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

Sig deleted

Options
  • 05-05-2010 1:44pm
    #1
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭


    So today I log on to find my sig deleted.

    To be honest I'm very disappointed about it. All thet was contained in it was: "You don't mess with TheZohan", same sig I've had for nearly two years. It was a linked sig; it was linked to a YouTube video of a trailer for the movie You don't mess with the Zohan.

    The sig wasn't centred as it's impossible to centre sigs these days but I did have some brackets in a white font. My new sig is allowed under the current rules(I think), but to be honest it looks very messy and if anything it makes reading my posts more difficult(I made it to demonstrate a point).


    Can I have my old sig back? As I said before it's a linked sig so it shows up in a blue font and is actually easier to read my posts with it the way it was..


    Honestly if this is the direction that boards is going in then I would have to consider if I want to be a part of it, it's supposed to be a community, not a prison.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    I don't know anything about your old sig I'm afraid but your current one is outside what's allowed by the guidelines.


  • Options
    #3
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    If I revert back to my old sig can you or the powers that be have a look at it and then see if it is acceptable?

    I did some searching and found that y old sig was brought to Gordons attention in a thread...it seems that he didn't think it broke any rules.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65720607&postcount=4248

    Seriously if boards is going to get that pedantic about everything what's the point? It would be like visiting a your (evil) grannys house and her giving out to you for not putting the towel back straight on the towel rail after you've dried your hands.

    Surely boards would prefer to be the nice granny and not the evil one that everybody dislikes(but yet visits from time to time to catch up with your cousins)?

    Hmmm?


  • Options
    #4
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Your old sig may have technically been allowed by the sigrules, it was against the spirit of the sigrules. You knew fine well that centring a signature is not allowed so you bypassed that by padding with white text to enforce a centred signature, breaking the spirit of the signature rules. Therefore, if you're pushing me for an answer on the old signature which you seem to be, I'm disallowing it.

    I hear you on the pedanticism, but you would therefore agree that there have to be rules surely? If so, then where does the line get crossed? Surely there is a point where pedantics kick in right?

    Why is it so important to have a centred signature? I never understood that.


  • Options
    #5
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,307 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Gordon wrote: »
    Your old sig may have technically been allowed by the sigrules, it was against the spirit of the sigrules. You knew fine well that centring a signature is not allowed so you bypassed that by padding with white text to enforce a centred signature, breaking the spirit of the signature rules.

    And this is why I removed it. If everyone decided to circumvent the rules that way we may as well just allow centred sigs. However we don't, you knew this and yet you still tried to get around the rule in an underhanded manner.


  • Options
    #6
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Gordon wrote: »
    I hear you on the pedanticism, but you would therefore agree that there have to be rules surely? If so, then where does the line get crossed? Surely there is a point where pedantics kick in right?

    Why is it so important to have a centred signature? I never understood that.

    Well the spirit of the sig rules was to allow the flow of threads, with a centred sig the threads can flow quite well if the sig is linking to something and is only one line.

    For example which would you find more in keeping with the spirit of the sig rule and which reads better?:









    something something something something something
    ___________________
    (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((([[[[[[[[[[[((((((((((((You don't mess with TheZohan




    .

    or alternatively :





    something.....then the below sig edited to remove the f word.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Zaph wrote: »
    And this is why I removed it. If everyone decided to circumvent the rules that way we may as well just allow centred sigs. However we don't, you knew this and yet you still tried to get around the rule in an underhanded manner.


    There was nothing underhanded in the way I centred my sig. I thought it was a tech issue of having centred sigs that created headaches for the guys in development.


  • Options
    #8
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    TheZohan wrote: »
    For example which would you find more in keeping with the spirit of the sig rule and which reads better?:

    The first one :)


  • Options
    #9
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,307 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    TheZohan wrote: »
    There was nothing underhanded in the way I centred my sig. I thought it was a tech issue of having centred sigs that created headached for the guys in development.

    Either way, the rule says non centred sigs, and you tried to artificially manufacture one.


  • Options
    #10
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Gordon wrote: »
    The first one :)


    Didn't mean to stick that in.

    Between the two remaining....


  • Options
    #11
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Zaph wrote: »
    Either way, the rule says non centred sigs, and you tried to artificially manufacture one.

    The law states that you can't pull in on a motorway too but if I saw an accident and someone needed my help you can be damned sure I'd pull in and assist.

    Is that what boards has come to? Rules for the sake of rules and moderating for the sake of moderating? Even in the big bad world we have the spirit of the law and any judge in the country would take that into consideration over technicalties.

    I'm not trying to be a dick here but can you not see the bigger picture?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,307 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    TheZohan wrote: »
    Didn't mean to stick that in.

    Between the two remaining....

    What difference does it make. The first is centred, regardless of how that was done, and is therefore against the rules. The second is annoying, but it wouldn't be the first annoying sig on boards that is within the rules.


  • Options
    #13
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,307 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    TheZohan wrote: »
    Is that what boards has come to? Rules for the sake of rules and moderating for the sake of moderating? Even in the big bad world we have the spirit of the law and any judge in the country would take that into condideration over technicalties.

    Yes, there is the spirit of the law, and you went against it, as Gordon already pointed out earlier.


  • Options
    #14
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Zaph wrote: »
    What difference does it make. The first is centred, regardless of how that was done, and is therefore against the rules. The second is annoying, but it wouldn't be the first annoying sig on boards that is within the rules.

    Actually it's not against the rules the white "{{{{{{{"s are part of my signature.

    Are you making up new rules now as you go along? What's your beef with me? Seriously?


  • Options
    #15
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,307 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    TheZohan wrote: »
    Actually it's not against the rules the white "{{{{{{{"s are part of my signature.

    Grand so, I'll make them the same colour as the rest of the sig so everyone can see them.
    TheZohan wrote: »
    Are you making up new rules now as you go along?

    No, I'm applying the existing rule that you are quite clearly attempting to circumvent.
    TheZohan wrote: »
    What's your beef with me? Seriously?

    Why does everyone have a persecution complex these days? Why exactly do you think I have a beef with you? I could count on one hand the number of people on this site that I actually have a beef with, and you're not one of them.


  • Options
    #16
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Zaph wrote: »
    Grand so, I'll make them the same colour as the rest of the sig so everyone can see them.

    That's part of the point I'm trying to make Zalph, having the "{{{"'s in black would spoil the flow of the thread more than having them in white would they not?


    No, I'm applying the existing rule that you are quite clearly attempting to circumvent.

    Did anyone complain? Seriously?


    Why does everyone have a persecution complex these days? Why exactly do you think I have a beef with you? I could count on one hand the number of people on this site that I actually have a beef with, and you're not one of them.

    Because in this case the rule has technically not been circumvented and by making the curly brackets in a black font it will make it more difficult for posters to read....the same way this new crappy sig is just wojus.


  • Options
    #17
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,307 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    TheZohan wrote: »
    That's part of the point I'm trying to make Zalph, having the "{{{"'s in black would spoil the flow of the thread more than having them in white would they not?

    So you do agree that leaving them white and having what is effectively a centred sig spoils the flow of a thread? The degree of spoiling is irrelevant, it's still spoiling.
    TheZohan wrote: »
    Did anyone complain? Seriously?

    It was brought to the admins' attention.
    TheZohan wrote: »
    Because in this case the rule has technically not been circumvented and by making the curly brackets in a black font it will make it more difficult for posters to read....the same way this new crappy sig is just wojus.

    The rule will not have been circumvented only if the brackets stay black. It is however being circumvented if they remain white as they give the illusion of a centred sig. And yes, the new sig is just wojus.


  • Options
    #18
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Zaph wrote: »
    So you do agree that leaving them white and having what is effectively a centred sig spoils the flow of a thread? The degree of spoiling is irrelevant, it's still spoiling.

    No. Having them black would spoil the flow of the thread.


    The rule will not have been circumvented only if the brackets stay black. It is however being circumvented if they remain white as they give the illusion of a centred sig.

    How about an off-white? {{{{{{{{
    And yes, the new sig is just wojus.

    Old one was pretty cool tbf.


  • Options
    #19
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,307 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    TheZohan wrote: »
    No. Having them black would spoil the flow of the thread.

    Both would imo. However I will concede that your centred sig was less intrusive than many others, but if we allow one, regardless of whether it's formatted that way or has white text pushing it to the centre, we have to allow them all. Then we'll end up with the flow of threads being screwed up all over the place.
    TheZohan wrote: »
    How about an off-white? {{{{{{{{

    Nope, still virtually invisible on a white background. How about {{{{{{{{{yellow?
    TheZohan wrote: »
    Old one was pretty cool tbf.

    I really don't get the obsession with a centred sig tbh. Surely the point of a sig is what it says, not where it's located?


  • Options
    #20
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Zaph wrote: »
    Nope, still virtually invisible on a white background. How about {{{{{{{{{yellow?

    Might give that a go or maybe a mixture of the two if that's ok?


    I really don't get the obsession with a centred sig tbh. Surely the point of a sig is what it says, not where it's located?

    That's exactly the point and by removing my sig you messed with TheZohan now didn't you?! :mad:

    Cheers.


  • Options
    #21
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,307 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    TheZohan wrote: »
    Might give that a go or maybe a mixture of the two if that's ok?

    Go on then, give it a go and I'll see.
    TheZohan wrote: »
    That's exactly the point and by removing my sig you messed with TheZohan now didn't you?! :mad:

    No, I messed with TheZohan's sig. :P


  • Advertisement
Advertisement