Page 9 of 11

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 14:45
by Gez
MartinHowe wrote:@JTS here means "Jumped The Shark"
If you had looked a bit, you could have noticed that this was the only link I didn't cite from here. I guessed what you meant, but I don't like PAIAC* when there are NRNTTTWIF**. :P


* Pointless Acronym In A Conversation
** No Reason Not To Type The Words In Full.

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 14:49
by Rachael
WTFRWTAA?*

* What the fuck are we talking about again?

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 17:31
by Pluck101
FUBAR...that is all

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 21:16
by MartinHowe
I wouldn't go quite so far as either saying that it "upsets" me or that there should be a UCP option... it's just that this whole thread comes across like a bunch of hormonal teenagers discussing sex in the belief they were the only ones to invent it! Joking aside, this thread has a "Hey! This is COOL! Just look what I DID with this new feature! Aren't I clever?" feel about it that I'm mostly not used to seeing on this forum :?

At best this feature is a moderator's nightmare - Holy God in Heaven help all of us if Randee ever put something like this in the ZDoom forums :evil:

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:54
by Pluck101
i think this new signature is a little more acceptable seing as it has a zero on the creepy stalker meter :wink: . And i dont think any members without *cough* sense of humor (not naming any names here :) ) will have a reason to flip their lids about it and call me immature or something...good day to you!!!

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:48
by Enjay
Pluck101 wrote:If Enjay is reading this, Congratuations! You are'nt illiterate!
However, your use of the apostrophe is more than a little questionable. Your sentence structure and spelling could be improved too for that matter. :P


... or is that the joke?

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:48
by Rachael
And if you want to be politically correct, don't use the you tag at all in your sig. :)

I'm not going to make this a rule, and as a not-a-rule it won't ever be enforced. It's just my preference.

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 15:08
by Graf Zahl
SoulPriestess wrote: (except if you count signatures).

... which is the problem for me. I don't care about this thread.

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 15:22
by Pluck101
Graf Zahl wrote:
SoulPriestess wrote: (except if you count signatures).

... which is the problem for me. I don't care about this thread.
then why do you keep coming back to it eh?

and yes enjay the whole misspelling thing was the joke :)

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 16:30
by Rachael
Alright, configurable UCP flag is going in, though it might be quite some time before I actually implement it. There are issues with two different types of templates that I must contend with, and having to update every single style on the board is not my idea of convenience... so really, there's no clean way to get this done.

However, I might be able to implement a "custom UCP module" that allows me to put whatever I want without the risk of violating template rules.

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 21:33
by Graf Zahl
Pluck101 wrote:
then why do you keep coming back to it eh?

Because it's the right place to complain about you, smartass! :P

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 21:41
by Pluck101
Graf Zahl wrote:
Pluck101 wrote:
then why do you keep coming back to it eh?

Because it's the right place to complain about you, smartass! :P
douche...whoops, i mean touche..

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 22:15
by Gez
http://forum.drdteam.org/ucp.php?i=prefs&mode=view
Display signatures: [] Yes [*] No

Problem solved! :P

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 22:34
by Rachael

Re: [You] tag

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 22:46
by Graf Zahl
Signatures are not supposed to be so annoying that switching them off globally should be necessary.