Spammer and Sigpo notification thread?

Overheal

A selection of canned signatures?

I would sooner have them disabled for all the usefullness a preset group of signatures would be, to be fair.

Gordon

Des wrote: »

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.

I'll address that. How do you think this should be solved? How are we to know who has wronged whom? How do you see this working?

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.

Yes, it's impossible for me, I'm not going to PM people their sig, if it's important to you you should be keeping a copy yourself, sorry.

And finally.

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

Hasn't been much of a problem in the past, you didn't seem to mind it the numerous times you, as a sigpo member, posted on the sigpo thread.

Bonito wrote: »

Who's worse, the person who reports a sig that's only 1 or 2 pixels over or, the Admin who doesn't use their discretion and leave it be just for the sake of a pixel or two?

Neither As I said before, it's the process that is at fault. As has also been mentioned before, there have to be rules and boundaries clearly defined, if the process is wrong a new one needs to be devised.

_blank_

Gordon wrote: »

s you, as a sigpo member,

I'm not a SigPo "member", although I didn't realise it was a club one had to join.

Insect Overlord

I like the name SigPo. It's a tongue-in-cheek reference to George Orwell. Keeps a little bit of culture and philosophy about the place.

Trojan

The way I see it, if we go with volunteer reports (i.e. my option #4) then we cannot start complaining when the volunteers take the job extremely seriously, so long as they stay within the rules.

If someone has an image that is 20481 bytes in size, then that is too big (by 1 byte). They've broken the rule, and they need to change the image, cut and dry case.

The power of these volunteers is not exactly far reaching. If a board user is within the sig rules then the sigpo volunteers have zero power over them. Zero. They only have perceived power over people who are breaking the rules.

Instead of complaining about bouncers and bullies and whatnot, just fix your sig. Then "they got nothin'".

_blank_

Gordon wrote: »

I'll address that. How do you think this should be solved? How are we to know who has wronged whom?

Oh, say if someone posted in another thread "take your beating like a man" - I'd say that would be a fairly obvious tell.

No?

Bonito

Des wrote: »

Oh, say if someone posted in another thread "take your beating like a man" - I'd say that would be a fairly obvious tell.

No?

That should be handled under the report post function.

Gordon

Des wrote: »

Oh, say if someone posted in another thread "take your beating like a man" - I'd say that would be a fairly obvious tell.

No?

No. That tells me that the person is being extremely childish but doesn't tell me anything about this perception of wrong doing you are talking about. How are we to take on board perceived wrongdoings and use of the sig reporting mechanism to determine whether or not people are using it to settle scores? How do you see that working? Aggrieved user PMs me? Aggrieved user reports the post?

_blank_

Bonito wrote: »

That should be handled under the report post function.

Report to who?

The mods of the other forum where the comment was posted? I'm sure they couldn't give a monkeys about user disputes from outside their own forum, and nor should they. Yeah, they can delete the comment, but that doesn't solve this issue.

The Admins? What will they do, apart from say

How are we to know who has wronged whom?

The Admins only act on "facts" when it comes to sigs. I'm sure they don't go into the history of why User A is posting in the Signature Police thread about User B, and nor should they.

But it's absolutely obvious that a user, or users, has taken to using the Signature Police thread as a way of niggling other users.

Sure, the sigs broke the rules, but nobody, absolutely nobody, knew or cared about those sigs until that user, or users, decided to use the system in this way.

What should User B do in this instance, complain to the Admin that User A only reported the sig because they had a gripe with User B?

I'm sure the Admin couldn't care less about that.

Bonito

I get that. Sure it's obvious from the sigs that are reported and deleted that are only a couple kb over. Once the rules are broken that's it, no flexibility or leeway.

_blank_

Gordon wrote: »

No. That tells me that the person is being extremely childish but doesn't tell me anything about this perception of wrong doing you are talking about. How are we to take on board perceived wrongdoings and use of the sig reporting mechanism to determine whether or not people are using it to settle scores? How do you see that working? Aggrieved user PMs me? Aggrieved user reports the post?

So we'll just allow it to continue?

Nice one.

Gordon

Let what continue? You are saying that it's obvious that this is happening. Can you point out specific incidences where there are scores being settled via sigpo? I'm all ears, I don't want it to happen, regardless of what you think I think

_blank_

Bonito wrote: »

I get that. Sure it's obvious from the sigs that are reported and deleted that are only a couple kb over. Once the rules are broken that's it, no flexibility or leeway.

And then we get the totally unhelpful line "give them an inch they take a mile", which is meaningless.

The only thing the Admin care about, when it comes to sigs, is "is this sig breaking the rules? if it is, then snippity snip, sorry buddy, tough break guy"

Bonito

I know. I approve SIGPO as a whole but it's rules need revising. Get rid of the size limit. Take the sig at face value. Unless it pisses people off then it shouldn't be deleted. If they're blatantly too big they should be deleted. Being deleted because they're a couple kb's over is petty. What's worse is the people who check the size of the borderline sigs and then have an orgasm when they see it's just barely over the limit and can report it.

_blank_

Gordon wrote: »

Let what continue? You are saying that it's obvious that this is happening. Can you point out specific incidences where there are scores being settled via sigpo? I'm all ears, I don't want it to happen, regardless of what you think I think

Nope, it's ten at night and I'm not really interested in trawling through the Signature Police thread and then searching in another forum for a deleted/edited post.

So I'm sorry, the evidence is gone, but it happened. It's already been pointed out in this thread.

_blank_

Bonito wrote: »

the people who check the size of the borderline sigs and then have an orgasm when they see it's just barely over the limit and can report it.

You need to be very careful what you say about our friends the Signature Police, protected species, don't you know, wouldn't want to be offending their sensibilities. Gosh no, lovely chaps altogether.

Gordon

Des wrote: »

Nope, it's ten at night and I'm not really interested in trawling through the Signature Police thread and then searching in another forum for a deleted/edited post.

So I'm sorry, the evidence is gone, but it happened. It's already been pointed out in this thread.

If you mean the 'take your beating like a man' comment I don't see that as a score settling. But if you (or anyone) see that happening, let me know, I don't want signatures to be a side-effect of grief, I want to sort the problems from the root.

_blank_

Gordon wrote: »

If you mean the 'take your beating like a man' comment I don't see that as a score settling.

Can I ask you what way you see it then?

Did you see the tête-à-tête between the posters on a different forum immediately before the sig was originally reported? Did you notice that the same user's sig was reported by the same person multiple times?

Gordon

Des wrote: »

Can I ask you what way you see it then?

Did you see the tête-à-tête between the posters on a different forum immediately before the sig was originally reported? Did you notice that the same user's sig was reported by the same person multiple times?

Didn't see the tete a tete, didn't notice the same sig being reported, doing the sigs is a repetitive task so I just see the numbers and the red dresses.

The way I see that comment is as I've written earlier. Are we to be going round in circles on this one now?

Gordon

Gordon wrote: »

Yes, it's impossible for me, I'm not going to PM people their sig, if it's important to you you should be keeping a copy yourself, sorry.

Actually, it's possible for me if there were an edit sig tool which edits a users signature and reports the fact to the user via PM report (ala ban message) while linking to the sigrules and leaving a copy of the original signature in the PMd report. But that needs coding which I dunno if there are resources for that project.

Eoin

Trojan wrote: »

The way I see it, if we go with volunteer reports (i.e. my option #4) then we cannot start complaining when the volunteers take the job extremely seriously, so long as they stay within the rules.

If someone reported an inordinate amount of posts for very trivial reasons, then I'd certainly be asking them to think twice about why they're really doing it.

Reporting signatures because an image is one poxy kb too large is a bit like reporting a post because one word in a paragraph was textspeak. Yes, technically textspeak shouldn't have been used, but ffs - why bother?

I really hope there's some sort of technical solution that could be put in place to remove some of the nitpicking.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

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.

Sorry, but that's a terrible idea.

Spiritoftheseventies

eoin wrote: »

Sorry, but that's a terrible idea.

Was just an idea. Sorry

Eoin

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Was just an idea. Sorry

Sorry if that sounded rude, but I'd rather not have sigs than have to choose from pre-set ones.

Magenta

Thaedydal wrote: »

Spiritoftheseventies stop avoiding what is being asked of you.

Are you Spiritoftheseventies going to stop being a pedantice nitpicking pain in the arse about people's sigs?

Are you Spiritoftheseventies going to stop abusing the sigpo procedure to score points off people?

I dont' see how on earth you think it is fine to be pming people about thier sig and getting invovled in sigpo when people can't pm you back and ask questions due to you having pms turned off for most people.

I have no idea why SOTS even comes to this site at all, all he/she ever does is complain and create thread after thread about petty things.
DeVore politely told him/her that the site will never be up to his/her standard and he/she should go elsewhere- nope, it was ignored, still complaining.

I think SIGPO is OK for giant sigs but I think there are users on it who just trawl through threads looking for sigs to report. It's the only explanation for why some of them have SO many posts.
There's one user who nearly needs his own thread he reports that much.

Magenta

My suggestion is that a user can have 1 line of text as a signature.
This is the rule over on Popjustice (34,464 users- twice as much as Boards going by our member list) and it works just fine.
Size of the font could be, say, 10.

No more worries about images being too big.
No more people viewing Image Properties in the hope of finding something to report.
If necessary maybe a character limit too i.e. maybe 160 characters.

Spiritoftheseventies

Magenta wrote: »

My suggestion is that a user can have 1 line of text as a signature.
This is the rule over on Popjustice (34,464 users- twice as much as Boards going by our member list) and it works just fine.
Size of the font could be, say, 10.

No more worries about images being too big.
No more people viewing Image Properties in the hope of finding something to report.
If necessary maybe a character limit too i.e. maybe 160 characters.

Think the lines of text are fine as they are easy to measure to be honest.

CHD

Yes lines are fine folks.

yes i know but as a rules sigs are sigs and i want confirmation from mods but maybe as a rule yes.

This is not the soccer forum so would appreciate slack here, as a rule, yes.

yes.

yes as a rule.

yes so anyway rafa deserves time and nando will stay, as a rule people who stay stay. stay stay. as a rule you read the first stay stay different than the first.

I didnt do that, wasnt me, yes, rule, a, as, wasnt me. Wouldnt do that.

:rolleyes:

mature convo only please lost was great, as a rule it was a tv show yes.

yes. yes. yes. i need a word tha accepts and confirms, hold on, what is sit. yes. yes it is yes. but only as a rule.

that for me is the thread, no doubt it gets deleted and I get a card.

Sigs stay the same imo. It works fine for a big site. You will never please everyone and when this dies down things will tick along nicely. Please dont let the ''genius'' feedwarded ruin a good thing before it changes bad things.

TY

Spiritoftheseventies

.....anyway I find the mozilla brower a good browser re sigs because you can block a certain type of sig if it comes from a site ie gaming which is good as you can still view other types of sigs.

Keano

Magenta wrote: »

My suggestion is that a user can have 1 line of text as a signature.
This is the rule over on Popjustice (34,464 users- twice as much as Boards going by our member list) and it works just fine.
Size of the font could be, say, 10.

No more worries about images being too big.
No more people viewing Image Properties in the hope of finding something to report.
If necessary maybe a character limit too i.e. maybe 160 characters.

Even one line of text would cause issues. If you set if for lets say font size 10. Someone would use 11 and the when it got reported they would say it's only "slightly" over!!!

CHD

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

.....anyway I find the mozilla brower a good browser re sigs because you can block a certain type of sig if it comes from a site ie gaming which is good as you can still view other types of sigs.

Can you block certain posters?