[Stryke 9]

Incidentially, is it really the avatar code that gives you accesses? I don't have a Rec avatar (guess I'm not on the staff proper, just a, uh, consultant or some technical term like that), but I get on the private forum easily enough.

[Shrike]

No, avatars and access is entirely seperate.

[Stryke 9]

Thought as much. So, the worry is more just people stealing the avatar and pretending to their friends to be on the staff of some project until the real staff started screaming at them?

Now THAT would be sad.

[Knight Templar]

t'would make for some nice drama
We haven't had any real drama in a loong time

[Stryke 9]

Yeah, somebody needs to hack something. Or Steak needs to come back, only to be smothered under a heap of fanatical worshippers and driven off again.

[an0n]

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42096&highlight=mods+edit+users

$canedit[title]=1;

Simple.

That way, project leaders could give people avatars and all you guys would have to do would be set permissions.

[J.F.K.]

You mean Setekh, right? Meh... we've got half a year of school left... quite the pain. He and I'll both be spending plenty more time here after... umm, six months time or so? Near November.

Originally posted by Sandwich
:cookie:

Yay, thanks

[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Yah, it would be sad - trouble is, the internet is full of that kind of people. I wouldn't like to chance it.

Thing is T, if people really want to do it, they'll find a way to do it.  There isn't a whole lot you can do to stop them.  You can only forsee so much, so why block a function just because someone MIGHT abuse it?  We're pretty much a tightly knit group as it is.  We're not exactly getting a large influx of newbies per day so....what's the harm in allowing user avatars?

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Vertigo1
so....what's the harm in allowing user avatars?

Harm?  It's not about harm.  It's about recognition.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Shrike
Harm?  It's not about harm....

{Fezek voice}It's about..... chaaarm...{/Fezek voice}

Seriously, here's how we have it, for those of you who for whatever reason haven't realized it yet:

• Custom user titles are admin-assigned in recognition of either something noteworthy that person did, or something incredibly stupid. I don't know when it started being viewed as "I'm part of the ABC hosted project; where's my custom title?", but that's not how things are supposed to go. Also, requesting a custom title in recognition for something you did is a Bad Idea™. If you feel it's something really noteworthy, and nothing has happened to your title, then too bad.
• Avatars (aside from admin avatars, obviously) signify a user being a part of a hosted project team. Nothing more, nothing less. They are not up for user modification in any way.
• User location is something we've been lenient about; many of you have all sorts of ridiculous location entries. Fine, whatever - feel free to express yourself through that, but keep them short for crying out loud. @ Su.
• Lastly, signiatures... these are also for personal expression, with a significantly greater amount of freedom. Be colorful, be creative, but be under 10 word-wrapped lines at 1024x768, m'kay? That means if your browser is 1024 pixels wide and 768 pixels tall, you should not have more than 10 lines of signiature in your posts. However, empty lines do not count - within reason, and the admins decide what reason is. :D But up to now, you've all been fairly ok with this, and we've only had to  point out overly wordy siggys to a few people.

Did I miss anything?

[Vertigo1]

Don't forget font size setting at 1024x768.

Those with fonts set to a small size at 1024x768 will be able to fit more on 10 lines than those with larger font size settings.

[Shrike]

Contrary to popular belief, we know what we're going vert, thanks.  

[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by Shrike
Contrary to popular belief, we know what we're going vert, thanks.  

Don't you mean what you're doing?