[img] tag in GD

[bigperm]

Can we PLEASE have the tag enabled in General Discussion? We can have rules about no disgusting or excessivly large images.

PLEASE!

 

[Akalon]

Nah, i'd prefer signature images, i love those.

 

[Blank Verse]

Originally posted by bigperm
Can we PLEASE have the tag enabled in General Discussion? We can have rules about no disgusting or excessivly large images.

PLEASE! [/B][/QUOTE]

I love that idea, but you know people would post just really bad stuff regardless of whether or not they know the rules. But I so like this idea.

 

[Jan]

Originally posted by Akalon
Nah, i'd prefer signature images, i love those.

OHHHHHHH PLEASE NO!!!!! There is nothing worse than forums that allow this, you have to scroll for miles just to see a two word post :confused2

 

[murat]

but its cool

 

[Jan]

I disagree, you join forums to read posts, not look at the comics.

 

[Blank Verse]

Comics? no one ever told me about the comics! Where? Where?

 

[Akalon]

Originally posted by Jan

OHHHHHHH PLEASE NO!!!!! There is nothing worse than forums that allow this, you have to scroll for miles just to see a two word post :confused2

You could make a limit on height, say 70px

 

[is0lized]

how about 1 x 1 pixel

 

[Akalon]

Well that would be pointless wouldn't it :biggrin2:

 

[Canuckkev]

Well, if there was no limit on the number of images...you could build your own picture out of 1x1 pixels.

OR not.

Is it possible to make it a client side option? So 56kers can turn it off and the images will be attachments, but people with it enabled have the images show up on the thread?

 

[is0lized]

not without hacking

 

[bigperm]

Originally posted by Canuckkev
Is it possible to make it a client side option? So 56kers can turn it off and the images will be attachments, but people with it enabled have the images show up on the thread?

That is an option in vB.

 

[Gayowulf]

Yes, That

 

[conkermaniac]

Absolutely not...this generally ends up with people posting huge pictures of women in bikini, claiming that it is not "offensive" nor "disgusting". And then I'll get into trouble for looking at such stuff.

 

[Bruce]

Conker, you get in trouble for looking at clothed girls? :Confused:

 

[bigperm]

Conker must be Amish.

 

[Blank Verse]

...or have gay dads.

 

[The Red Guy]

Urrm.....I think images would be nice, but it would mean longer loading times. I'm on 56K and I hate many images.

 

[murat]

if only people with more then 2000 postings or something can use