My signature.

Jaeger

seamus wrote:

Yes, but there are 30,000 other people here. The sig rules have to be enforced to the letter. If the admins make an exception for you with your 400px width, then they have to allow everyone to have a 400px width.

I know this is going to sound really arrogant to you, but I don't want an exception made. I want the rules changed. Don't have a heart attack just yet, read on

What I was looking for was perhaps a redefinition of the rules on dimensions. Using a little cop-on instead of rigidly clinging to rules you don't care to question. There's probably no point in evening continuing. The admins aren't even discussing it. Bad form lads.

Certainly if you make an exception once then you'll have to keep making it over and over again. Certainly if I wanted 400 * 400 or something like that increasing both dimensions then I would expect to be shut down as it would only increase and increase with each exception made.

It just doesn't make sense that I can make my sig larger in size, thus increasing (marginally thanks to vb3) page loading times and it will be more acceptable than the smaller one.

I'm looking for a little give and take Seamas. If my request was completely unreasonable then this thread would be long dead.

koneko

Do you have a link to your sig btw? For anyone that didn't see it before.

seamus

Jaeger wrote:

What I was looking for was perhaps a redefinition of the rules on dimensions. Using a little cop-on instead of rigidly clinging to rules you don't care to question. There's probably no point in evening continuing. The admins aren't even discussing it. Bad form lads.

The admins do have real job and real lives, and there are hundreds of threads posted on boards every day. You already got 2-3 responses from them, that's pretty good
Criticising the admins won't help your case at all. It's more likely to earn you a big finger and "F*ck off if you don't like it" from them.

Certainly if you make an exception once then you'll have to keep making it over and over again. Certainly if I wanted 400 * 400 or something like that increasing both dimensions then I would expect to be shut down as it would only increase and increase with each exception made.

The same applies to the rules. If they change the rules for you, then someone else comes along next week with a similarly "reasonable" request. I don't want to speak for the admins here, and I don't assume to, so what I say is my view on it. With a site this size, there's only so much compromising one can do. What kind of redefinition would you like? A fixed width allows a simple script to remove sigs that don't conform, like yours. More complex rules require a more complex script, and result in more work for people who are already giving their time freely. Especially when it's over something as tiny and inconsequential as signatures, I don't believe it's worth the effort to satisfy a tiny minority - I don't see many requests to change the sig rules on this board.

I'm looking for a little give and take Seamas. If my request was completely unreasonable then this thread would be long dead.

I believe there's plenty of give and take. But it's not up to me, as you know.

spongebob

Jaeger wrote:

What I was looking for was perhaps a redefinition of the rules on dimensions. Using a little cop-on instead of rigidly clinging to rules you don't care to question. There's probably no point in evening continuing. The admins aren't even discussing it. Bad form lads.

I had not botherered to comment on any of your posts till now, in my opinion a few pixels here and there are the least of the admins worries at present .

Far more pertinent would be :

1. What to do with Mods who constantly clutter up threads started by others with inanities thereby constantly stifling discussions of what Boards could be /should be /may become .

2. What vision the admins >May< have going forward .....

3. What kind of admin system seems to prioritise This over ...... This .

4. WTF happened to This .....for example.

%^()*

CuLT

If my request was completely unreasonable then this thread would be long dead.

Untrue. This topic has been brought up a couple of times in the past with the same result.
The reason this thread is ongoing is because people decided to use it as a martyr for the "Oppressed Newbie Liberation Front".

seamus

alkjdflkajf wrote:

2. What vision the admins >May< have going forward .....

I gather they're in the process of deciding this themselves, never mind telling us.

3. What kind of admin system seems to prioritise This over ...... This .

Pro Evo Soccer is a Hosted forum. Apples and Oranges Muck.

4. WTF happened to This .....for example.

Santa Strike Force isn't long after winding down. You know full well that no-one can devote all of their time to working on a boards to-do list.

(I'm going to stop now....:))

spongebob

seamus wrote:

I gather they're in the process of deciding this themselves, never mind telling us.

?

seamus wrote:

Pro Evo Soccer is a Hosted forum. Apples and Oranges

Duh me Duh! , typo, fixed now. I had meant to link the CHOCOLATE forum .

seamus wrote:

Santa Strike Force isn't long after winding down. You know full well that no-one can devote all of their time to working on a boards to-do list.

I know that but I actually think that the basic premise of Boards is unravelling or dumbing down and that this is seemingly inexorable at this stage.

Thats why we get Chocolate fora not Consumer fora.

Thats why the mods seem to have have developed a culture of going arf arf in forums where these things should be discussed ....not pointing finger at you Seamus BTW . Thats why I just want away and be forgotten now, there is seemingly nothing to belong to unless I resort to the inanity of the lowest common denominator.

I said it before, I blame the admins for letting it get like this because maybe the mechanics took over the spot where the vision could have once been.

The inability to communicate a vision and to energise a centre to execute that vision should not be underestimated but I see none of that any more, certainly the communications and energising bit .

Arf Arf Arf as the man said.

$£"^UP

koneko

The chocolate forum (as stupid as I personally think it is), is a Hosted forum. Hosted forums are a service of sorts that Boards can provide. If you want a board where you and people you know want to discuss something, they can provide you with a board (that's how I understand it anyway). It's not part of the normal boards, that's what seamus meant I think.

Cactus Col

CuLT wrote:

Untrue. This topic has been brought up a couple of times in the past with the same result.
The reason this thread is ongoing is because people decided to use it as a martyr for the "Oppressed Newbie Liberation Front".

ONLF indeed, I thought the problem was that mods, instead of dealing with the issues raised, preferred to make fun and not bother with the questions asked, as in the two other threads I linked to yesterday.

(More so in those threads than in this thread)

It took 5 days for an answer in the newbie help forum to get a proper answer, despite 5 different moderators replying to the original question. But that's only one example, because I'm too lazy to go looking for more.

I don't think anybody would have a problem if a proper reply had been given, and then everybody had a bit of fun, but to simply ignore the question is a pretty poor show.

One could argue that moderators are normal users outside their own threads in the same way that Gardai are normal citizens outside work hours.

koneko

Cactus Col wrote:

One could argue that moderators are normal users outside their own threads in the same way that Gardai are normal citizens outside work hours.

Helping out, unpaid, on boards that interest you in your free time is hardly comparable to being a guard.

Besides, there's a lot of people here that are always saying how the mods are on powertrips and have too much power as it is, would you really want that increased?

KevIRL

Just a thought....

If moderators are the same as other boards users outside the board they moderate, then maybe their user id should be the same (ie not bold) outside the board they moderate?

Cactus Col

koneko wrote:

Helping out, unpaid, on boards that interest you in your free time is hardly comparable to being a guard.

Besides, there's a lot of people here that are always saying how the mods are on powertrips and have too much power as it is, would you really want that increased?

By comparing mods to gardai, what I was trying to say was, that as rule enforcers, moderators should not be seen to be as irresponsible dossers, in the same way as gardai should (in an ideal world!) be responsible law abiding citizens (is there a different way to spell citizen?). (Maybe the comparison doesn't hold up, but I think my point is kinda clear).

Like I said before, nobody cares about people joking around, except when they make it a priority over answering questions.

SantaHoe

pam wrote:

Guess so, maybe that's because the same boring topics keep coming getting brought up by outraged newbs demanding silly things like "rights" and "customer satisfaction".

If you're so bored by them, why post?
Oh that's right, because you think you're funny.
*claps slowly*

Pugsley

I agree with the Gardai comparison, as it stands mods, outside their own forum, do exactly what they aim to prevent in their own forum, ie spam, flame, and generally annoy quite a few people.

If moderators are the same as other boards users outside the board they moderate, then maybe their user id should be the same (ie not bold) outside the board they moderate?

Good idea imo, doubt it would ever be passed though, mods would flame for months if it were, arf arf.

seamus

Pugsley wrote:

I agree with the Gardai comparison, as it stands mods, outside their own forum, do exactly what they aim to prevent in their own forum, ie spam, flame, and generally annoy quite a few people.

Ugh! Get that paintbrush off me!

Good idea imo, doubt it would ever be passed though, mods would flame for months if it were, arf arf.

You'd be lucky to find one who'd give a ****, and I think it's a great idea. Although I would like to be recognised as a subscriber if not as a mod.

spongebob

Actually Séamus that is all purely cosmetic and the behaviour predated the recent font differences in mod usernames .

Country people such as I know that when the oul dog packs you take it out and shoot it. !

M

seamus

alkjdflkajf wrote:

Actually Séamus that is all purely cosmetic and the behaviour predated the recent font differences in mod usernames.

As I already said . But it's perfect proof that people fabricate these ideas in their head about post count, title, avatar, status in order to try and provide evidence that being a mod goes to one's head.

Jaeger

koneko wrote:

Do you have a link to your sig btw? For anyone that didn't see it before.

http://www.iol.ie/~z0diac/sigs/ispec_arcane.gif

CuLT wrote:

This topic has been brought up a couple of times in the past with the same result.

This is my first time posting in feedback. Never ever read this forum prior to posting. And again, not a newbie, didn't set out here to start anything. All I wanted was someone to review the signature limits.

As to criticising the admins. The person who makes admin usually isn't the kind of person that can't take criticism without being offended.

Mods should behave themselves whatever forum they're on.


[edit] Sorry, grammar goes to hell at times whilst on the phone. Link fixed.

seamus

Jaeger wrote:

As to criticising the admins. The person who makes admin usually isn't the kind of people that can't take criticism without being offended.

It's not really taking offence. Usually they get annoyed because people criticise them without taking into account the staggering amount of unpaid work they do behind the scenes, just to keep the site up and running. I know personally if someone was calling me a bad admin over a insignificant signature, without any sort of thanks for everything else, it would piss me off.

aidan_walsh

Jaeger wrote:

http://www.iol.ie/~z0diac/img/ispec_arcane.gif

Broken link.

Jaeger

seamus wrote:

I know personally if someone was calling me a bad admin over a insignificant signature, without any sort of thanks for everything else, it would piss me off.

Indeed it would annoy me too, which is why noone's called any of the admins bad.

Didn't go into thanks for hosting/providing the boards. I would have been flamed for sucking up to them to get what I want by the same people who called me newbie

StupidLikeAFox

At the end of the day, to summarise what appears to have happened-

1. Jaegar posts a question, with the comment, "i dont want a stupid answer from a jumped up nazi like mod :::smiley:::"
2A - *Most* regular users see this as a fair question
2B - *Some* mods see this and think ''who the hell is he calling a jumped up nazi like
mod?!?!?"
3. The mods in question, and some reg.users,(partyA) proceed to reply "smart" and
"witty" answers to the question, (a jumped up, nazi like response) without
realising that the guy just wanted clarification etc
4. The regular users in question, and some mods, (partyB) see the above reaction as
harsh, unfair etc and try do something about it
5. PartyA see this as undermining their opinions, and retaliate
6. PartyB see this as undermining THEIR opinions, and retaliate

And as such it has snowballed from there. I certainly believe, from his more recent posts, that the orig.poster was only looking for a fair answer/explanation, even if it was just something like ''well sorry mate, but we cant bend the rules for ya''. Problem is, it was assumed this guy was blazing in and DEMANDING his sig back

Now knock yourselves out, pick numerous holes in the way my post was phrased (coz that'll get ya places and all), but the core message is fairly sound

(oh and koneko, i actually hadnt a clue who it was that posted it up, i jus remembered the post is all. Much apologies m'lady ::bows::)

Raphael

Cactus Col wrote:

It took 5 days for an answer in the newbie help forum to get a proper answer, despite 5 different moderators replying to the original question. But that's only one example, because I'm too lazy to go looking for more.

I assume you're talking about the guy wanting to be mod, if not I apolgise. What exactly was wrong with agent smiths post (the 5th past and 2nd user in the thread). Seems to answer it all well. granted, simu's was better, but smiths was more than sufficient

Oh, and to throw in my 2c: The original poster was being cocky and/or arrogant, and the majority of users in this thread are over-reacting. IMO, of course

DeVore

How does any of this matter when the only people who's opinion counts in the final analysis is the admins. We've given our view and our decision after reading the posts. The decision stands and to clarify, the reason we dont look at these on a case by case basis is that there are tens of thousands of users and we automate the script that checks the images. 300 is what it is, 300 is what it stays at.

Its not just the mods that jump in to slag someone who (to be fair) was kinda asking for it. Its a big bad world out there and while I like people to be civil I certainly am not going to start going to ban people for being smart arsed to someone who was being pretty smart arsed to start with. If a user cant stand the heat, well, feedback makes the kitchen look like the fridge.


DeV.

CuLT

ColHol wrote:

2A - *Most* regular users see this as a fair question

I'd love to see where you're getting this information from; there are about 12 posters in total taking part in this thread.

And as such it has snowballed from there. I certainly believe, from his more recent posts, that the orig.poster was only looking for a fair answer/explanation, even if it was just something like ''well sorry mate, but we cant bend the rules for ya''. Problem is, it was assumed this guy was blazing in and DEMANDING his sig back

He WAS blazing in a demanding his sig back. Whether he intended it to come across that way or not is beside the point at this stage.
to use the Garda analogy so often used in this thread, if I walked into a Garda station and said "Hi, why was my car impounded? And I don't want some nazi Garda coming out here on his high-horse" I sure as hell wouldn't be expecting a frickin warm welcome.

Now knock yourselves out, pick numerous holes in the way my post was phrased (coz that'll get ya places and all), but the core message is fairly sound

Eh, rofl?
Lawyer: Look judge, I know my case is based on assumption, and all I have in my briefcase is torn-up newspaper, but judging me on that is so cliché!

StupidLikeAFox

CuLT wrote:

"Hi, why was my car impounded? And I don't want some nazi Garda coming out here on his high-horse" I sure as hell wouldn't be expecting a frickin warm welcome.

All depends on the tone of your voice tbh, and in fairness he had a smiley in there

And he said he didnt want a "jumped up, nazi-like" smart answering, so why did you choose to take offence to that? instead of saying, ''boy im sure glad im not one of those guys, and in answer to your question blah blah blah....''

CuLT

The smiley doesn't make the post; I see smilies used all over the place practically at random, adding in a wink smiley is no substitute for clear grammar.

ColHol wrote:

And he said he didnt want a "jumped up, nazi-like" smart answering, so why did you choose to take offence to that? instead of saying, ''boy im sure glad im not one of those guys, and in answer to your question blah blah blah....''

It was his post as a whole that came across as arrogant.
And after all, this poster's sig proclaims, "say what you mean and mean what you say".

StupidLikeAFox

Jaegar wrote:

may I have a genuine technical reason as to it's removal?

That was the ultimate question. If ya had given him the benefit of the doubt and answered it im sure that would have been the end of it. DeVore did that even though he thought the post was a bit arrogant

CuLT

ColHol wrote:

That was the ultimate question. If ya had given him the benefit of the doubt and answered it im sure that would have been the end of it. DeVore did that even though he thought the post was a bit arrogant

Sadly, in my own experience, giving people the benefit of the doubt is not often prudent.

seamus

CuLT wrote:

Sadly, in my own experience, giving people the benefit of the doubt is not often prudent.

Have to agree. As much I loath to admit it.