Changes since we last saw it

2007-11-24 13:09:40

#51

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6411|Winland

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
DesertFox- wrote:
Did something happen to karma, too? I swear I had at least 200, but I may be crazy.
Apparently people lost karma. I would imagine any karma given in the time period that we lost posts and such was also lost.

I've lost all my Karma since four months ago -.-

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-11-24 13:10:55

#52

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6834|Mhz

I'm inclined to agree about the sig / avatars thing, site looks, well... messy tbh. making anything but the most basic of sigs is pointless in a tiny 40px space and avatars just make the left side of the screen look untidy. Not to mention look at the giant gaps you get with no/tiny sigs, this post should be a good example.

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2007-11-24 13:11:35)

2007-11-24 13:27:41

#53

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6411|Winland

TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Not to mention look at the giant gaps you get with no/tiny sigs, this post should be a good example.

Yeh, that kind-of kills the purpose of small sigs. But not everyone has that bug

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-11-24 13:32:07

#54

I'm Jamesey: Do a Research Noob; +506|6346|Scotland!

Freezer7Pro wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
DesertFox- wrote:
Did something happen to karma, too? I swear I had at least 200, but I may be crazy.
Apparently people lost karma. I would imagine any karma given in the time period that we lost posts and such was also lost.
I've lost all my Karma since four months ago -.-

where's your beloved KPD now???

2007-11-24 14:22:28

#55

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|6886|Colorado

The smallest image shack does for avatars is 100X75.

2007-11-24 15:20:25

#56

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|6844|Washington, DC

Avatar rules are balls right now, let me upload this please thanks

2007-11-24 15:25:04

#57

Master*: Banned; +416|6708|United States

Hurricane wrote:
Avatar rules are balls right now, let me upload this please thanks

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … s_logo.png

is that supposed to be a hurricane?

2007-11-24 15:34:27

#58

DrunkenPirate: Rum Baron; +44|6907|Norfolk, England

I think the new rules are long overdue and much better.
The new rules allow plenty of room for imagination.

2007-11-24 15:35:57

#59

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6736|...

DrunkenPirate wrote:
I think the new rules are long overdue and much better.
The new rules allow plenty of room for imagination.

2007-11-24 15:40:54

#60

Ryan: Member; +1,230|7057|Alberta, Canada

DrunkenPirate wrote:
I think the new rules are long overdue and much better.
The new rules allow plenty of room for imagination.

You think 40 pixels is plenty of room?

2007-11-24 15:48:29

#61

DrunkenPirate: Rum Baron; +44|6907|Norfolk, England

Ryan wrote:
You think 40 pixels is plenty of room?

Yes, I do. Your sig certainly doesn't look bad for being 40 pixels tall. You people seem to have lost grasp of what the signature field is actually for.
Now that I can read these forums without having to needlessly scroll through pages of imagery just to see a few posts with actual text in them, I'll be visiting much more often, hell I think I'll even donate right now actually.

2007-11-24 15:53:22

#62

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6841|UK

DrunkenPirate wrote:
You people seem to have lost grasp of what the signature field is actually for.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p1676285

2007-11-24 16:13:27

#63

Private_Adam: Medic since 1942; +245|6865|United States

40px signature is ridiculous, but I live with it.

2007-11-24 18:36:40

#64

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|6980|UK

We needs uPics then this would OWN!

2007-11-24 19:15:40

#65

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6834|Mhz

DrunkenPirate wrote:
Ryan wrote:
You think 40 pixels is plenty of room?
Yes, I do. Your sig certainly doesn't look bad for being 40 pixels tall. You people seem to have lost grasp of what the signature field is actually for.
Now that I can read these forums without having to needlessly scroll through pages of imagery just to see a few posts with actual text in them, I'll be visiting much more often, hell I think I'll even donate right now actually.

Or you could have just turned off sigs in your profile and left everything how it was, seems like a much better plan to me.

This whole sigs thing has turned 'YAY! BF2s is back' into 'dude wtf's up with the sigs', I really can't see the advantage to this new layout, it's got no obvious purpose and it isn't popular

2007-11-24 21:04:55

#66

kontrolcrimson: Get your body beat.; +183|7041|Australia

Indeed

2007-11-24 21:59:16

#67

mnishimura00: I ruin Wake Island for everybody.; +15|6397

you guys are the bomb.

2007-11-24 22:10:14

#68

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6888|Canberra, AUS

Checkin' sig height.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-11-24 22:33:28

#69

chaosdragon001: Whee; +53|6722|Los Angeles, California

Spark, isn't yours, like, huge, compared to everyone else's? lol. Sig rules work, it just takes some imagination... Which I have none of.

Last edited by chaosdragon001 (2007-11-24 22:33:59)

2007-11-24 22:43:41

#70

rubber.sex: Banned; +32|6326|London UK

Spark wrote:
Checkin' sig height.

2007-11-25 00:20:50

#71

Sup3r_Dr4gon: Boat sig is not there anymore; +214|6541|Australia

New sig rules = ghey, my jackhammer sig now resembles some kind of boat.

Ditch the avatars and bring in a bit more generous sig limits.

2007-11-25 00:42:19

#72

hate&discontent: USMC 0311 SEMPER FI; +69|6602|USA, MICHIGAN

im glad the site is back up

2007-11-25 01:10:39

#73

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6904|Devon, England

Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:
New sig rules = ghey, my jackhammer sig now resembles some kind of boat.

Ditch the avatars and bring in a bit more generous sig limits.

Ha ha, I lol'd...

2007-11-25 03:56:44

#74

DrunkenPirate: Rum Baron; +44|6907|Norfolk, England

wahhhhhbulance on standby..

2007-11-25 04:27:59

#75

Megalomaniac: Formerly known as Missionless; +92|6541|105 RVK

25pix high? my god.

BF2S Forums Changes since we last saw it

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

DrunkenPirate wrote:

DrunkenPirate wrote:

Ryan wrote:

DrunkenPirate wrote:

DrunkenPirate wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Spark wrote:

Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:

Board footer