Web The ability to add images to your forums signature.

[Ellie Williams]

Simple

But what if someone adds a really big image?
If an image's dimensions are too large, then the website should either automatically scale the image down, or block them. I prefer the former option, but the latter could work if the former can't be done.

But people can use inappropriate images.
People can use inappropriate videos, texts, and images on other parts of the forums. Your argument is invalid.

It would make signatures look messy.
Perhaps the ability to enable/disable signatures in the settings menu would help?

Yes, there will be constraints on the amount of image(s) that a single signature may contain, determined by either the number of images or the total dimensions. Whatever works.

 

[Ellie Williams]

Any thoughts?

 

[God.]

I suppose that it could work , but that's all I have to say

 

[Fliqa]

It wouldn't look good in my opinion, it would look messy. So, no.

 

[Ellie Williams]

It wouldn't look good in my opinion, it would look messy. So, no.

Fine! Let me modify the suggestion.

 

[BringMeTheHorizon ♠]

But what if someone adds a really big image?

Images up to 383 x 144 pixels should be enough, maybe a bit higher.

But people can use inappropriate images.

They can use inappropriate pictures, doesn't mean we should disable them as well

It would make signatures look messy.
Perhaps the ability to enable/disable signatures in the settings menu would help?

As you can see from @Younisco's signature, I wouldn't say messy. Also, yeah, let other people disable them if they don't want to see large images (for either less mess purposes or to save more mobile data // internet)

Yes, there will be constraints on the amount of image(s) that a single signature may contain, determined by either the number of images or the total dimensions.

I don't think anyone needs more than a single image as a signature, that's better than none anyway so if this happened, let's be thankful.

All in all, +1, I was thinking of making such suggestion

 

[Injunction]

Well you already can in very specific circumstances
E.G. @Younisco 's current or ex signature

It would make signatures look messy.
Perhaps the ability to enable/disable signatures in the settings menu would help?

Thinking about that you need to take into account that many players wouldn't even know that
Being the amount of people who will try and make their signature just by typing it at the end of the message

If an image's dimensions are too large, then the website should either automatically scale the image down, or block them. I prefer the former option, but the latter could work if the former can't be done.

the former might make the image hard to see which would ruin the point of putting one in
the latter is also how it currently is to my knowledge

 

[Ellie Williams]

Well you already can in very specific circumstances

I think the only way to have an image in your signature currently is if you already had one before they were removed.

Thinking about that you need to take into account that many players wouldn't even know that
Being the amount of people who will try and make their signature just by typing it at the end of the message

Whatever. People look in the settings menu eventually.

the former might make the image hard to see which would ruin the point of putting one in

Not if you already have a small image.

the latter is also how it currently is to my knowledge

Nope. Can't add any image.

 

[Injunction]

Not if you already have a small image.

That kind of contradicts your original point though
I said that because You said “if an image’s dimensions are too large, then the website should either automatically scale the image down”

If the image was already small it wouldn’t need to be scaled down

Whatever. People look in the settings menu eventually.

“Whatever”
That is just dodging the argument
Also that is an assumption.

Imagine you have a chair making business with 8000 total people working in it. One day the CEO randomly makes an internal change that effects everyone working in the business (let’s say the CEO added his own private Adblock that would turn off ads on complany computers when downloaded) but he only told half the people working at the company about the change also advising everyone not to mention it to the other half that don’t know and to let them just figure it out for themselves

Do you really think all those 4000 people not told about it would figure it out on their own?

Yeah I am aware that isn’t a proper comparison of apples to apples, but it isn’t like it is a comparison of apples to oranges. It is more of a comparison of red apples to green apples

Pretty much the same but with different circumstances

 

[Ellie Williams]

“Whatever”
That is just dodging the argument
Also that is an assumption.

Imagine you have a chair making business with 8000 total people working in it. One day the CEO randomly makes an internal change that effects everyone working in the business (let’s say the CEO added his own private Adblock that would turn off ads on complany computers when downloaded) but he only told half the people working at the company about the change also advising everyone not to mention it to the other half that don’t know and to let them just figure it out for themselves

Do you really think all those 4000 people not told about it would figure it out on their own?

Yeah I am aware that isn’t a proper comparison of apples to apples, but it isn’t like it is a comparison of apples to oranges. It is more of a comparison of red apples to green apples

Pretty much the same but with different circumstances

Okay... what if we somehow tell everyone about it so that most people would know?