This is no big deal, but recently I've seen Shadow Hog posting messages with large blank spaces whilst regular forummers (i.e. non-mods) were previously chastised for such behaviour (the massive spaces have been removed and thus can not be measured).
In recent memory he has done this twice. The first time wasn't excessive (just over 2 screens at 1024x768 resolution in Firefox), but the second example (over 12 screens at 1024x768 res in Firefox) was of the sort of magnitude for which other forummers were told off.
I must stress that I do not wish to make a huge fuss about this, I just think it's a little unfair and should be brought to the attention of the administration.
Also, while we're on the subject, in order to clarify such matters in future, I propose that clearly defined limits be placed on such spaces (which, although annoying for the most part, do have their uses, e.g. as a simple form of spoiler protection (then again, that's what the spoiler tags are for)). For example, no more than approximately two screens at a resolution of 1024x768 in Internet Explorer (fairly standard browsing conditions, although I have no source for this) could be deemed an upper limit, although this is the mods' and admins' decision, not mine. Also, exceptions might be made for those who put in-page hyperlinks into posts where such large spaces occur. For example: click here to jump to the bottom of this space...
...and click here to return to the top.
Just a suggestion. Also, FWIW, the space used in this message was one screen in height at 1024x768 resolution in Firefox.
I never had a problem with it... o.o
If it offends people that much, though, I'm more than willing to remove it.
Hello, this is CSR-RicoU. Thank you for contacting Sonic HQ Customer Support.
This first incident you have presented would be classified as excessive spam because of the frequency of the occurrence. The latter two instances you have listed are facilitative of the type of environment we try to maintain. SHQ hopes to promote a friendly and entertaining atmosphere for all our members.
Your suggestion is helpful and possibly should be added to an FAQ on html coding. However a great number of users lack the html experience to use the neccessary format for your suggestion.
Thank you for posting your report, user input on our rules is greatly appreciated. Have a great day and keep on posting! 
RicoU
Customer Support Representative
SHQ Messageboard Team
Massive spaces to make a point, I don't care about. I don't even care about if a couple of people do it. Topics dedicated to it or contests about "outdoing" the massive spacing is silly though as far as I'm concerned.
Also, we tend to go by the 800x600 resolution when deciding things in terms of limits. ;p
Also, we tend to go by the 800x600 resolution when deciding things in terms of limits.
That doesn't make sense, though, because no operating system made in the last six years has defaulted to 800x600, and even my half-blind grandma uses 1024. Only reason I don't use 1600x1200 is because it looks like ass on my flat panel.
Quote:
That doesn't make sense, though, because no operating system made in the last six years has defaulted to 800x600
You exaggerate. I got my Win XP in 2002 and if I set it to the default, it's at 800x600. ;p
i can't read fonts quite so easily when they're at a higher resolution then 600x800, had to get close once to read some of the icons on a freind's computer.
it's been the default on all my computers too.
800x600
Its the default. I run a 63, some to do be 80+ network of users and most of them run 800x600. About 1/3rd run 1024x768. And none run 1280x1024. Even though about a fourth the computers have LCD's that could easily handle high res, its just too small for most people.
~Rico
Probably a Canada thing.
Either that or it has some kind of auto-detect mechanism. I've never seen a fresh Windows XP installation run at less than 1024.
