Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Signature Rules: Time for a Rethink?

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,256 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    alan dunne 27 wrote: »
    Your users are your customers.
    No users, no site traffic, no google ads, no income.

    DeVore or some other admin can correct me on that if I'm wrong.

    All that aside, I am very happy not to have animated and ridiculously large signature images here.


  • Options
    #93
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Just ban pictures from sigs altogether, and just allow text.

    Would end all the moaning and eye-rape.


  • Options
    #94
    Kintarō Hattori
    Registered Users Posts: 14,990 ✭✭✭✭Kintarō Hattori


    alan dunne 27 wrote: »
    No users, no site traffic, no google ads, no income.

    Technically you're not wrong, BUT, you don't pay boards so you're not a customer. You are a user of their service.


  • Options
    #95
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    alan dunne 27 wrote: »
    Your users are your customers.
    No users, no site traffic, no google ads, no income.

    DeVore or some other admin can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
    (disclaimer: I'm not an admin)

    Google are technically "customers" of boards.ie. Google's advertisers are customers of Google. You are a potential customer of Google's advertisers.

    You're not a customer of boards.ie's, even by inheritence, because boards.ie doesn't sell you any services.

    You've got your chain wrong: No users, no site. Simple as. Boards.ie isnt run for money, it's run for users. If there weren't any users, there would be no need to have ads.

    Any plenty of sites do charge you for extra services. Some even force you to pay just so you can post.


  • Options
    #96
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    alan dunne 27 wrote: »
    Your users are your customers.
    No users, no site traffic, no google ads, no income.

    DeVore or some other admin can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
    You're wrong.

    We dont get anything for impressions on Google ads. We get paid only if we put something interesting enough in front of the user that it makes them click it. If you do that then I consider that a service and we get soemthing in the region of a few cent for it. As for what you see when you read your mail.... nothing to do with us at all. Google reviews all of your mail as you read it and puts up ads that match. Hurrah for Google but we've nothing to do with any part of it except that it happened to be our mail you were reading at the time. They'll do exactly the same with the next mail you open.

    You are however right to say we consider the desires of our users because they are the people who make the site and win us all these lovely awards. They are the people we want to make happy and to keep them coming here in droves as they have been. We dont want to piss them off.



    Which is why we dont do animated sigs and avatars.


    DeV.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Hitchhiker's Guide to...
    Registered Users Posts: 3,322 ✭✭✭Hitchhiker's Guide to...


    Even good broadband connections get crap connections around this time of day [6pm to 11pm].

    Please no animated sigs.


  • Options
    #98
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Sigpo giving infractions is a step too far.


  • Options
    #99
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Des wrote: »
    Sigpo giving infractions is a step too far.

    They can do that?


  • Options
    #100
    Sherifu
    Registered Users Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    They can do that?
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58723920&postcount=3361
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58724382&postcount=3364


  • Options
    #101
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Ah. It seems to be given the green light by Gordon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_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


  • Options
    #103
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #104
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,256 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #105
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #106
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #107
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    You're not wrong.

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

    Noice.


  • Options
    #108
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #109
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #110
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #111
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭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 :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #113
    Sherifu
    Registered Users Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #114
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #115
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #116
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #117
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #118
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #119
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #120
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,256 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Black and Hot, just for you babe.


Advertisement