Gamercards in Sigs REVISITED (Vote now!!!)

[pk500]

I don't have an Xbox 360, but I vote no. I like the sticky idea. No need to clutter every post with an image, which hogs bandwidth. We haven't allowed images in sigs for three-plus years here, so I don't see why we should start now.

Plus, aren't these Gamercards available to view online? Can't you see your Friends' Gamercards when playing your Xbox 360? If so, that will do nicely.

Take care,
PK

[Toper]

Toper,

Congratulations on your win. Hopefully, most people will just use the sticky.

Thank you...I never did like the sticky idea, but I'll keep it in mind.

[Toper]

I don't have an Xbox 360, but I vote no. I like the sticky idea. No need to clutter every post with an image, which hogs bandwidth. We haven't allowed images in sigs for three-plus years here, so I don't see why we should start now.

Plus, aren't these Gamercards available to view online? Can't you see your Friends' Gamercards when playing your Xbox 360? If so, that will do nicely.

Take care,
PK

PK,

I respect your opinion.

However, I don't even want to hear the "bandwidth" argument...the image is less than 4kb.

[webdanzer]

Regardless, it IS showing that more people are FOR it than AGAINST it. I think one full week is good...I'm sure that if I closed the polls early with the FORS leading, you would still be upset.

So if in the next couple of days the 'nays' pass the 'fors', we'll have everyone remove the tags, right?

Nope...I wouldn't put it past some of you guys to create new accounts just for the sake of voting AGAINST.

So YOU have the right to extend the deadline but we don't? Nice.

[pk500]

I'm just glad that the majority of folks here are at least in favor of giving people the CHOICE to do something that is entirely OPTIONAL.

I totally agree. Do I have the option of turning off sigs here?

No, but you have the option of scrolling past them.

Toper:

I know what a Gamercard is, but please tell me what information that Gamercard image delivers? It has a picture, some stars, a number and a word. Big sh*t.

And we're adding clutter for that? Remember, too, that there are DSPers who still are on dial-up, and the more graphics we add to the page, the slower their experience will be.

Scoop has the right idea with the sticky. I rarely swing the mod's big stick here, but I'm going to talk with Jared about this "Gamercard in sig" issue and try to convince him to squelch the practice.

The cons -- slower browsing, clutter, more bandwidth -- far outweigh the pros -- an ego stroke.

Take care,
PK

[Toper]

So if in the next couple of days the 'nays' pass the 'fors', we'll have everyone remove the tags, right?

Nope...I wouldn't put it past some of you guys to create new accounts just for the sake of voting AGAINST.

So YOU have the right to extend the deadline but we don't? Nice.

Nice sourgrapes.

[Leebo33]

Web, it is your fault. You are the one that bumped this thread.

[webdanzer]

Yeah, I didn't realize at the time when the polls were supposedly over that the thread creator was a banana republic style dictator who could then 'extend' the deadline until things went his way.

Seriously, Toper, you ask the board originally, are told no. Then you PM badger Jared until he allows the vote, which is at best tied at the end of your deadline. Then days later you declare the 'new' vote to count, then refuse to allow for future changes???

And look up the definition of sour grapes. There's nothing of the sort in my reply.

[Toper]

I totally agree. Do I have the option of turning off sigs here?

No, but you have the option of scrolling past them.

Toper:

I know what a Gamercard is, but please tell me what information that Gamercard image delivers? It has a picture, some stars, a number and a word. Big sh*t.

And we're adding clutter for that? Remember, too, that there are DSPers who still are on dial-up, and the more graphics we add to the page, the slower their experience will be.

Scoop has the right idea with the sticky. I rarely swing the mod's big stick here, but I'm going to talk with Jared about this "Gamercard in sig" issue and try to convince him to squelch the practice.

The cons -- slower browsing, clutter, more bandwidth -- far outweigh the pros -- an ego stroke.

Take care,
PK

It has an avatar picture (which is no different than the avatars we use now)

Stars that tell you the feedback rating of the user. People are always complaining about about playing "random" people...this tells you IMMEDIATELY if the person is a straight up person or not.

Number is an Achievment rating and word is the type of user.

I totally hear your arguments but like I've said, people have voted.

Anyways, that's a low blow to call it an ego stroke. I asked Jared for a vote because I saw Jon's post, and I also got some PM's asking me how to do this in other forums, so I thought there was interest.

I can also see where this whole thing is headed, so I'm just gonna remove it and just say forget the whole thing. I'm just disappointed at how some of you guys react when things don't go your way. No hard feelings to anyone, and ruffling feathers was not my intent.

Toper

[Toper]

Yeah, I didn't realize at the time when the polls were supposedly over that the thread creater was a banana republic style dictator who could then 'extend' the deadline until things went his way.

Seriously, Toper, you ask the board originally, are told no. Then you PM badger Jared until he allows the vote, which is at best tied at the end of your deadline. Then days later you declare the 'new' vote to count, then refuse to allow for future changes???

And look up the definition of sour grapes. There's nothing of the sort in my reply.

Web,

Since we're being "serious" now, I did not ask the board originally, I asked Jared. Then, Jared ALLOWED a vote (so talk smack about him too, while you're at it). I did not declare a new vote count...I saw this thread bumped, and noticed a new score.

Anyways, the point is moot. I hope you guys are done taking cheap shots at me because I'm done with this thread.

[webdanzer]

Never mind. Made a mistake!

[Toper]

Yeah, I didn't realize at the time when the polls were supposedly over that the thread creater was a banana republic style dictator who could then 'extend' the deadline until things went his way.

Seriously, Toper, you ask the board originally, are told no. Then you PM badger Jared until he allows the vote, which is at best tied at the end of your deadline. Then days later you declare the 'new' vote to count, then refuse to allow for future changes???

And look up the definition of sour grapes. There's nothing of the sort in my reply.

Web,

Since we're being "serious" now, I did not ask the board originally, I asked Jared. Then, Jared ALLOWED a vote (so talk smack about him too, while you're at it). I did not declare a new vote count...I saw this thread bumped, and noticed a new score.

Anyways, the point is moot. I hope you guys are done taking cheap shots at me because I'm done with this thread.

But you saw the thread bumped only when the votes had flipped? There were posts here on the 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and today. *My* post bumped it (over the only gap that would be large enough to need a bump) on the 11th, and at that time and for a while after discussions began about setting up the other thread, the vote was still against or tied.

It just seems to me that when you set up a poll and give a deadline, the results at the end of the deadline should matter.

Since this isn't a cheap shot, I'll reply.

Yes, I did give a deadline. It was my first time running a poll, and I should've entered a deadline in the thread.

I really didn't see what the vote count was prior to today. I'm sorry I don't scour every thread daily like some of you guys. Also, even though I gave a deadline, some people still voted and their vote should still be heard regardless (IMO).

Anyways, like I've said, it's all moot now.

[Toper]

Never mind. Made a mistake!

Too late!!!

[pk500]

I can also see where this whole thing is headed, so I'm just gonna remove it and just say forget the whole thing. I'm just disappointed at how some of you guys react when things don't go your way. No hard feelings to anyone, and ruffling feathers was not my intent.

Toper

How we react when things don't go our way? Find the nearest mirror, man.

After all, you extended the voting deadline for the poll to suit your purposes.

Now, is the pot or kettle black?

Take care,
PK

[webdanzer]

Web,

Since we're being "serious" now, I did not ask the board originally, I asked Jared. Then, Jared ALLOWED a vote (so talk smack about him too, while you're at it). I did not declare a new vote count...I saw this thread bumped, and noticed a new score.

Anyways, the point is moot. I hope you guys are done taking cheap shots at me because I'm done with this thread.

But you saw the thread bumped only when the votes had flipped? There were posts here on the 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and today. *My* post bumped it (over the only gap that would be large enough to need a bump) on the 11th, and at that time and for a while after discussions began about setting up the other thread, the vote was still against or tied.

It just seems to me that when you set up a poll and give a deadline, the results at the end of the deadline should matter.

Since this isn't a cheap shot, I'll reply.

Yes, I did give a deadline. It was my first time running a poll, and I shouldn't have entered a deadline then.

I really didn't see what the vote count was prior to today. I'm sorry I don't scour every thread daily like some of you guys. Also, even though I gave a deadline, some people still voted and their vote should still be heard regardless (IMO).

Anyways, like I've said, it's all moot now.

Some of my original post was wrong, Toper, so sorry about that. My post was on the 13th, but the rest of it was correct about the votes being for the nays or for a tie over the deadline.

I'm fine with you saying that "some people still voted and their vote should still be heard regardless (IMO)." but then disregarding future votes as I questioned you about in my first response seems hypocritical. 'Yes, votes after the deadline count, but only some of them, the ones that were in between the time the deadline passed and I 'noticed' the thread.'

I didn't venture into this to execute any cheap shots, I just thought the resolution of this seemed pretty arbitrary and unfair according to the instructions as given.

[Toper]

After all, you extended the voting deadline for the poll to suit your purposes.

And you voted in a poll and commented in this thread AFTER the "deadline" passed to suit yours.

Now, is the pot or kettle black?

Wow, never heard you use that line before.

[Toper]

But you saw the thread bumped only when the votes had flipped? There were posts here on the 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and today. *My* post bumped it (over the only gap that would be large enough to need a bump) on the 11th, and at that time and for a while after discussions began about setting up the other thread, the vote was still against or tied.

It just seems to me that when you set up a poll and give a deadline, the results at the end of the deadline should matter.

Since this isn't a cheap shot, I'll reply.

Yes, I did give a deadline. It was my first time running a poll, and I shouldn't have entered a deadline then.

I really didn't see what the vote count was prior to today. I'm sorry I don't scour every thread daily like some of you guys. Also, even though I gave a deadline, some people still voted and their vote should still be heard regardless (IMO).

Anyways, like I've said, it's all moot now.

Some of my original post was wrong, Toper, so sorry about that. My post was on the 13th, but the rest of it was correct about the votes being for the nays or for a tie over the deadline.

I'm fine with you saying that "some people still voted and their vote should still be heard regardless (IMO)." but then disregarding future votes as I questioned you about in my first response seems hypocritical. 'Yes, votes after the deadline count, but only some of them, the ones that were in between the time the deadline passed and I 'noticed' the thread.'

I didn't venture into this to execute any cheap shots, I just thought the resolution of this seemed pretty arbitrary and unfair according to the instructions as given.

Sorry about my reply to your future votes post...it was made in the heat of the argument, and I take it back. Like I said, I set up the poll wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that there are people who wanted to see this besides me. Honestly, I'm not trying to "champion" a cause or get my "ego stroked"...it really isn't as big a deal to me as some of you make it out to be.

[pk500]

Now, is the pot or kettle black?

Wow, never heard you use that line before.

Not original, but it fits this time. I could say "Is the cauldron or pan alabaster?" if you prefer.

Take care,
PK

[Leebo33]

LOL @ us.

Since it seems like the sticky thread is going to be a success is there a way I can have it update automatically?

What is the code?

[Toper]

Now, is the pot or kettle black?

Wow, never heard you use that line before.

Not original, but it fits this time. I could say "Is the cauldron or pan alabaster?" if you prefer.

Take care,
PK

Fine by me...as long as you have the last word, I guess?

[dbdynsty25]

LOL @ us.

Since it seems like the sticky thread is going to be a success is there a way I can have it update automatically?

What is the code?

It will update automatically already. As soon as you load the page it just pulls the gamercards down in their updated form.

[Jared]

It was tied at the "deadline". Votes after the deadline don't count (sorry). So we will stick with the no gamertags policy.

HOWEVER, I will see if there's an update for this BB software where people can disable graphical sigs by choice. Currently, there is not. If we can set things up so that there is an option to disable graphical sigs by user, would the "no" voters be fine with that?

[HipE]

I just voted no. In fact, I'd like avatars banned as well, that way I could visit the forum more often at work.

[pk500]

If we can set things up so that there is an option to disable graphical sigs by user, would the "no" voters be fine with that?

Sure. Sounds good.

Take care,
PK

[Leebo33]

If we can set things up so that there is an option to disable graphical sigs by user, would the "no" voters be fine with that?

Absolutely.