Signature Rules: Time for a Rethink?

_blank_

Beruthiel wrote: »

They can do that?

An SMod doesn't know about this?

Here's an example

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055469472

Beruthiel

Des wrote: »

An SMod doesn't know about this?

I admit, I never go near the sig rule thread. I'll only delete one (if required) when I come across it while posting on Boards.

Here's an example

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055469472

I'll have to brush up on the sig rules, I'm not seeing anything wrong with S.I.R's sig.

Eoin

Are infractions not linked to a specific post? How does that work with this new idea?

Beruthiel wrote: »

I'll have to brush up on the sig rules, I'm not seeing anything wrong with S.I.R's sig.

It seems to have a quote tag in there, which I don't think is allowed.

Hagar

Stop me if I'm wrong but anyone can declare themselves to be SigPo and start reporting threads willy nilly. These reports are then acted upon by Smods if they deem action is needed. The Sigpo actually have not got the power to delete sigs, do they? Only mods can issue infractions and by concensus should only do so in their own forums( porn spammers excepted). Are we now in a situation that a mod (no offence Biko) who has taken on himself to be a SigPo is now infracting people outside his assigned forum? Has he a remit from the Admins to do this? Infracting posters site wide is surely only in the realms of the Smods.
This has all the makings of a top class clusterfuck. The place is going mad.

Beruthiel

eoin wrote: »

Are infractions not linked to a specific post? How does that work with this new idea?

You can infract someone from their profile. However, I thought only Smods could do that. I must be wrong.

It seems to have a quote tag in there, which I don't think is allowed.

Really? Has that got to do with the fact that some people don't like to have their comments quoted in someone elses sig? That I can understand.
S.I.R. wasn't quoting anyone though.

I may get the time when I get home this afternoon to brush up on the latest sig rules.

_blank_

You're not wrong.

So, if I decide to become a "SipPo" tomorrow I'll suddenly be allowed to issue sitewide infractions.

Noice.

javaboy

Hagar wrote: »

Stop me if I'm wrong but anyone can declare themselves to be SigPo and start reporting threads willy nilly. These reports are then acted upon by Smods if they deem action is needed. The Sigpo actually have not got the power to delete sigs, do they? Only mods can issue infractions and by concensus should only do so in their own forums( porn spammers excepted). Are we now in a situation that a mod (no offence Biko) who has taken on himself to be a SigPo is now infracting people outside his assigned forum? Has he a remit from the Admins to do this? Infracting posters site wide is surely only in the realms of the Smods.
This has all the makings of a top class clusterfuck. The place is going mad.

Gordon has given Biko the go ahead to dish out infractions outside his forum for signature violations. AFAIK he's only giving 0 point warnings so it's not that big a deal. I'm sure if the admins didn't want him doing it he wouldn't be doing it.

EDIT: Up until he got the green light to infract, yes anyone could have done what Biko did.

javaboy

Beruthiel wrote: »

Really? Has that got to do with the fact that some people don't like to have their comments quoted in someone elses sig? That I can understand.
S.I.R. wasn't quoting anyone though.

I may get the time when I get home this afternoon to brush up on the latest sig rules.

That and also the fact that it disrupts the flow of the thread for people reading it.

Hagar

No offence to anyone, least of all Gordon, but shouldn't a decision like that that come from an Admin and shouldn't the mod population as a whole be officially made aware of it via an announcement or something?

Beruthiel

Hagar wrote: »

No offence to anyone, least of all Gordon, but shouldn't a decision like that that come from an Admin

Perhaps it did Hagar.

shouldn't the mod population as a whole be officially made aware of it via an announcement or something?

I'm sure Gordon didn't expect it to cause such ructions.
I'll give him the headsup on this thread and I'll say nothing more on the grounds I don't know what I'm talking about

biko

Beruthiel wrote: »

You can infract someone from their profile. However, I thought only Smods could do that. I must be wrong.



Really? Has that got to do with the fact that some people don't like to have their comments quoted in someone elses sig? That I can understand.
S.I.R. wasn't quoting anyone though.

I may get the time when I get home this afternoon to brush up on the latest sig rules.

The rule is that

tags are not allowed. Some users has PMd me about being quoted in other users sigs but that falls under offensive/stupid sig rather than the quote itself.

Gordon has only OK'd me with this - afaik it is not a general sigpo thing.
I am the only sigpo as far as most users here are concerned.

If it upsets the natives then I can stop of course, once they have explained what the issue is - is it giving infractions outside the forums or is it because they hate sigpo? Please see the sigpo notify thread for more input from Des and the gang.

The mod population does not need to agree, only SMods and admins. It's nothing to do with modding, it's to do with how the site is run in general.

Sherifu

biko wrote: »

If it upsets the natives then I can stop of course, once they have explained what the issue is

Stop talking down to us, you're not an admin.

biko wrote: »

is it giving infractions outside the forums or is it because they hate sigpo?

A bit of both.

Hagar

biko wrote: »

The mod population does not need to agree, only SMods and admins. It's nothing to do with modding, it's to do with how the site is run in general.

Do you know what, you're perfectly correct.
We mods don't have to agree with anything, just toe the line.
Our input to this site has no value according to SigPO we just have to do what we are told.
I was right, it is a clusterfuck.
May I be excused to go to another thread now please?

The_Conductor

I would just like it to be known that I voluntarily mod 4 forums, one of them as the sole mod. I do not want people other than approved forum mods, SMods or Admins, infracting posts in my forums. If people are going to be given the right to do so, with or without approval from elsewhere, its irrelevant to me, I will formally declare that I am no longer moderating those posts, and invite the person issuing the infraction to do so- with the approval of the CMods.

My 4 forums are:

Accommodation and Property
Long term illness
Adoption
Farming and forestry (as sole moderator)

I have enough trouble in some of my forums without someone having the right to start throwing hissy fits for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with what is posted in my forum.

Ps- As Biko is only too well aware- the formula you have for advising of signatures by PM etc has been known to break down in the past- while I was quite thankful for the apology at the time- I don't trust SIGPO because of it, and will have nothing whatsoever to do with this messing.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

Gordon

biko has been really helpful with signature offenders, I'm happy that he takes on board infracting profiles that breach the sig rules, I wouldn't want anyone else doing it. If this is something that the boards populace disagrees with then it'll stop but I don't see why it's a problem.

Just to clarify, this is profile infractions biko, right?

Hagar

I disagree with it.

It goes against a consensus reached by all mods not to infract outside their own forums. There was a lot of debate before that consensus was reached and it was remakable in that it showed the amount of self-governance the mods could sustain. Unilaterally setting aside this agreement and giving Biko powers in excess of his fellow mods undermines all of us. His attitude of superiority in the last few posts has been particularly abrasive. His reference to his fellow mods as "upsetting the natives" is totally unacceptable to me. Someone with that attitude should not have that authority. This is a step backwards for boards imho.

Gordon

Fair enough, point taken. I don't believe he's meaning to be demeaning by his posts to be honest, but you're right about the first part.

biko, sorry, my bad, please don't infract profiles any more, pm me instead of infracting someone and I'll fix their sig. Thanks.

/makes a big pot of tea for everyone

Beruthiel

Absolute power corrupts absolutely....
I'm in agreement with Hagar on this one with regards to the infractions.

I hope it's Earl Grey Gordie?

Eoin

I am not too familiar with each step of what happens when a signature is reported, but would any value be added with a "report signature" link under someone's name, that could automatically add a post to the SigPo thread and PM the user?

Gordon

Black and Hot, just for you babe.

Beruthiel

Gordon wrote: »

Black and Hot, just for you babe.

We're still talking about tea, right?

Hagar

Milk, no sugar for me please. Choccy digestives anyone?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

The_Conductor

Hagar wrote: »

Milk, no sugar for me please. Choccy digestives anyone?

Hobnobs please- tea black, no sugar.

stovelid

biko wrote: »

If it upsets the natives then I can stop of course,

Tut tut.

biko

Sorry if I came across bad Hagar. When it comes to sigpo work it can feel a bit thankless sometimes. You see the posters doing the same thing over and over again and when I come up with a solution to do something about it I get shot down. Perhaps I should have posted a discussion thread about it first.

I'll stop yellow warning signature offenders and leave that for the SMods.
Y'all have a good weekend.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Hagar

You're doing a thankless job as best you can just like the rest of us, we are all in the same boat.
You have a good weekend too.

biko

Meh, it's not the first nor the last time "natives" have been used as reference to the boards populus.

It's not like I have any power really. The infractions were just warnings (0 points) and limited to 10 days so won't affect anything. It was more a gesture than anything.

Pighead

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have a bit of respect ziggy whilst speaking to royalty.

Biko/ Prince Phillip, Pighead would like to apologise on ziggy's behalf.

Sully

I think people are being far to harsh on Biko here. Cut the lad some slack will you please. I know some of you hate being told that your sig is in violation or people going around sending people PMs who sigs violate but lets bare in mind (this is to mods) that you do the exact same thing to posters who misbehave in your forum and you don't like the attitude shown here given to you. The difference being that sigpo is more open to the public. Lets remember that an Smod (even an admin IIRC) has approved the work of Sigpo and signature rules as they are. Those who report signatures, lets remember that users can also report offending posts and you don't call them teachers pets.

At first when I saw Biko doing it I thought it was a bit odd but once he clarified that an Smod was happy for him to ease their workload by issuing warnings to posters who ignored the signature rules and that Smod publicly approved it I saw no problem. He is not infracting a post, or a user within a forum. So mods don't have to worry about another mod stepping in on their "territory" because all he is doing is issuing a yellow card (which many mods have said in Feedback/Help Desk as harmless) to those who ignore the rules in their profile. Not in a post. It does not go against the rule "You cant infract outside your own forum" as technically, he is not infracting a post or within a forum. Mods were told not to issue infractions for offending posts as its up to that forums mods to do it. Biko hasn't ignored that. Biko has approved by Gordon, an smod, to issue a harmless 0 point slap on the wrist yellow card to a PROFILE for only SIGNATURE violations which are IGNORED past the initial warning.

Its a shame that people cant just accept it, grow up and stop with the name calling and general retarded comments towards biko & co.

What about you Sully? Why do you spend half of your boards time reporting sigs on Sigpo?

Sully

Deleted User wrote: »

What about you Sully? Why do you spend half of your boards time reporting sigs on Sigpo?

I dont. If i did it would be for similar reasons that DeV posted earlier.

Sully

Sully wrote: »

I dont. If i did it would be for similar reasons that DeV posted earlier.

I'd strongly disagree. I only started paying attention to sigpo after my sig got nuked because you telltaled on me despite my sig at the time being pretty small by comparison. Funnily enough, biko looked at it, thought nothing of it until you reported it AGAIN about 10 posts later.

Every time I glance in since I've noticed the same thing. Just saying. It's hardly unbiased or objective for you of all people to defend biko since you are so actively involved in sigpo.

I wouldn't even mind as I agree that massive pics/animated sigs shouldn't be allowed but having looked at some of the sigs that get reported it comes across more like the real police in that "quotas" are being met just for the sake of it. Mine was certainly not big and had never received any complaints and yet I got sigpowned then redcarded when I had the gaul to ask why.

RuggieBear

****ing natives...always restless.

Nerin

RuggieBear wrote: »

****ing natives...always restless.

*drinks some tea* oh yes,yes indeed.
Whats going on-you spud nyomming paddys at eachothers throats like savages again. Oh no. I think we'll have to bring back proper rule to you savages.

All of the above was in a lordly voice.

Meh,sigpo. So they're just helping out smods. Meh.

I've personally found biko to be fair to me. When i had the ultra tidy sig it got reported for having too many pics in it,even though the size was correct. Biko was fair about it.
Some of the sigpo informants can get too into it yes. Personally i wouldn't agree with yellow carding people outside of a forum.

But,meh to this attacking biko. Blasted savages. Wait till us royals are put in charge. Ho hum.

^_^

Pighead

Nerin wrote: »

Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh Meh

Word of warning Nerin.

If the wind changes you'll turn into a Meh. Wind is forecasted for this weekend so watch out for that.

Pighead: Helping out the community since 2005.

Nerin

Pighead wrote: »

Word of warning Nerin.

If the wind changes you'll turn into a Meh. Wind is forecasted for this weekend so watch out for that.

Pighead: Helping out the community since 2005.

warning heeded.
i google image searched meh.

Adam

Nerin wrote: »

warning heeded.
i google image searched meh.

oh is it that time? awesome.

Nerin

Mirror wrote: »

oh is it that time? awesome.

probably not, my young skinny yet somehow startling attractive friend.

this thread will probably go back to the debate over new sig rules.
i would like to see a reasonable increase in size allowed.

Adam

Nerin wrote: »

probably not, my young skinny yet somehow startling attractive friend.

this thread will probably go back to the debate over new sig rules.
i would like to see a reasonable increase in size allowed.

oh you!:o you're sig can be as big as you like!

i would like to see it increased too. i think a maximum height should be employed, not much more than it is now, for images or multiple lines of text, so the thread flow isn't broken up. but the width/image size(kb) should be increased somewhat.

with regard to the infractions, i don't think the sigpo should be allowed to infract. i'd be more inclined to rectify my sig with a polite message regarding the issue. i think anything after that should be up to the smods/admins.

Nerin

Mirror wrote: »

oh you!:o you're sig can be as big as you like!

i would like to see it increased too. i think a maximum height should be employed, not much more than it is now, for images or multiple lines of text, so the thread flow isn't broken up. but the width/image size(kb) should be increased somewhat.

i like tidy sigs with lots in them like yours.
I discarded the multiple sig pic thing because people didnt get it. text makes things much clearer :P
maybe having approx 7-8 lines of text and a space beneath them for images based on font and image size?

Sully

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd strongly disagree. I only started paying attention to sigpo after my sig got nuked because you telltaled on me despite my sig at the time being pretty small by comparison. Funnily enough, biko looked at it, thought nothing of it until you reported it AGAIN about 10 posts later.

Every time I glance in since I've noticed the same thing. Just saying. It's hardly unbiased or objective for you of all people to defend biko since you are so actively involved in sigpo.

You really should get your facts straight before spouting some useless crap like that. I very rarely have the time to help out sigpo and my contributions are very small. Sometimes, like your case, I follow up on reports. You are the only one to continue your winge several months later about me reporting your sig. You are the only one to act like a grade A kid/infant.

According to a search of the thread I reported a MASSIVE SHOCKING AND UNBELIEVABLE 17 signature violations! :rolleyes: How in the name of sweet jesus is that "actively involved in sigpo" which has 3,373 posts most of which are reports. So, to you and those who thanked your posts, I say fair play to you for the research you conducted when deciding to have a winge at me for being "actively involved in sigpo".

I wouldn't even mind as I agree that massive pics/animated sigs shouldn't be allowed but having looked at some of the sigs that get reported it comes across more like the real police in that "quotas" are being met just for the sake of it. Mine was certainly not big and had never received any complaints and yet I got sigpowned then redcarded when I had the gaul to ask why.

Well if your signature was fine or reasonable then im sure an Smod wouldn't have removed it. But eh, they did, so how about you have a go at them and call them all the names you can think of? If your man enough to have a go at the general sigpo why not have a go at the smods who removed your signature? Why not stalk and hassle them when you get the opportunity?

I trust you will back down and apologise for wrongly accusing me and getting your facts completely arsed.

Adam

Sully wrote: »

You really should get your facts straight before spouting some useless crap like that. I very rarely have the time to help out sigpo and my contributions are very small. Sometimes, like your case, I follow up on reports. You are the only one to continue your winge several months later about me reporting your sig. You are the only one to act like a grade A kid/infant.

According to a search of the thread I reported a MASSIVE SHOCKING AND UNBELIEVABLE 6 signature violations! :rolleyes: How in the name of sweet jesus is that "actively involved in sigpo" which has 3,373 posts most of which are reports. So, to you and those who thanked your posts, I say fair play to you for the research you conducted when deciding to have a winge at me for being "actively involved in sigpo".



Well if your signature was fine or reasonable then im sure an Smod wouldn't have removed it. But eh, they did, so how about you have a go at them and call them all the names you can think of? If your man enough to have a go at the general sigpo why not have a go at the smods who removed your signature? Why not stalk and hassle them when you get the opportunity?

I trust you will back down and apologise for wrongly accusing me and getting your facts completely arsed.

you're the 9th highest poster on the thread of ~320

Sully wrote:

You are the only one to act like a grade A kid/infant

and post reported (again). attack the post, not the poster

Sully

Mirror wrote: »

you're the 9th highest poster on the thread of ~320

No idea where you came up with that statistic but id hardly call reporting 17 signatures being "active". Considering the site has 11,633,470 posts and 200,520 members at time of posting im a tiny dot, if even visible, on a radar. :rolleyes:

and post reported (again). attack the post, not the poster

You telltaled on me?

Hardly personal abuse to be fair. Over reaction completely!

Adam

Sully wrote: »

No idea where you came up with that statistic but id hardly call reporting 6 signatures being "active".



You telltaled on me?

Hardly personal abuse to be fair. Over reaction completely!

i came up with it from the facts. you have 55 posts on that thread.

Sully

Mirror wrote: »

i came up with it from the facts. you have 55 posts on that thread.

Which contained 6 reported sigs. SHOCK HORROR!

Your statistics have failed you.

Pighead

Sully wrote: »

No idea where you came up with that statistic but id hardly call reporting 6 signatures being "active".

and post reported (again). attack the post, not the poster

You have 55 posts in the thread Sully! Three pages worth. Pighead just checked the first page and there's already 13 reported there.

Didn't count the next two pages because frankly the discrepencies between your total of 6 and the actual totals are making Pighead sick.

Adam

Sully wrote: »

Which contained 6 reported sigs. SHOCK HORROR!

Your statistics have failed you.

the point wasn't about the number of reported sigs. it was about you clearly being an active sigpo member. or at least trying to be.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.