Spammer and Sigpo notification thread?

Keano

CHD wrote: »

Can you block certain posters?

Ignore

CHD

Keano A Legend wrote: »

Ignore

What is that?

Keano

CHD wrote: »

What is that?

By clicking on someone's username the option to ignore them is on the drop down list.

Spiritoftheseventies

Keano A Legend wrote: »

By clicking on someone's username the option to ignore them is on the drop down list.

think CHD is having a bit of fun here with you Keano

Spiritoftheseventies

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

think CHD is having a bit of fun here with you Keano

I think he is just still drunk.

Keano

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

think CHD is having a bit of fun here with you Keano

The baxtard

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he is just still drunk.

It stands for Crown Royal, Hennessy, and Dos Equis? :pac:

CHD

Keano A Legend wrote: »

The baxtard

:pac:

True, Sorry

Sigsnipper

End of the day if limits are 500 x 125, that should be the absolute limit. Posters need to stop taking this so seriously. As we speak Admin has a sig that is over the limit and has been duly reported.

LoLth

just to weigh in on the users settling scores by reporting sigs.

User A insults User B in some way minor enough for it not to be considered actionable by a mod but major enough for user B to hold a grudge.

user B goes for revenge by reporting User A's signature.

Admins check the sig. if its ok, nothing happens. if its breaking the rules, it gets removed.

i dont see the problem here. so what if User B was settling a score, the merits of the signature are whats taken into account, not the user. If the sig is within the rules set out then nothing happens to it.

also, if a sig was slightly too big or slightly outside the rules and wasnt reported previously, so what if it gets reported eventually and then gets taken care of? if its breaking the rules, its breaking the rules.

should we put a limit on how much later a post can be deleted? A post with a link to illegal materials goes by unnoticed and unreported for a day, do we leave it when it does get noticed or reported seeing as its been there for a while now and hasnt done any harm? or do we delete it for illegal material which is against the rules?

ShiverinEskimo

LoLth wrote: »

i dont see the problem here. so what if User B was settling a score, the merits of the signature are whats taken into account, not the user. If the sig is within the rules set out then nothing happens to it.

The problem for me is that it's behaviour that wouldn't be out of place in a school yard. It's petty and demeaning for the users and boards as a whole that that kind of behaviour is considered acceptable.

What started as an honest attempt to erase giant/animated sigs to make browsing boards more pleasant for people on dial-up and small screens has turned into a mob-mentality of people 1-upping each other.

_blank_

LoLth wrote: »

just to weigh in on the users settling scores by reporting sigs.

User A insults User B in some way minor enough for it not to be considered actionable by a mod but major enough for user B to hold a grudge.

user B goes for revenge by reporting User A's signature.

Admins check the sig. if its ok, nothing happens. if its breaking the rules, it gets removed.

i dont see the problem here. so what if User B was settling a score, the merits of the signature are whats taken into account, not the user. If the sig is within the rules set out then nothing happens to it.

also, if a sig was slightly too big or slightly outside the rules and wasnt reported previously, so what if it gets reported eventually and then gets taken care of? if its breaking the rules, its breaking the rules.

should we put a limit on how much later a post can be deleted? A post with a link to illegal materials goes by unnoticed and unreported for a day, do we leave it when it does get noticed or reported seeing as its been there for a while now and hasnt done any harm? or do we delete it for illegal material which is against the rules?

Are you actually serious? Or playing Devil's advocate.

I mean, just look at the latest reported sig, post 4371 in tha thread, and tell me that's not malicious reporting. And then tell me that you don't see the problem. And then tell me why a different Admin hasn't removed the "offending" sig. If it's "one rule for all" then it's one rule for all.

LoLth

I think you've possibly mis-read or mis-interpreted my post.

if a sig breaks the rules it gets dealt with. Thats an admin point of view. it doesnt matter the reason for it being reported, it still gets measured against the same yard stick.

If a user reports a sig for maliscious reasons, then thats the user being petty, its not right and I dont agree with it and I agree that it reflects shamefully on the user but, at the end of the day, that doesnt enter into my decision as to whether a signature should be snipped or not.

as for the post you refer to: I am well aware of who sigsnipper is and I am 100% positive that teh report has personal motivation behind it. However, none of that will enter into the decision to allow or disallow the signature being reported. If its within the rules then its ok, if its outside the rules, then its not.

to answer you as to why it hasnt been snipped by an admin already.. I wasnt aware we were working under a time constraint. maybe an admin just hasnt gotten around to it yet but certainly, if you want snappier amdin service, feel free to take some of my RL workload off my hands and I'll be sure to improve my response times to reported signatures.

As to why another admin hasnt removed the signature: Admins cannot edit each other's accounts. its a security measure. If Davragh gets a chance I'm sure they'll investigate or perhaps Tom will remove / alter the signature himself if required.

(I have images turned off on this workstation so I cant see any sig image at the moment but I'm also not seeing a link to an image so perhaps tom has already acted on it).

Solution to petty 1-upmanship?

have your sig within the rules so it cant be used against you.

Gordon

Des wrote: »

Are you actually serious? Or playing Devil's advocate.

I mean, just look at the latest reported sig, post 4371 in tha thread, and tell me that's not malicious reporting. And then tell me that you don't see the problem. And then tell me why a different Admin hasn't removed the "offending" sig. If it's "one rule for all" then it's one rule for all.

As Lolth says:
a: I haven't even seen that report yet as I don't action sig reports immediately
b: it's an Admins sig (just saw that now) so we can't remove it as we can't access admins account post-hack
c: I can't see any sig images/text on that user profile anyway!

copacetic

Gordon wrote: »

As Lolth says:
a: I haven't even seen that report yet as I don't action sig reports immediately
b: it's an Admins sig (just saw that now) so we can't remove it as we can't access admins account post-hack
c: I can't see any sig images/text on that user profile anyway!

Tom had a slightly too high speedtest report image in his sig which he has removed. I'd guess we have loads of them breaking the rules, mght be best to allow some kind of leeway for very common sigs that people will just assume are within standard sig rules.

Aids By Google

LOLz

/subscribes