Un-sigable smilies

[inferno]

Hey, i was thinking this morning about the "no pictures in sigs" rule. Dont get me wrong, I greatly apreciate the rule. I've ben to forums that allow it and it's so annoying. But what i was thinking is what if you could severely limit the filesize of pictures in sigs. I mean really small, like smilie small. You see, the smilies on GTP's "more smilies" page cant be put in signatures because they aren't code, they're just animated gifs of whatever. I've always wanted to have this little didy in my sig:

The beauty of all wheel drive


But as of now I cant. Sorry if this is out of the question. To quote an up and coming rap artist, "they say a closed mouth dont get fed, so I dont mind askin"

 

[Jpec07]

Well, I see no problem with a signature such as that one, but the only problem would be the fairness deal. If we allowed them for your use, we'd have to allow them for everyone's use. This could pose a problem.

Currently we have a 6-line limit on the signatures, and the inclusion of too many smilies is just undesirable to view. People would undoubtedly abuse this new freedom, if you will, and ruin it for people like you. Simply put, it's just not a good idea.

Back in the day though, before we got to the last two releases of GTP's layout, all of the non-siggable smilies used to have their own little codes. :burnout: used to wield the smilies you're currently using in that post, as was the case with every one of the smilies you see in that directory; they all used to have a code that included them. Then Jordan made the switch, and with some 200 smilies to reinclude into a new directory, no one was up to the monotony of including them (not to mention that their use was beginning to be a bit overwhelming).

That's just my $.02...

 

[1X83Z]

The real damn problem is the 500 character limit, which unbelievably applies to code. You're actually rewarded for normally-sized signatures exceeding six lines because it's part of the character limit if you try to make the text smaller. Ick.

 

[inferno]

...

Well I never expected it to be a special privelage situation, in regards to the "do it for one, do it for all" situation. I cant imagine someone putting 200 smilies in their signature for any reason other than simply "because they can" But I completly understand. Pictures is sigs, or having 200 smilies is out of the question because it would be abused. And besides, like you said, reincluding all those smilies would be a task to put it mildly.

 

[Jordan]

I can understand exactly why you'd like to use those smilies for your signature, but excluding the majority of our extra smilies from signatures is actually a desired side affect. I think there are a lot of great smilies out there: they are the ideal way to convey emotion in typed words. Other smilies are fun, but they don't contribute to what a user has to say, instead making their post less readable and more distracting. That's why I only included emotionally expressive smilies in our list, and made the others less accessible so they will only be used sparingly.

 

[Duke]

The real damn problem is the 500 character limit, which unbelievably applies to code.

Who has 500 words important enough to be worth reading 200 times a day?