Spammer and Sigpo notification thread?

Spiritoftheseventies

tbh wrote: »

I think this is an unfair question - SOTS doesn't make the limits and if 1k over the limit is still fine, then increase the limit by 1k. I've no idea why he seems to be reporting so many sigs, but if they break the rules, they break the rules.

Agree there and to answer the question, the amount of sigs were reported small enough compared to others on there and again have no problem with sigs being reported.
Again if any of my sigs are oversized then they are just oversized. Its not that big a deal yet some posters make a huge deal about it when they have their sigs are replaced.
If mods want to increase the size I have no problems with it.
But if there is a limit there is a limit.
Why posters get themselves in a twist when all they have to do is change it is beyond me.
Even put up suggestions to help them with their sigs so dont know where this attitude from some is coming from.

Bonito

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

The issue here is how do we cut back on the sigs being reported.

Em, no. I thought the issue was stopping people abusing the SIGPO function. e.g. getting one over/settling scores with other posters. This is blatantly obvious when sigs are reported that are only a fraction outside the limit.

5. A poster should have the ability to report sig where he feels the sig is an eyesore and where a good reason is provided. Mod can then decide on that one himself.

I agree with this whole heartedly with one exception. A sig that is 3 or 4 kb outside the limit is hardly an eyesore.

My take on it is just abolish the sig limits altogether. Then judge the sig by itself. If it's clearly too big then report it. Don't click in to it's details to see if it's 2 or 3 feckin kb over just so you can go and report it. How childish is that?

Rules on sigs should be:
1. Use your cop in, if you think it's too big then don't use it.
2. No quoting users from the site in a negative prospect (This is why we have thanks and not a no thanks to go with it, people like positivity)
3. No more public SIGPO thread. Have one destined mod to receive pm's and then post the report based on their decision whether it should be snipped or not. For example let's say SOTS had control over the SIGPO thread. If I were to see a sig that was obviously too big/disruptive or whatever. I Pm SOTS linking the user. SOTS then decides yay or nay on whether it should be brought to attention of the Admin to snip it or not. If he decides it should be snipped he posts in the SIGPO thread and then the Admin comes along and snips it. That way it gets rid of this "Just snip anything that's reported" attitude.
4. SOTS was only used as an example so don't kill me!
5. If you repeatedly break the rules of the sig then your privilege to have one should be removed.

That's my take on it. Stop judging everything by fine details and exact sizes. Take them at face value.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well I would not be surprise if I was on his ignore list now, he seems to prefer to ignore people who pull him up on his shítty behaviour, which prolly mean I am on his list of bullies now and there will be a heap of reported posts about me abusing him.

you are abusing him. Just ignore him if he's annoying you, god knows you've stuck me on ignore often enough

Spiritoftheseventies

Bonito wrote: »

Em, no. I thought the issue was stopping people abusing the SIGPO function. e.g. getting one over/settling scores with other posters. This is blatantly obvious when sigs are reported that are only a fraction outside the limit.
I agree with this whole heartedly with one exception. A sig that is 3 or 4 kb outside the limit is hardly an eyesore.

My take on it is just abolish the sig limits altogether. Then judge the sig by itself. If it's clearly too big then report it. Don't click in to it's details to see if it's 2 or 3 feckin kb over just so you can go and report it. How childish is that?

Rules on sigs should be:
1. Use your cop in, if you think it's too big then don't use it.
2. No quoting users from the site in a negative prospect (This is why we have thanks and not a no thanks to go with it, people like positivity)
3. No more public SIGPO thread. Have one destined mod to receive pm's and then post the report based on their decision whether it should be snipped or not. For example let's say SOTS had control over the SIGPO thread. If I were to see a sig that was obviously too big/disruptive or whatever. I Pm SOTS linking the user. SOTS then decides yay or nay on whether it should be brought to attention of the Admin to snip it or not. If he decides it should be snipped he posts in the SIGPO thread and then the Admin comes along and snips it. That way it gets rid of this "Just snip anything that's reported" attitude.
4. SOTS was only used as an example so don't kill me!
5. If you repeatedly break the rules of the sig then your privilege to have one should be removed.

That's my take on it. Stop judging everything by fine details and exact sizes. Take them at face value.

Good post there Bonito. and to re-iterate Keanos point Kags sig is too big but like it all the same.
If someone else wants to report it thats their perogative and not going to hammer them for doing so. . its just a sig and if its too big its too big.

Nevyn

I put you on ignore once, just the once :P and you were the 4th person ever that I had to do that with, which considering 8 years on the site isn't bad, I don't like doing it and I've never had more then 1 person on ignore at any time and you were the last one.

But you are right if it's getting to the stage that I want to take the secateurs to someones finger tips then I need to put them on ignore.

tbh

SOTS, I hate to get personal, but you really should look at why you're getting this reaction from people.
If it were one or two people that'd be one thing, but the numbers are really stacking up now.
I enjoy your posts on other forums - radio and lost, for example, but on feedback you seem to come across as desperate to be respected and it rubs a lot of people up the wrong way.
My advice to you would be to leave the implementation of the rules to the others for about six months or so.
I told you this before - anyone I've ever seen on this site who's provoked a reaction like you have has ended up being removed from the site. Last time I told you that was just before your feedback ban.
I have no influence whatsoever btw, and I don't care either way - I'm just telling you what my experience tells me.

copacetic

tbh wrote: »

SOTS, I hate to get personal, but you really should look at why you're getting this reaction from people.
If it were one or two people that'd be one thing, but the numbers are really stacking up now.
I enjoy your posts on other forums - radio and lost, for example, but on feedback you seem to come across as desperate to be respected and it rubs a lot of people up the wrong way.
My advice to you would be to leave the implementation of the rules to the others for about six months or so.
I told you this before - anyone I've ever seen on this site who's provoked a reaction like you have has ended up being removed from the site. Last time I told you that was just before your feedback ban.
I have no influence whatsoever btw, and I don't care either way - I'm just telling you what my experience tells me.

agreed, but boards also has a responsibility to control flat out abuse, no matter how many people appear to think it is ok to gang up and do it.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well I would not be surprise if I was on his ignore list now, he seems to prefer to ignore people who pull him up on his shítty behaviour, which prolly mean I am on his list of bullies now and there will be a heap of reported posts about me abusing him.

Well there should be reports as you clearly used personal abuse above.

tbh

copacetic wrote: »

agreed, but boards also has a responsibility to control flat out abuse, no matter how many people appear to think it is ok to gang up and do it.

agreed.

Nevyn

Heavens forbid that people individually get fed up or pissed of with someone.
I resent any implication that I gang up on people or condone such behaviour.
My irritation is based on my interactions with someone who I think is trying to hard for all the wrong reasons.

Dav

Sig policy, having been discussed as a Feed Forward topic, is currently being chewed over by the policy makers (I'm one of them) and so a lot of what people are ranting and raving about here in this thread may become moot.

Until then, let's try to quit the sniping and the nit-picking.

Dav

Iago

Some figures to bear in mind

- Average posts per day in that thread prior to 25/02/10 1
- Average posts per day in that thread since 25/02/10 3..36
- Average posts per user (excluding admins/mods that are managing Sigpo) 7


SOTS it's exactly 90 days since you started posting/reporting in that thread (which has been active for 1,797 days at this stage)

In those 90 days there has been a 300% increase in posts in the thread, and you yourself have posted 61 times (almost 500% more than the average user)

If you genuinely can't look at that and say "maybe I need to just step away from it unless something really significant jumps out at me" then there's nothing else that can be said that will help you understand why you might be getting this reaction.

tbh

Thaedydal wrote: »

My irritation is based on my interactions with someone who I think is trying to hard for all the wrong reasons.

aka the "he was asking for it" defense - you sure you want to play that card?

tbh

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I hear what you are saying TBH. These feedback threads always seem to end the same way and maybe some of that is down to me.
IMO why any poster needs to post above the limits is beyond me. They are merely guidelines and if anything posting under the dimension and kb limits is more preferably IMO then posting bang on or near to it. The 500 x 125 and 20kb limits are more than adequate IMO.
But in keeping to the spirit of boards and fair play , if posters really feel they need an extra one kb on top of the 20kbs and need another 10 pixes added on, then I wont report them from today on.

don't report any at all is my advice. Just walk away from feedback and enjoy the rest of boards. You'll feel better for it.

I genuinely didn't know my sig was too big... . If someone of authority on the sites sees it as a problem I'll reduce it no problem but it is hardly causing difficulties for anyone is it?

What confuses me though is the people you have reported SOS. A few can be seen as people you were getting your own back on & if I remember correctly as Boggles pointed out you had a dig at one of the people afterwards for getting the sig removed.. that is not on and should not be allowed as it is extremely childish. Users that use SIGPO in this way should be given infractions and should be site banned if it persists in my opinion.

I can see why SIGPO is on Boards as it's role would have been quite important in the days of stone age internet in Ireland but the thread that is there now can only lead to bad vibes being created between posters due to being able to see who has ''ratted'' you out. I think the best option as someone has already mentioned is to have a set of mods in charge of it and they can be PM'd about it. If the mods think it is causing a problem then they can decide to have it removed.

Nevyn

tbh wrote: »

aka the "he was asking for it" defense - you sure you want to play that card?

Is that you just wanting to be on my ignore list again, wanting the honour of being the first to make me have two at a time?

No that is me saying that my level if irritation is my own and I am responsible for managing it and my re/actions due to it, same as I tell my kids.

I don't take part in ganging up, I am not a sheep, I always deal with people based on how they interact with me, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt as much as I could and tried to be helpful but I have only so much patience
and at this stage I am done and I won't be posting in this thread again.

_blank_

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Welcome back by the way.

Thanks

Although I don't believe I've been away.

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

My Name is URL wrote:

That somewhat highlights why it isn't a great way to deal with sigs.. it creates unnecessary hostilities between people and problems that wouldn't otherwise exist.

I really don't think that members should be tasked with policing sigs, and especially not when the reporting is done publicly.

agree but again a simple enough solution is to report the sig via the report button and then the mod in the forum in question passes it on when he/she gets the chance to admin.

If you agree with what URL is saying, why are you still policing peoples' signatures this morning?!

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Its impossible to prove.

do you just hope its impossible to prove?

I think the poster should be given "the three strikes and your out" warning here..
If you are continually using sigs to make a point that is likely to inflame a situation yes a siteban should be an option.
But like everything else poster should be given a friendly warning before hand.

A clear conscience requires no mercy..

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

The issue here is how do we cut back on the sigs being reported.

So given the discussion, the following updates to sig rules should be put up for consideration.
1. Where the sig size is borderline it stays (say 10 px each side and 1kb over)
2. Posters should take it upon themselves to measure the sig themselves before posting. The onus is on them at the end of the day to make sure it meets the requirement. Some just dont do it.
3. Given that image height is roughly 6 to eight lines in height, that should be the limit. Not an image coupled with lets say three lines of text which then adds to the height.
4. A restriction on the amount of images to be placed. Would keep it to three myself and if possible to roughly the same size.
5. A poster should have the ability to report sig where he feels the sig is an eyesore and where a good reason is provided. Mod can then decide on that one himself.
6. If sig rules are updated, posters names should not be allowed in a posters sig or what he says.
7. Where a group of posters use a particular sort of graphic for their sig and where it is within the 10px limit either side these should be allowed to stand.

You had your chance to engage in a meaningful signature policy discussion in feedforward and you fudged it, by dragging it wildly off topic.

Again not looking for a big gold medal for that one

But you are out looking for gold medals, in general?

Because that would explain a lot.

The Recliner

Does it need to be pointed out to anybody that this thread was started a week ago and within 3 posts on the same day the query was answered and the thread essentially finished until it was dragged up yesterday

Sometimes, just sometimes we don't all need to stick our oar in and maybe things wouldn't get so heated and blown out of proportion if we could all learn not to reply to something that we know will spiral out of control

The Recliner

The Recliner wrote: »

Does it need to be pointed out to anybody that this thread was started a week ago and within 3 posts on the same day the query was answered and the thread essentially finished until it was dragged up yesterday

Sometimes, just sometimes we don't all need to stick our oar in and maybe things wouldn't get so heated and blown out of proportion if we could all learn not to reply to something that we know will spiral out of control

True perhaps. But within 3 posts a whole range of sub issues were raised. And the user who is at the heart of this debate has a habit of going around in circles and selectively answering posts when it suits him so it is no suprise that this thread would go the same way as the several hundred other threads involving the same user. Unfortunately that comes with the territory of debating these things with people who lack the brain cells that control logical thought. But that's no reason not to engage, especially as that culture in sigpo is something that particularly irks me about boards.

bonkey

Guys...seriously....

You've been asked several times to lay off on the personal jibes and sniping at each other....and it would appear that several times you've all just glibly ignored that and continued on doing what you were doing.

I'm not even going to ask you again to stop...because short of locking the thread I suspect it would be futile.

I'd just point out that this is part of the problem.

It doesn't matter how you justify your actions to yourself...that you're defending your point of view, or that you didn't start it, or whatever....if you're sniping at other users you're part of the problem.

If you're part of the problem, then the first step you should take in trying to find a solution is to stop being part of the problem.

therecklessone

I have a genuine question for those who report sigs:

What prompts you to look at sig properties to see if they are within the limits?

I can understand a sig that is way too big, as they do stand out, but there seems to be quite a few instances of sigs being reported for being over the 20kb limit...how did they attract attention?

My gut feeling is that posters think a sig breaches the height/width limits, they go to check the properties, realise they were wrong on that but the sig does breach the file size limit so they report it for that...begs the question of how the fúck it is that much of an issue to you?

Again, I could understand a sig that is blatantly in breach of the file size limit, but to report sigs that are a couple of kb over seems extremely petty, and there is absolutely no way you can ascertain file size by simply looking at the image, you have to check the properties.

There is a lot of good done on this thread at times, it is a pity that is lost in all the crap that surrounds the ham-fisted detective work.

Trojan

Back to basics.

I see 4 ways to go here:

1. We don't police sigs at all
2. Admins police sigs manually
3. We police sigs automatically (i.e. programmatically)
4. Some or all of userbase police sigs

1 leads to crazy sigs.
2 leads to crazy admins.
3 is expensive (literally and figuratively - the dev team are way busy).
4 is existing solution and works.

Anyone got a 5th solution?

If not, then we need to accept that we'll do 4 until 3 is possible, and I can't see how we can criticise those who volunteer to do the job, because it is necessary.

We've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand and if someone crosses it, even by a inch, we must correct them. Because, as the saying goes, you give an inch, they take a mile.

_blank_

The problem is when people decide to join in on SigPo for reasons other than the aesthetics of Boards.ie

When it becomes a way for people to niggle and annoy other users because they've perceived the person they are reporting to have wronged them in some way, it then becomes a problem. And that is the problem in this thread, which no-one in any authority will even address.

Also, would it be impossible for Admins to do a quick copy&paste of the contents of the sig to PM to the user, so at least if someone has overstepped the mark ever so slightly, they don't totally lose their sig content and are left with a sig2big line under their name? I think that it the most annoying aspect about all of this, really.

And finally.

Signature Police. Really? Police? The name alone is enough to incite.

Signature "Jumped up Bouncers/Security Guards" would be more fitting, imo, but that doesn't really roll of the tongue as well, does it. SigJuB.

ShiverinEskimo

SigRats works for me.

jd007

therecklessone wrote: »

What prompts you to look at sig properties to see if they are within the limits?

Same reason you just PM'd me telling me mine was too big?

therecklessone

jd007 wrote: »

Same reason you just PM'd me telling me mine was too big?

Ah but you see, I don't make a habit of reporting other users signatures. I do think it ironic that users who do are not aware of the rules themselves, and so I checked yours after seeing you had reported someone else.

I wouldn't have had a look if you weren't a reporter of sigs yourself, you dig?

You're welcome by the way.

Spiritoftheseventies

Des wrote: »

Also, would it be impossible for Admins to do a quick copy&paste of the contents of the sig to PM to the user, so at least if someone has overstepped the mark ever so slightly, they don't totally lose their sig content and are left with a sig2big line under their name? I think that it the most annoying aspect about all of this, really.

Its in the the small print Des but it can be retrieved as explained below.

* It is up to the individual user to keep backups of their signature, we do not provide a copy of signatures. If your signature gets removed, we will not replace it with a backup, so please backup your signatures if they are important to you. One handy hint is to use google cache to retrieve your old post/sig content.

.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2706152&postcount=1

_blank_

I know, but I'm asking that that "rule" be changed.

My name is URL

Trojan wrote: »

Back to basics.

I see 4 ways to go here:

1. We don't police sigs at all
2. Admins police sigs manually
3. We police sigs automatically (i.e. programmatically)
4. Some or all of userbase police sigs

1 leads to crazy sigs.
2 leads to crazy admins.
3 is expensive (literally and figuratively - the dev team are way busy).
4 is existing solution and works.

Anyone got a 5th solution?

If not, then we need to accept that we'll do 4 until 3 is possible, and I can't see how we can criticise those who volunteer to do the job, because it is necessary.

We've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand and if someone crosses it, even by a inch, we must correct them. Because, as the saying goes, you give an inch, they take a mile.

Does option 3 need to be expensive? If [img]tags are disabled for external images and [sigpic] tags added instead then you could limit the dimensions and size of the images uploaded, just like avatars have limits edit: In fact [sigpic] is already enabled, uploaded sigs have a limit[/img]("Note: The maximum size of your custom image is 500 by 100 pixels or 19.5 KB (whichever is smaller"). So disabling the img bbcode in sigs would fix whatever problems are supposed to exist

Spiritoftheseventies

Okay a 5th solution. Have a sig section where users chose from maybe top twenty sigs made up of ten images and ten quotes or whatever.
On top an image section, you could have ten quotes such as
"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known".
So posters can be asked to pick their ten favourite images and quotes re a seperate thread and then we stick to that.
Other than that option four seems to be the only workable one at the moment.