Signature Rules: Time for a Rethink?

Beruthiel · 23-01-2009 1:45pm

Gordon wrote: »

Black and Hot, just for you babe.

We're still talking about tea, right?

Hagar · 23-01-2009 1:46pm

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

ziggy · 23-01-2009 1:51pm

This post has been deleted.

The_Conductor · 23-01-2009 1:53pm

Hagar wrote: »

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

Hobnobs please- tea black, no sugar.

stovelid · 23-01-2009 2:02pm

biko wrote: »

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

Tut tut.

biko · 23-01-2009 2:20pm

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 · 23-01-2009 2:26pm

This post has been deleted.

Hagar · 23-01-2009 2:30pm

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 · 23-01-2009 2:32pm

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 · 23-01-2009 2:34pm

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 · 23-01-2009 3:43pm

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.

23-01-2009 3:58pm

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

Sully · 23-01-2009 4:27pm

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.

23-01-2009 4:37pm

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 · 23-01-2009 5:40pm

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

Nerin · 23-01-2009 5:59pm

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 · 23-01-2009 6:10pm

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 · 23-01-2009 6:25pm

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 · 23-01-2009 6:27pm

Nerin wrote: »

warning heeded.
i google image searched meh.

oh is it that time? awesome.

Nerin · 23-01-2009 6:30pm

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 · 23-01-2009 6:36pm

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 · 23-01-2009 6:39pm

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 · 23-01-2009 6:52pm

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 · 23-01-2009 7:08pm

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 · 23-01-2009 7:14pm

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 · 23-01-2009 7:16pm

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 · 23-01-2009 7:18pm

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 · 23-01-2009 7:21pm

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 · 23-01-2009 7:22pm

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 · 23-01-2009 7:25pm

This post has been deleted.

Signature Rules: Time for a Rethink?

Comments