Forums Upgraded - Post Issues Here (2.0.21)

Post by **old SKopischke** » July 5th, 2005, 3:32 pm

Jack - I just noticed your new Avatar. Did you have a new picture taken? Looks nice!

Post by **BenBasson** » July 5th, 2005, 3:40 pm

Yeah, he got entirely encased in metal the other day.

grantaw · Post by **grantaw** » July 5th, 2005, 4:36 pm

Jack - your signature doesn't follow the rules.

Pim · Post by **Pim** » July 6th, 2005, 5:56 am

Just curious, but which rule exactly doesn't Jack's sig follow?

Post by **old SKopischke** » July 6th, 2005, 6:00 am

Click on grantaw's "the rules" to see. I think it's an artifact of the shape of Jack's avatar.

Pim · Post by **Pim** » July 6th, 2005, 6:06 am

To see what? I still don't see a violation. His picture is small enough, his signature follows all the rules, etc.
Unless I'm looking at a different Jack.

Post by **old SKopischke** » July 6th, 2005, 6:13 am

His signature appears to be longer than three lines....

Jack · Post by **Jack** » July 6th, 2005, 6:19 am

It's three lines to me. It was five - three lines of text with two blank lines in between to make it easier to read, but I removed the last two lines.

Pim · Post by **Pim** » July 6th, 2005, 6:22 am

Also, if a message is short, the message window is higher than the message itself, giving the impression that there are blank lines underneath the sig.

Post by **old SKopischke** » July 6th, 2005, 7:01 am

Pim wrote:Also, if a message is short, the message window is higher than the message itself, giving the impression that there are blank lines underneath the sig.

Exactly the point I was terrible at making....

Micha the not so Old · Post by **Micha the not so Old** » July 6th, 2005, 7:02 am

By the looks of it, the minimum message window size is dictated by the size of the message author's name and avatar.

Pim · Post by **Pim** » July 6th, 2005, 7:06 am

SKopischke wrote:I think it's an artifact of the shape of Jack's avatar.

Ah.... Now you mention it, that wasn't very clear, no. Sorry.

Post by **old SKopischke** » July 6th, 2005, 7:13 am

Pim: My apologies.

Micha the not so Old · Post by **Micha the not so Old** » July 7th, 2005, 8:09 am

I note the highest number of users online has been revised downwards to 304 on Thu 30th Jun 2005 at 6:51am.

I assume this was as a result of the forum clock going out of whack. If I remember rightly the previous highest number (and maybe the one before that) was also as a result of the forum clock passing through a time warp.

old np · Post by **old np** » July 7th, 2005, 8:32 am

I think it was reset after going out of whack, and that's the highest it's been since the reset.

Forums Upgraded - Post Issues Here (2.0.21)

The signature length rule