Avatar Best Wishes

[Montyphy]

Yes masa. BTW, I paid full price for this game. I did not use Steam, or rip a key. I think I deserve at least an email about this.

Why should they think you'd read an email if you didn't read (or ignored) the instructions on the avatar submission page in the first place?

Next question: Why is it even possible to have oversized avatars?

Internet 101 - The basics of basic.

As these forums do not allow uploading of images to the server and instead use a hotlinking model for avatars things looks like this:



Step 1. You visit a webpage on the Introversion forums.
Step 2. The Introversion server sends back a html file containing the URIs to images that should be displayed.
Step 3. Your browser sends a request to the server storing your avatar.
Step 4. The server sends your browser the requested image.

As you can see, the Introversion servers have no direct control over what that image server sends to you. HTML can make use of styling to resize the image in your browser but it doesn't affect the actual image. Theoretically, the Introversion servers could check the image size when you set it and warn you if it's too big but there would be easy ways to fool it and I'm not sure if such a plugin exists.

also I am not satisfied with the result...

I'm sure you'll eventually get over it.

[Red Button]

Lol
that was no complain about the "how it is done" and the rules.. More about the image.. Didnt search long, which I will have to do.. NO worries , everything is fine

[Schubdüse]

Yes masa. BTW, I paid full price for this game. I did not use Steam, or rip a key. I think I deserve at least an email about this.

Why should they think you'd read an email if you didn't read (or ignored) the instructions on the avatar submission page in the first place?

Next question: Why is it even possible to have oversized avatars?

Internet 101 - The basics of basic.

snip...see above

As you can see, the Introversion servers have no direct control over what that image server sends to you. HTML can make use of styling to resize the image in your browser but it doesn't affect the actual image. Theoretically, the Introversion servers could check the image size when you set it and warn you if it's too big but there would be easy ways to fool it and I'm not sure if such a plugin exists.

Dear Montyphy, thank you very much for your illustrations.
Obviously, I'm not a geek, and I think your last sentence already contains the answer to my next question:
Why can't the IV server just reject oversized avatars and "show" nothing instead of an image?
I assume, that this is a software issue, which can't be changed for whatever reason. Right? (<--- "Yes" or "no" would be sufficient. )

[microchip08]

Why can't the IV server just reject oversized avatars and "show" nothing instead of an image?

Although not actually an answer to your question, the onus is, and should be, on the user to change it. It's probably easier to banhammer the offending users every so often than implement a fix.

[julian]

So if I understand this correctly, this has absolutely nothing to do with any additional stress on the servers or bandwidth fees because the image is hosted by a third party and hot-linked to a profile. All the more ridiculous to remove them. Just a a control freak move I guess. Well I will be sure to be control freak also and not purchase Multiwinia for Xbox. You just saved zero cents and lost $35 All hail the introversion admin.

[Feud]

So if I understand this correctly, this has absolutely nothing to do with any additional stress on the servers or bandwidth fees because the image is hosted by a third party and hot-linked to a profile. All the more ridiculous to remove them. Just a a control freak move I guess. Well I will be sure to be control freak also and not purchase Multiwinia for Xbox. You just saved zero cents and lost $35 All hail the introversion admin.

The burden falls upon those who try to access the forums who must pay for data usage. By requiring smaller avatars it allows more people to access the forums on a more regular basis, which in turn allows for a stronger community.

Your "guess" about it being a control freak move is completely wrong, which seems likely to be a result of you being functionally retarded or simply infantile. Regardless of the reason the outcome is simple: you're wrong, and you're being an ass about it.

[trickser]

The whole story is just ridiculous. And all those arguments are just ridiculous. Being right adds straight to the ridiculousness.

[xander]

So if I understand this correctly, this has absolutely nothing to do with any additional stress on the servers or bandwidth fees because the image is hosted by a third party and hot-linked to a profile. All the more ridiculous to remove them. Just a a control freak move I guess. Well I will be sure to be control freak also and not purchase Multiwinia for Xbox. You just saved zero cents and lost $35 All hail the introversion admin. :lol:

Quite frankly, I agree that the bandwidth argument is silly. No one is linking to monstrous 43 MB .bmps, and most modern internet connections are fine for even large images (no one here is on dialup anymore, right?). Moreover, I am guessing that basically on one here is paying for their internet connection by the byte. Rather, we all have unmetered internet access that we pay for on a monthly basis.

The problem is the way in which large avatars distort the forums. For most of us, there is not a problem, but there are people who use phones, game consoles, and/or IE to browse these forums. Many such devices do not properly rescale images, so when they attempt to read anything, the large avatars are rendered in all of their hideous glory, making browsing a pain in the ass. You may not care about these people, and may consider them to be retarded or stupid for using crappy browsers and portable devices, but that does not change the fact that such users are a part of this community. If you claim that they are not as good as you, or less deserving of the content available here, you are only demonstrating how much of an asshole you really are.

xander

[Feud]

Quite frankly, I agree that the bandwidth argument is silly. No one is linking to monstrous 43 MB .bmps, and most modern internet connections are fine for even large images (no one here is on dialup anymore, right?). Moreover, I am guessing that basically on one here is paying for their internet connection by the byte. Rather, we all have unmetered internet access that we pay for on a monthly basis.

My guess would be that the cost would be most apparent with mobile applications, such as cell phones, where relatively small amounts of data can cost quite a bit (it's six or seven bucks a mb with my current plan, new phone for a new plan in the mail...).

[julian]

I dont think anyone is arguing that a 400X400 avatar is ridiculous. It is. I was primary pissed because I was not notified it would be removed, and also I could not find the image again. As far as avatar offenders go I had a 93 pixel wide avatar. For all INTENSIVE purposes it did not harm anything, end of story.

[xander]

I dont think anyone is arguing that a 400X400 avatar is ridiculous. It is. I was primary pissed because I was not notified it would be removed, and also I could not find the image again. As far as avatar offenders go I had a 93 pixel wide avatar. For all INTENSIVE purposes it did not harm anything, end of story.

1. The phrase is "for all intents and purposes" not "for all intensive purposes." Parse both phrases. You will find that the former makes much more sense than the latter.
2. As I often tell my students, one has to draw a line somewhere. You argue that 93 pixels is fine. Suppose I, and more importantly, NeoThermic, agree with you. So, we up the limit to 93 pixels. Someone comes along and argues that 100 pixels is not much bigger than 93 pixels, so we up the limit again. Repeat ad infinitum. Eventually, there is no practical limit. The forum administrators have to draw a line somewhere. They chose 80 pixels. Learn to live with it.
3. You were warned. DinoSteve posted a topic that you were free to read. NeoThermic posted in that topic, and notified people that avatars were going to be removed. You didn't read the topic. That is your problem, not NeoThermic's.
4. If the avatar was so important to you, you should have downloaded it and hosted it yourself (or used ImageShack or something to do it). That you can't find it again is not anyone's problem but yours. Again, cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get the fuck over it.

xander

[Red Button]

jesus christ.. I dont know, what u guys do for living, but getting so horny about this topic seems to me, that I want to have your job, where I can put so much energy in such a topic..

Just chill and nuke it out

And Xander... I hope u dont have a copyright on:

Again, cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get the fuck over it.


Because I loveit!

[Montyphy]

I could not find the image again.

And this is why most people use bookmarks

[sfericz]

I love my new avatar.

[julian]

Xander - I am not your student, I didn't ask for your '2 cents', I never asked for your advice, and I could give a fuck what u have to say. It sounds like I must of fractured your fragile ego with my co mingling of server crashes and global warming rhetoric as it pertains to a minor avatar size infraction. You seem butt hurt. Am I missing something?

I have spoken, but not to you. Did you remove my Avatar? Did I make an appeal to the great collectivist socialist thinkers of the world for guidance and wisdom on how to be a good slave? Did you hear me ask for help from individuals with tiny pee-pees, or cry out to all Defcon noobs (do you even play this game, I have never seen you) for insight into my avatar dismay? Well it must meant I wasn't talking to you then.