG>

I'd gladly tell someone who thinks they're awesome for 1000+ posts that they're a(n) ____(noun).

[Janus]

If you did allow custom avatars, you could leave it as only allowing off-site avatars (hosted elsewhere, such as imageshack.us) rather than letting people upload them to the forum itself. That would save a bit on bandwidth use and space used for the forum, and be ever so slightly more secure.

Also, for people who don't like to have to look at avatars or signatures, it's possible in SMF for users to disable having them displayed in their profile options. So, for that user, the forum would appear avatar and signature free. There's probably the same capability in phpBB3 as well.

[Abyssal Squid]

I think most avatar anxieties could be elimimated if they were limited to 100x100 px static images (no animated gifs), and if you're feeling really hardcore, an "avatars off" option.  Animations aside, the sort of person who'd have a terrible avatar would probably also have a terrible username and terrible posts, and getting rid of avatars won't get rid of usernames and posts.  A dwarf gallery would be cute, but since there's more to Bay 12 than just dwarves, I don't think it's appropriate to restrict people to that.

ASCII-only avatars are incredibly pretentious, but I don't have a problem with making signatures text-only.

[Dasleah]

I like the idea of a set avatar gallery. Perhaps it should be a collection of Dwarf Fortress screencaps with captions, created and submitted by the community? All subject to approval by the Mods (are we even getting moderators?) / Toady. Of course, the more darkly humorous the better.

[Kagus]

I'm not bothered by seeing avatars or sigs, even the overly-extravagant ones.  What I don't like are the people that come along with the avatar/sig culture, folks who shun the unadorned and who put far too much emphasis on expressing themselves through pictures that they had nothing to do with the creation of.

You can turn off your ability to see the avatars, but you can't turn off the people using them.

The little differently-colored ASCII characters would be the closest thing to full-on avatars and sig pictures that I'd feel comfortable with.

[PTTG??]

-No Avatars
-No Sigs
-ASCII Only
-Final Dest- ACK

On my forum (visitable via my sig), I don't allow any sig images as they do tend to get out of hand. I allow Avatars, simply because they are in high demand. Having a gallery is a nice option, but there probably won't be a very severe problem if you just let users choose. The only time I've had to interfere is when someone had an offensive text-only sig.

[Red Jackard]

quote:Originally posted by Narushima:
<STRONG>No avatars nor image signatures for me. The nickname is enough to identify the poster, I think.</STRONG>

Now that I think about it, like to point out that both of these new boards likely have profile options for hiding sigs and avatars; it is a very common thing nowadays.

Should probably ignore votes for 'no sig/av', if that is the case.

[ May 26, 2008: Message edited by: Red Jackard ]

[Janus]

After a bit of thought, all this discussion of which features we would want or not should probably wait until it's decided whether we move to a new system or not, and the process is completed (if it's decided to do so).

That way, we could have polls about each of these features which can be voted on after the move. Well, assuming this current version of UBB doesn't support polls, which it doesn't look like it does.

[isitanos]

I say, let's move! And I vote to keep a very similar theme to the current one, no avatars and no picture sigs. Keep it clean.
As far as which forum software to keep, I like phpBB3 because it's open-source software and has excellent options (especially admin options) but SMF seems to have interesting features as well.
phpBB3 vs SMF Feature comparison
SMF feature list
To see a forum working under phpBB3, visit the Spring forum