ASRRGASHDFASDR

Code of conduct, suggestions, and information on forums.debian.net.
Message
Author
User avatar
llivv
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-02-14 18:10
Location: cold storage

#21 Post by llivv »

'
Last edited by llivv on 2019-02-16 08:53, edited 1 time in total.
In memory of Ian Ashley Murdock (1973 - 2015) founder of the Debian project.

User avatar
Dargor
Posts: 671
Joined: 2006-08-14 08:54
Location: New Zealand, Hamilton

#22 Post by Dargor »

I would just like to point out that sigs that include more than one line of text and have any pictures are way more anying than any avitar, that this forum seems to have sorted out pretty well.

I think that avitar size isnt anywere near as anoying as sigs, because when reading posts its the sigs that you have to look over, the avitars are on the side out of the way.

sorry just got lost in the sigs inbetween some posts in a different forum and thought this was a relevant place to rant.

thamarok

#23 Post by thamarok »

Maybe we should open our own Debian community with a max avatar size of 640x480 :)

User avatar
Fluenza
Posts: 245
Joined: 2006-11-22 18:44
Location: Fog of War

#24 Post by Fluenza »

Grifter wrote:
Well **** you and the horse you rode in on.

This change that came about was the will of the elite, there was no voting, there was no polling of users' opinions, it happened because the powerful few _could_ make it happen and to excercise a powertrip over us mere mortals.
You sound like me and many of the residents of my town. For you, the issue is an administartion that is perceived by you to be oppressive. Although, if they were truly oppressive, they would have banned you for being the voice of dissent. They haven't, so it's possible that you're blowing things out of proportion... Maybe?

My personal problem revolves around a free-speech advocate who claims that only "she" is entitled to speak freely. Everyone else should be denied a voice, and placed under surveillance for seeking to be heard. That's my issue with Blackburn... I'll spare you the details.

Suffice it to say, it's important to maintain the high ground. And never, ever, ever, surrender when you're right! Never! And if it means that some powerful and elite person or person(s) look bad or lose face... Oh well, too bad for them. :wink:
Visualize, Describe, Direct (VDD)
Common Operational Picture (COP) --> Common Operational Response (COR) --> Common Operational Effect (COE)

User avatar
Optional
Posts: 349
Joined: 2007-02-05 05:02

#25 Post by Optional »

I miss grifter's avatar. 8)

80x80 @ 10kb is somewhat... er... thrifty... in terms of filesize/screen real estate.

Wide is bad; tall really isn't.

If morons insist on setting enormous (like, 1mb+) avatars, well... they're morons. What can I say?

Jeroen
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Posts: 571
Joined: 2004-04-06 18:19
Location: Utrecht, NL
Contact:

#26 Post by Jeroen »

Ok, let me go into a couple of points made.

About admin silence: There are only very few admins, and fortunately, not that much admin action is actually required. Lavene was added to the admin group because actually the other admins didn't always get around good enough to the number one thing being requested of admins: solving account issues (people losing passwords, not getting activation mails, etc), and she's been an enormous and appreciated help in this regard.

I'm happy that the forums are such popular nowadays, unfortunately, I have quite some other Debian tasks too, which are of higher priority -- as long as the forums run fine, and the moderator team deals with issues fine, I don't see why I should interfere. I do make sure that forums.debian.net keeps running technically fine, making backups, etc etc.

Anyway, as to the question of avatar limits: one needs to realize that avatar images are forced upon everybody reading topics of these forums. Dimension limits are in place because too big avatars distract from the content, and may ruin the layout. Also, it has happened several times that users that have some sort of offensive avatar or the like get a request from a moderator to please change the avatar. To the best of my recollection, we never technically enforced that, or maybe only once.

As to the file size limit: users browsing these forums are also forced to download the avatars. The pages are already pretty heavy, big avatars would severely decrease the speed pages will load on users with low-bandwidth internet.

Both limits are intended to provide users of the forums with a better overall experience. I've yet to see a good argument why it's really needed for someone to have a bigger avatar. Surely it doesn't impede anyone's ability to help others or to post questions on these forums.

I do not believe avatars are a required feature. They are a nicety to provide users with a bit of recognition, and as such, I'm fine with having them. As to free speech, eh, I've heard that argument too often, and sorry, it does not hold. Start your own blog/website/forum where you can say and show whatever you want, on forums.debian.net you get to abide by our (very liberal IMHO) guidelines, generally at the discretion of the moderator team.

W.r.t. annoying signatures, if some specific user's signature is annoying in any way, please either raise your concern with the user in question directly, or if that fails/you don't want to do that, send a mail to the moderator team at team@forums.debian.net, and we might request the user to adjust his/her signature if we agree. Actually, this is valid for anything that might annoy you on these forums, either try to resolve it directly, or contact the moderator team/admin team as appropriate. Complaining loudly in public is not going to get you anywhere.

Grifter
Posts: 1572
Joined: 2006-05-04 07:53
Location: Svea Rike

#27 Post by Grifter »

Jeroen wrote:Dimension limits are in place because too big avatars distract from the content, and may ruin the layout.
Who the hell are you to say what distracts from content or not? Browsers can be configured to not display images, or you can choose a browser that doesn't display any images at all.
Jeroen wrote: Also, it has happened several times that users that have some sort of offensive avatar
How does this have _anything_ to do with this thread?
Jeroen wrote: As to the file size limit: users browsing these forums are also forced to download the avatars. The pages are already pretty heavy, big avatars would severely decrease the speed pages will load on users with low-bandwidth internet.
Again RIDICULOUS! People with too little bandwidth can turn off images in their OWN browsers or choose a browser that doesn't display ANY images.
Jeroen wrote: Both limits are intended to provide users of the forums with a better overall experience. I've yet to see a good argument why it's really needed for someone to have a bigger avatar. Surely it doesn't impede anyone's ability to help others or to post questions on these forums.

I do not believe avatars are a required feature.
Well there's the problem. I guess it's all about you. What you like to see. What you like to download. Forget anyone else.

But you're quite right, this is your personal forum, and you get to dictate rules, so I'll take my crap and pack up.

I'm out.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines...

Jeroen
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Posts: 571
Joined: 2004-04-06 18:19
Location: Utrecht, NL
Contact:

#28 Post by Jeroen »

The decision was made in accordance to consensus within the moderator team. And as to who I am to say what distracts and what not, let me quote a random mail we got last october about avatars:
Lavene mentioned limiting avatar size. I think this is a good idea. I don't want to turn display of avatar off because it can sometimes indicate something about the person posting and thus affect the "tone" of the discussion. However, when someone uses a large one in a post with a terse reply, the avatar size forces a large blank space to be used, wasting screen space and, presumably, forum storage space. I want to support Lavene's comment about 100x100 or some other logical small size.
So far, there has only been mail requesting avatar size limiting, and not a single mail being opposed to it. And well, honestly, I still don't like your way of discussing matters, so I don't feel terribly compelled to really get into discussion with you.

This will be my last message in this topic unless some really new arguments/whatever pop up.

User avatar
Pobega
Posts: 870
Joined: 2007-01-04 04:30
Location: New York

#29 Post by Pobega »

Jeroen, couldn't you just raise the avatar filesize limit? I mean, you can restrict the size so that it doesn't stretch the page but still give us enough room to be creative with our avatars (10 kilobytes is barely anything to work with, I actually had to work for a while to get my avatar to be under 10kb).

I understand the reason behind limiting the size of avatars, but I think the decision that the moderating team made was a little bit too drastic.

I mean, all browsers cache (Unless the user turned it off, but then it's his/her fault), so avatar filesize shouldn't be that much of a problem (A 50 kilobyte limit should do fine, in my opinion).

mdevour
Posts: 342
Joined: 2006-03-05 17:55

#30 Post by mdevour »

Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses! That may not be all warm and fuzzy, but it is reality.

A forum like this is the private property of whoever is paying the bills. Unless they say otherwise in their Terms of Service, every one of us is a guest here and participation is a privelege that can be withdrawn at any time for any reason.

Not everyone understands this, obviously. :roll:

I'd support an increase to maybe 20 or 30k filesize. That ought to give most people enough pallette depth to do whatever they want in 80 x 80 pixels... but you can see how important avatars are to me! :lol:

Thanks for running the place for us, folks.

Mike D.

User avatar
Fluenza
Posts: 245
Joined: 2006-11-22 18:44
Location: Fog of War

#31 Post by Fluenza »

mdevour wrote:Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses! That may not be all warm and fuzzy, but it is reality.
Poor analogy. Comparing these forums to a newspaper or magazine is akin to comparing its users to the writers and editors. A valid comparison, but one that makes the users "owners" of the presses. :wink: In other words, if there were no users, there would be no content, if there were no content, there would be no forum.
mdevour wrote: A forum like this is the private property of whoever is paying the bills. Unless they say otherwise in their Terms of Service, every one of us is a guest here and participation is a privelege that can be withdrawn at any time for any reason.
That is correct. This forum actually belongs to someone. That someone reserves the right to conduct his/her private endeavour in whichever manner he/she pleases. There is no requirement that these forums must exist. They are not mandated by law or required as part of any moral or ethical obligation. They exist as an offering, a gift, if you will, to the Debian community. The Debian community is under no obligation to use these particular forums and are free to come and go as they please.

Having said that, there must be recognition of the fact that it is the users who make the forums what they are. Merely owning a town does not make it a community. It is in this respect that the users do have the right to voice their opinions about how the forums are operated and to bring valid objections to terms or policies that interrupt the ebb or flow of the community. Grifter is within his right, as a valued contributing member, to voice his objection to a change in policy.
mdevour wrote: Not everyone understands this, obviously. :roll:
People understand the concept of ownership. People also understand the concept of value. While the admins may own the forum, it is the users that give the forum its value. In the big picture, it is the users that are paramount for a forum such as this to succeed.
mdevour wrote: I'd support an increase to maybe 20 or 30k filesize. That ought to give most people enough pallette depth to do whatever they want in 80 x 80 pixels... but you can see how important avatars are to me! :lol:
That would seem a palettable compromise. I would support this as well, even though I personally choose not to use an avatar at all.
Visualize, Describe, Direct (VDD)
Common Operational Picture (COP) --> Common Operational Response (COR) --> Common Operational Effect (COE)

Jeroen
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Posts: 571
Joined: 2004-04-06 18:19
Location: Utrecht, NL
Contact:

#32 Post by Jeroen »

I don't understand why 10kB is not enough for 80x80 sized images. If I save a 80x80 photo image using jpeg in the default compression quality of 80 (that is, pretty high quality, on a scale of 0 to 100 where 100 is best quality), I get at 9738 bytes. jpeg is a perfect match for photo-like images. If you have linedrawing or something, .png would be better, and I couldn't get it to get images of more than 10.000 bytes except when using very diversely-coloured photographic images.

So, my honest question is, please provide an example where 10kB would *not* be enough, and that it is not trivially fixable? Consider that there are up to 15 posts per page, with 10kB, that can already be up to 150kB per page, for just the avatars.

User avatar
Dargor
Posts: 671
Joined: 2006-08-14 08:54
Location: New Zealand, Hamilton

#33 Post by Dargor »

Jeroen wrote:... users with low-bandwidth internet.
This doesn't effect a users ability to read the forum, the text loads first, then any images.

User avatar
Pobega
Posts: 870
Joined: 2007-01-04 04:30
Location: New York

#34 Post by Pobega »

Jeroen wrote:So, my honest question is, please provide an example where 10kB would *not* be enough, and that it is not trivially fixable? Consider that there are up to 15 posts per page, with 10kB, that can already be up to 150kB per page, for just the avatars.
Well, the main thing that would go above 10kB would be moving gifs. And I know those are a pretty popular forum avatar format.

I'm not trying to argue here Jeroen, I'm just trying to make a statement. I just think that 10kB is too small of a limit. If the moderator team doesn't want to raise the limit then there is no reason to, but like I said, in my opinion (And in the opinion of a fraction of the forum goers) the 10kB limit is too small.

Jeroen
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Debian Developer, Site Admin
Posts: 571
Joined: 2004-04-06 18:19
Location: Utrecht, NL
Contact:

#35 Post by Jeroen »

Pobega wrote:Well, the main thing that would go above 10kB would be moving gifs. And I know those are a pretty popular forum avatar format.
Ah, I didn't consider that. Well, I'll reluctantly throw it in the moderator group then.

User avatar
AgenT
Posts: 500
Joined: 2007-01-21 01:25

#36 Post by AgenT »

Animated gif avatars are not allowed on a lot of forums due to the fact that a lot of users tend to abuse them. Not to mention their function is to distract people. Avatars can sometimes be nice because they are an easier way to identify posters as in the example of quickly scrolling by and noticing your own avatar, which is easier than noticing your own nickname.

Now for the big question: is there a way to disable avatars on a per-user basis? I do not like them myself and disabling images is not an option because that would disable all images, including buttons, on the forum. And please don't expect anyone to install special software just to do it.

Jeroen,
In case you are in doubt, there are users behind your stance on avatars and especially users who are very grateful for your service to this forum and the Debian community as a whole. Don't take one immature fellow who cannot control his anger and thinks that cursing people that do way more for the community is somehow acceptable.

mdevour
Posts: 342
Joined: 2006-03-05 17:55

#37 Post by mdevour »

Fluenza wrote:Poor analogy. Comparing these forums to a newspaper or magazine is akin to comparing its users to the writers and editors. A valid comparison, but one that makes the users "owners" of the presses. :wink: In other words, if there were no users, there would be no content, if there were no content, there would be no forum.
Granted. But, then, the newspaper gets to pick who's published, don't they?
That is correct. This forum actually belongs to someone. That someone reserves the right to conduct his/her private endeavour in whichever manner he/she pleases. ...
Having said that, there must be recognition of the fact that it is the users who make the forums what they are. Merely owning a town does not make it a community.
And that's a good analogy!
Grifter is within his right, as a valued contributing member, to voice his objection to a change in policy.
Of course, but as a guest he has no right to behave rudely or to make demands.

Mike D.

User avatar
Fluenza
Posts: 245
Joined: 2006-11-22 18:44
Location: Fog of War

#38 Post by Fluenza »

mdevour wrote:
Grifter is within his right, as a valued contributing member, to voice his objection to a change in policy.
Of course, but as a guest he has no right to behave rudely or to make demands.

Mike D.
I agree. Grifter was within his right to object to a change in policy. However, the manner in which Grifter chose to air his grievance was somewhat uncalled for.
Visualize, Describe, Direct (VDD)
Common Operational Picture (COP) --> Common Operational Response (COR) --> Common Operational Effect (COE)

User avatar
Pobega
Posts: 870
Joined: 2007-01-04 04:30
Location: New York

#39 Post by Pobega »

AgenT wrote:Jeroen,
In case you are in doubt, there are users behind your stance on avatars and especially users who are very grateful for your service to this forum and the Debian community as a whole. Don't take one immature fellow who cannot control his anger and thinks that cursing people that do way more for the community is somehow acceptable.
I just want to note that although I side with Grifter I don't agree with the way he went about discussing it, and I am very grateful for the admins who run this server. I just thought I'd throw my two cents into the discussion :roll:

User avatar
Optional
Posts: 349
Joined: 2007-02-05 05:02

#40 Post by Optional »

You could just prevent animated gifs from being used and have normal width/height limitations. (well, maybe not in phpBB, because it SUCKS)

Oh well.

edit: lol, phpBB is too stupid to differentiate between an edit and a post... "you cannot post so soon after your last post", etc.

Post Reply