Metabble_King wrote:
DaveGX wrote:
How exactly do the negatives outweight the positives when a lot of people saying no havenb't really backed up their reasons why? Lots repeat whgat other people think without backing up their reasons why. Adding image signatures isn't going to make a mess of anything at all. I don't see anypone complaining about avatar images, so it shouldn't make much difference here.
Avatar images appear to the left hand side of the text. They aren't in your face the whole time you're trying to read the posts. They are little squares on the left hand side and serve a worthy purpose; they let you identify who the heck is talking very, very quickly. Avatars have a purpose, with few negatives. Image signatures have no purpose. They just slow down loading, and make the page twice as long. Plus, I find 90% of the images people choose for their signitures to be pointless.
Most people just post pictures of popular crap, which doesn't show their originality at all. Oh, yes, and 10% of signatures will contain Fluttershy or something equally annoying, You don't want that, trust me.
No offense, but image signatures "aren't in your face" weither; They simply sit on the bottom of your posts and there's no reason why NL can't make a size limitation if it's such a distraction to everybody. Signatures serve the same purposeI explained in 1 of my previous posts, which is freedom of expression, which really isn't much different than what avatar images do also. Don't tell me what I want and don't want, I do want that because guess what? I already post in a couple other forums that already have them, and really the loading times isn't that big of a deal so they're not as long as you think. So what if people want pictures of "popular crap"? So, we're allowed to have images of "popular crap" for avatar images but not signautres?! Come on now.....




