OT Added an image to my signature
October 27th, 2009 at 2:03 AM ^
This is personal preference. I think it's an eyesore, just like animated gif's, but it's just my opinion and I might be wrong.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:41 AM ^
Fortunately I'm not prone to seizures.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:10 AM ^
For some reason its not showing up for me, but I agree with david anyway, they usually take up too much space and are distracting
October 27th, 2009 at 2:16 AM ^
I.E. sees it fine.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:30 AM ^
I can't see it either. I'm using Safari.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:40 AM ^
I guess that MAC kid isn't so cool after all. I am a PC and I can see his cool ass pic. Weird.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:39 AM ^
and refresh
October 27th, 2009 at 8:57 AM ^
it kinda cool with the coaches. Now I forget the person who has it but the HUGE picture of Tate as their signature is little bit to much lol
October 27th, 2009 at 2:13 AM ^
I don't think it looks too bad. It's not very big and I think that would be the problem.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:15 AM ^
It's your signature. I'm a little more picky about what goes on top of it...but only a little.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:37 AM ^
"That's what she said."
October 27th, 2009 at 2:37 AM ^
Rock it till you knock it- its all up to you. Obviously, rhyme schemes take precedence over public opinion. But honestly, if you like it, keep it.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:38 AM ^
If everyone starts doing this, it definitely has the potential to get very annoying. I'd say no but it's not against the rules, so until it is, do whatever you wish.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:43 AM ^
Love the pic. It is not as bad as some who have signatures that are four or five lines long. Keep it. Bad ass. Shit. Crap. Gosh damn. Hell yeah. and all other yippee statements.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:55 AM ^
You should have Yost in there.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:31 AM ^
but I wouldn't use it as a signature. I figure it will get smacked down eventually. There's that whole slippery slope thingy.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:33 AM ^
who suddenly look over their left shoulder each time you post could lead to some unfortunate lawsuits. You may want to reconsider.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:45 AM ^
C'mon.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:13 AM ^
Great, now we've really become Scout over here. Those fuckers are always axing people, "Hey I got a new pic for a sig--it's really rad isn't it?"
October 27th, 2009 at 8:51 AM ^
Oh look, King of Belch is railing on Scout again, what a surprise.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:04 AM ^
Yeah, you're right. No need to rail anymore, it has been approaching scout level for a few months now. It's too late to rail now.
The first thing when I saw his post was "great, now we're going to get big pictures on the bottom of ridiculous things, as if the avatar isn't enough." I don't care if he has it or not. It's a free message board. As long as you're not unleashing personal attacks, crossing the proverbial line with hate language, politics, or over-reactionary you can do whatever is in your power.*
It's just the natural progression of message boards. No matter the attempt at upkeep, it will eventually devolve to scout level. Soon you'll start hearing people rail against that we're becoming mlive.
*Other exceptions may apply. Brian holds the final decision over subject manner and what the proverbial line is
October 27th, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^
MGoBoard > Scout > mlive >>>> Youtube comments
(The comment sections on Youtube might be the Internet's finest collection of mouthbreathing, hate-filled, illiterate pieces of garbage)
October 27th, 2009 at 8:15 AM ^
It might be an issue on the longer threads with a lot of replies when the comments are hugging the right side of the screen.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:33 AM ^
We are definitely headed along a Scout/Rivals path if sig pics start cropping up.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:56 AM ^
Big, fat NO to pictures in sigs.
Someone mentioned it, but slippery mf-ing slope. There's simply no need whatsoever to have a signature with a picture in it. None at all. There's hardly a need for signatures to begin with - we're all Michigan fans. We know the all time wins, winning percentages, nat'l titles, yadda yadda yadda.
Let's keep the space in threads limited to quality discussion - that's what's great about MGoBlog to begin with.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:35 AM ^
Ugh - people have avatars. That should be enough.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:38 AM ^
Large pictures in signatures? This is an excellent development! Now, users can now have a picture with like 20 barely clothed women in their signatures instead of the 5 or so that the small avatar limits them to, really showing the world what heterosexual stallions they are!!
October 27th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
IIRC, it was a dispute over a large picture of a barely-clothed young lady which caused Tom Beaver to leave Rivals, to GBW:Scout, which tKoB todays declares as the next step in MGoBlog evolution.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:13 PM ^
It takes up too much space. The pics should at least be banner size or smaller, we already have avatars like others mentioned.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^
I think it's a great picture, and it belongs somewhere, just not in a signature.
I already know that the first few posts I read from "that guy with the really sweet coaches pic in the signature" will cause me to smile. The 75th post with that same signature will make me want to burn the pixels in my computer screen.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^
We're lucky that no female posters have avatars or sigs with men wearing only an "M" g-string. Boutros (name?) picture is bad enough.
Seriously, it is important to remember that some of us bring up mgoblog with others around who can get offended at pics, so I guess the question (for most) is: would your mom approve of a pic? Remember the "NSFW" designation. If a pic is nsfw, don't use as an avatar or signature.
In general, I don't want things cluttered with ridiculous amounts of pics in avatars and signatures. But I guess what I (or other readers) want doesn't matter . . . do your own thing.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:45 PM ^
Well, it seems to me that for the most part people are not in favor of an image in the signature. I was on the fence and have now been convinced to get rid of it.