Signature Rules: Time for a Rethink?

biko

I understand the reactions by everyone when they first heard about the sig infractions and I apologise for being blunt and using the N-word

Maybe I should have started a thread in Mod forum first to gauge what everyone thought. As the warnings are given through a users profile and only after they have ignored the usual PM I didn't see why I needed any other blessing than that of the SMod that mostly deals with sigs. It doesn't affect any forum in particular and is not a ban. Neither is it anything major change from what is done today.

Mods will have seen the option in the infraction section and it's been used a few times by others.

As to sig rules - there is an 2 year old thread for discussion about what the rules should look like here but we never came to a consensus so the rules were never changed.

Thanks Sully for standing up for me mate Hopefully one of the admins will have some input as to how we should proceed from here. I don't mind going back to the old report-only system, just thought this would help Gordon out a bit.

Right I'm away for Friday pints soon so will have to leave it now.

Sully

Mirror wrote: »

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.

Since when did posting in a thread about signature violations make you a member? Please, enlighten me.

The_Conductor

biko wrote: »

I understand the reactions by everyone when they first heard about the sig infractions and I apologise for being blunt and using the N-word

Maybe I should have started a thread in Mod forum first to gauge what everyone thought. As the warnings are given through a users profile and only after they have ignored the usual PM I didn't see why I needed any other blessing than that of the SMod that mostly deals with sigs. It doesn't affect any forum in particular and is not a ban. Neither is it anything major change from what is done today.

Mods will have seen the option in the infraction section and it's been used a few times by others.

As to sig rules - there is an 2 year old thread for discussion about what the rules should look like here but we never came to a consensus so the rules were never changed.

Thanks Sully for standing up for me mate Hopefully one of the admins will have some input as to how we should proceed from here. I don't mind going back to the old report-only system, just thought this would help Gordon out a bit.

Right I'm away for Friday pints soon so will have to leave it now.

Biko- explanation accepted, and I'm sorry if I implied you had ulterior motives.

My perspective on the matter is that the moderators made an agreement to *not* use the infraction function in fora other than those which they moderated. It was not clear from your original post what was happening- and a lot of people felt slighted, however misplaced that perceived slight might be.

I think it is a good idea to start up a thread for mod feedback/suggestions on the proposals.

Enjoy your evening,

Shane

Sully

Okay I did a proper serach through the thread to see how much I actually posted there. My old search was incorrect as I just searched for my name rather then using advanced search to see how many posts I created.

It turns out that my 4 and a bit years here I reported approx. 17 signatures for a mixture of quote in sigs and size being to big (in terms of kb and overall height/width in all bar 1). During the year 2006 I posted once, increasing to 21 times in 2007 and a slight increase to 28 times in 2008. So far this year I have posted 4 times.

Out of my 55 posts of which 17 were reported the rest were commenting on other reports, specific signature rules, specific sig questions posted by users and a small few were defending sigpo when the kids decided to throw their toys out of the pram and cry.

I personally do not think that 55 posts over a period of 4 and a bit years I have been a member here is "active". I do not think that 17 sig reports out of thousands of users is anything nor can it be labelled as "active". I do not think that anybody who reports a sigs, sends PMs or posts in that thread can be considered as "members of sigpo" unless they have a very large post count in that thread and a very high report count.

Beruthiel

Nitpicking people.
Let it go now.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Sully

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ha, cheers. Learn something new everyday!

Sully

Sully wrote: »

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:

"Active" - OK well I've posted on the thread too, to question why my sig was removed etc. YOUR contributions are to either report users or side with sigpo when people argue their sig being removed. Find me a post where you defend someone who had their sig removed unfairly.

I don't see the relevance of how many posts or members there are? This is a discussion on one thread, which you have a strong involvement in.

Sully wrote: »

You telltaled on me?

ROFL

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.

No, I just remember you from that incident. I haven't "continued my winge" as you say.....I pointed out that you are not exactly a reliable middleman or voice of reason here as you are very much pursuing your agenda.

Sully wrote: »

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".

Rubbish. A large percentage of that thread is taken up by arguing about sigs that have been nuked.

Sully wrote: »

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?

Well ya see here it is:

- biko posted this in response to YOUR report of my sig:

biko wrote: »

Although Neil1984 is a bit heavy it's not too high so I didn't bother there

But that wasn't enough for you for some reason. You decided to report it again. Now if you report enough times I'm sure an Smod will remove the sig without giving it too much of a look. I certainly wasn't given a look seeing as I wasn't PM'd about it and I was then told that it had been removed by an SMod in passing.

So yes, I do question WTF you are at.

Sully wrote: »

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

Ha! You must be joking. Why would I apologise when YOU had YOUR facts arsed?

Mirror wrote: »

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

Mirror wrote: »

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

Pighead wrote: »

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.

Nope.

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No. And he;s not a member but posts like this one here (taken at random) suggest he desperately wants to be:

Sully wrote: »

rb_ie: You cant complain, you broke the rules. It doesnt matter at the end of the day what you think, the rules were broken so you have no grounds for a complaint. Fix the sig and make sure it fits within the guidelines. If removed again, then complain if you feel it didnt break the rules.

With regards to it being 1kb over - you seem to be a common offender so I cant blame Gordon or anyone else making sure you abide by the rules 100% and no leeway given.

With regards to 6th making it - have you ever thought that perhaps he made it to big to get you pissed of? Its a possiblity but regardless: It doesnt matter who made it, it broke the rules.

End of.

:rolleyes:

Sully wrote: »

Since when did posting in a thread about signature violations make you a member? Please, enlighten me.

It doesn't. I NEVER once said you were a "member". I said that you are "actively involved in sigpo." Which you are. You take a strong interest in reporting sigs, hence you are not really an unbiased voice in this thread.

The Recliner

Nerin wrote: »

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?

I thought your old sig rocked, missed it when it was gone

Back on topic:

I have no problem with the sig rules being enforced but perhaps people wouldn't get so worked up about it if the sig rules were enforced by a fulltime resource, the community officer maybe?? or maybe just someone more officially recognised than we have now where despite having approval for the work Biko is percieved to be on a personal crusade and nitpicking

Sully

Deleted User wrote: »

"Active" - OK well I've posted on the thread too, to question why my sig was removed etc. YOUR contributions are to either report users or side with sigpo when people argue their sig being removed. Find me a post where you defend someone who had their sig removed unfairly.

Well what else would I be doing in that thread bar discussing things related to sigpo?! I have no problem standing up for the idea and the people involved (within reason). Iv debated for and against a few different violation reports. Ill pick two but theres a good bit more (I did the research earlier and made notes, but im not on my main PC to give the exact figures).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57112098#post57112098 - Users sig was removed for spamming. It wasnt spamming.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53891372#post53891372 - Disagreed with bikos report.

I don't see the relevance of how many posts or members there are? This is a discussion on one thread, which you have a strong involvement in.

You dont see my logic? My point is a large number of those people have signatures. I would see a large number of users by reading posts in various forums I view/post in and despite that iv only reported less then 20 and posted 55 times since my 4 and a bit years a member here. As for topics/posts figuers - same logic applies.

ROFL

lol you didnt get my sarcasm then?! Or the bit of piss taking?

No, I just remember you from that incident. I haven't "continued my winge" as you say.....I pointed out that you are not exactly a reliable middleman or voice of reason here as you are very much pursuing your agenda.

Yet your the only person to actually go as far as complaining as much as you do about me approaching them about a sig violation? Bare in mind that your signature was only reported by me and the final decission was by an Smod. Why not have a winge at them and follow them around winging at them?

I am not activelty involved in sigpo, as I have proven. I would be biased as I support sigpo. I am anti bullying and will not tollerate anybody bullying another user, constantly getting on their back etc. I will defend a system that has been approved by an Smod/Admin and has been around for years for the greater good of this site which I am actively involved in. This is what I have been doing and I have also called for a review on the guidelines but its not going to happen by the looks.

Rubbish. A large percentage of that thread is taken up by arguing about sigs that have been nuked.

Ill have to agree to disagree with you there as I am not going to search the thread and work out an average posting type. Id personally think its more report and comment then complaining about sigs being removed.

Well ya see here it is:

- biko posted this in response to YOUR report of my sig:


But that wasn't enough for you for some reason. You decided to report it again. Now if you report enough times I'm sure an Smod will remove the sig without giving it too much of a look. I certainly wasn't given a look seeing as I wasn't PM'd about it and I was then told that it had been removed by an SMod in passing.

So yes, I do question WTF you are at.

I also state clearly what rule I think the user has violated when I report and usually state if I sent a PM. If I dont, then I havent sent one. This helps an smod or another sigpo reporter see whats the issue and whats been done.

In your case I reported it as being to big. I then reported it again a few days later after it wasnt fixed and nobody responded about your sig. Assuming it was missed, I reminded biko & co. biko then commented on your sig and you will see I did nothing further about it. So dont come bitching to me because an smod decided you DID violate the sig rule and it was to be removed despite biko thinking it was okay. Thats another fact you have got wrong - I never reported it after biko.

Ha! You must be joking. Why would I apologise when YOU had YOUR facts arsed?

1) Iv stated how I am not an active poster. You claimed I was. You are wrong.

2) You have just stated I reported your sig after biko said it was okay. You even linked to bikos post but if you looked hard enough you will see that fact is also wrong. I never reported your sig again after biko clearing it.

Nope.

Have you not realised that they are on your side?

No. And he;s not a member but posts like this one here (taken at random) suggest he desperately wants to be:

:rolleyes:

Explain the logic. How does that make me out to want to be a member of sigpo? Because I defended an smods decission to remove a sig for a chap who was a regular offended? Riiiiiiight.

It doesn't. I NEVER once said you were a "member". I said that you are "actively involved in sigpo." Which you are. You take a strong interest in reporting sigs, hence you are not really an unbiased voice in this thread.

I think iv clarified earlier in this post that I am not active, I do not have a strong interest in reporting sigs and that I am biased but still can voice an opinion re: the hassle biko and co gets.

Btw, I was not talking to you there.

Mr Magnolia

biko wrote: »

I understand the reactions by everyone when they first heard about the sig infractions and I apologise for being blunt and using the N-word

Native? Whatever about sigpo and it's functions; in my dictionary a native is someone who originates from, or is indigenous to a community or group, I didn't think you were using it in any sort of a derogatory sense

*shrugs*

Gordon

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That's his choice, 'half' of Sully's boards time is not 17 posts. Back on topic please.

the_syco

Keep the pictures small, as it ensures I don't have half my screen covered by your love of some football team.

Oh, and don't click here if you have Epilepsy: http://www.freetheflash.com/flash/epilepsy-test.php

It wouldn't be fun if someone had to stop reading the forum, due to the risk of having a seizure cos some tard thought it was funny having it in their sig.