Disallowing the use of gif images

[Ertxiem]

I'm suggesting that gif images could be disallowed in posts, signatures (sigs) and in pictures (avatars). (I see no problem on the occasional smiley. ::) )
The reason is that it's easy to annoy other people with them (like the sigs done by Presentiment and his alias).
If gif images are used as static images, then they could be converted to any other format, like png that has no loss of quality. But whenever gif images are used as animations, then it's easy to abuse.
If an animation is required to make a point, a member may post a link to it without showing it in the post (or, perhaps, post a link to a video instead).
I know that this suggestion would be more in time if I remembered it a couple of weeks ago, but I still think it's useful (now and then I bump into old posts near gifs).

Am I forgetting some situation where gif images are useful in posts, sigs or avatars?

[Guye]

I just can't see making a real argument against gifs. That's like arguing against paper weights. Sure, people use them to bludgeon from time to time, but usually they're just... there. Gifs aren't crucial to the forum or anything, I suppose. Just seems a wee bit unnecessary.

[Duskling]

I agree, no need to do this, in posts, maybe, but no need for that to happen to signatures and avatars, taht would seriously limit our picture options at times, and who will bare the blame? I believe we may need more time to think about this later, but, in the meantime, let's not do this.

[MikeW781]

gifs are essential for showing glitches, so I don't think they should be banned. Their usage should be controlled though

[Ertxiem]

Do you mean that an animated gif is useful for showing gliches?
I personally think that a video is more flexible, but an animated gif usually takes less space.

[Guye]

I just don't understand all the gif hate in general. What huge event has occurred that I am unaware of? Why must the local gif population be regulated like animals?!

Seriously, what happened?

[Steelfist]

It's just presentiment and WEbing (Note-same person) have a really annoying sig.

[Guye]

Is that all? And your talking about banning gif's all together? I had assumed there was something more to this. If that's it then I stand by my original statement. It's just kinda pointless, in my opinion. Like banning a condiment from your kitchen because you once tasted a bad meal with that condiment in it. Seems like an overreaction. But then it wouldn't really HURT anything. So... I mean... you could. If its really that important to you.

[Zhampir]

The problem with Webing's siggy is that it was rather large. perhaps there should be a maximum allowed image size, in sigs and posts?

[Ertxiem]

In sigs, I agree that some limitations might be good to have.
In posts I don't see any problems. One post don't affect the entire forum. And if you're including a screen shot to explain a bug, you might need to post a bigger picture (pun).

[Zhampir]

Usually, you should post links to the pictures.

[KZ]

Seems to be a good point to make: banning gifs would be an overreaction, but certainly limiting gif size in signatures would be highly recommended, methinks, as it would limit the degree to which a single user can cause minor annoyance to many people (eg webings signature gives me headaches after a while). Thus, Craig, the question stands is there an option that would allow you to limit gif size in signatures without banning gifs altogether?