After Hours ban (happy now, sweet)

aidan_walsh

Sweet wrote:

Is it OK now?

Image: Acceptable size.
Text: Error detected. Listing image rules:
Regular text: max 4 lines.
Small text: max 8 lines.

Text plus image not allowed*.

*This appears to the the loosest rule.

Baz_

Sweet wrote:

Is it OK now?

Technically no.

Try this:
[code]
<img>http://members.boards.ie/sweet/images.jpg</img&gt;
<SIZE=1><b>Man of Faith</b>
<url=http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/sweetslr.html>Come To My Forum and Have A Great Time!</url>
Come quick and you can moderate your chosen forum.
<url=http://www.sparkysforum.linkhttp.com/>Come To Sparky's Forum For Good Times And Free Grog!</url>
</SIZE>
[code]

Except replace the angle brackets with square ones.

Baz_

Amz

Baz_ wrote:

If I was the target of such aggressive language, I would consider it bullying, not once have you provided sweet with a link to the signature rules, you just presume he knows them.

Why?

Would you rather I used lots of superfluous, flowery and ultimately unnecessary language in order to sugar coat the request?

The Sweeper

See "Trainee" before "Diplomat" under Amz' username...

Baz_

Amz wrote:

the request?

Theres a large difference between an order and a request.

Oh and it costs nothing to be nice.

Amz

Oh, you'd be surprised.

1

Small point... but because mods do not bother to tell people they banned them these days.

And given there are more than one mod on certain forums....

Who is he or she supposed to PM?

Automation... it worked for Honda...

Baz_

1 wrote:

Who is he or she supposed to PM?

Automation... it worked for Honda...

All of them?

Automation would also be good though.

Giblet

Amz, your own sig is breaking the rules, change it lest I become rabid.

Amz

And you defy Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.

1

Baz_ wrote:

All of them?

Automation would also be good though.

Why?

If a mod can't be assed PM'ing one user because they are lazy and un arsed...why so should a user be arsed PM'ing more than one Mod? it's like hassel that could be done without. Sure is that not how the mods see it? One would have though mods would have understood the efficency of just posting here tbh.

Automation works by the way. Robots/and/or .. systems work. There are lots of books on the subject.

Giblet

Amz wrote:

And you defy Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.

Excuse me? I fear there is a baby going unchanged somewhere.

Giblet

1 wrote:

Why?

If a mod can't be assed PM'ing one user because they are lazy and un arsed...why so should a user be arsed PM'ing more than one Mod? it's like hassel that could be done without. Sure is that not how the mods see it? One would have though mods would have understood the efficency of just posting here tbh.

Automation works by the way. Robots/and/or .. systems work. There are lots of books on the subject.

Well he bothered his ass posting here didn't he without following the rules, I don't PM posters who are posting stupid crap deliberately. I figure they would already know.

Amz

Giblet wrote:

Excuse me? I fear there is a baby going unchanged somewhere.

Why? Is it yours?

1

Giblet wrote:

Well he bothered his ass posting here didn't he without following the rules, I don't PM posters who are posting stupid crap deliberately. I figure they would already know.

You have to think of the lowest common denominator.

It's real simple.
Figuring "they" would already know is a error.

Baz_

1 wrote:

Automation works by the way. Robots/and/or .. systems work. There are lots of books on the subject.

First and foremost, I wasn't mocking your automation idea, I agree that it would be a superb, if ultimately time consuming, idea to implement. I think the time consumed is generally thought to be larger than the perceived value.

1 wrote:

Why?

Merely because the bannee broke the rules, if they want to find out how, and why, they PM all of the people who could have banned them. If they don't want to find out, well then they wouldn't have started the thread in the first place would they?

Baz_

P.S. I have to say this, but for some reason I find QUOTE=1 to be quite funny

1

Baz_ wrote:

First and foremost, I wasn't mocking your automation idea, I agree that it would be a superb, if ultimately time consuming, idea to implement. I think the time consumed is generally thought to be larger than the perceived value.


Merely because the bannee broke the rules, if they want to find out how, and why, they PM all of the people who could have banned them. If they don't want to find out, well then they wouldn't have started the thread in the first place would they?

Baz_

P.S. I have to say this, but for some reason I find QUOTE=1 to be quite funny

So what you are saying is that even though a simple PM from a mod could cut out a lot of bollix it's better for the banned person to "knock" themselves out PM'ing people who can't be arsed sending a simple PM but who would rather a banned person send a complex one.

I think?

1

Baz_ wrote:

First and foremost, I wasn't mocking your automation idea, I agree that it would be a superb, if ultimately time consuming, idea to implement. I think the time consumed is generally thought to be larger than the perceived value.

it's not time consuming. It's just manipulating code that already exists. See Smod tools...

Baz_

1 wrote:

it's not time consuming. It's just manipulating code that already exists. See Smod tools...

Wasn't aware of that, sorry, now its just a case of convincing the powers that be to turn it on I suppose...

Giblet

Amz wrote:

Why? Is it yours?

YOU SUCK! :cool:

Endurance Man

Mods/smods and the rest of the boards royalty need to have a large WWE beat down, get all the tension out .

1

Endurance Man wrote:

Mods/smods and the rest of the boards royalty need to have a large WWE beat down, get all the tension out .

Or just masturebate more.

Cilit Bang.

The only option.

It's good for what it says.

steveland?

This thread makes my head hurt

I'm going to take it out on the midget I have tied up in the basement...

billy the squid

expert101 wrote:

please....

Would you be so kind as to remove some of those links from your signiture. especially the last one.

expert101

but why, and what ones can i keep?

billy the squid

expert101 wrote:

but why, and what ones can i keep?

the ones that are not protected by copywright.

expert101

but that's all of them!

(apart from the last)

Baz_

billy the squid wrote:

the ones that are not protected by copywright.

wait, so all links on boards.ie that go to copyrighted material are to be removed now?

billy the squid

expert101 wrote:

but that's all of them!

themz da rulez.

expert101

is that ok?