Why has someone on Boards an issue with my Sig?

Danno

Twice now in the last week my sig has been deleted. Whoever did delete it has not had the decency to PM me over it. They instead left a message citing that it was removed because it was an ad.
Funny that, I see other members "advertising" ThePropertyPin.com - BlindJustice as an example. Member Aphex is "advertising" smartquotes.ie. Cookie Monster is advertising his archery kit for sale in his sig.

Come on boards - be fair - please re-instate my signature which is a link to a website project involved in providing a one-stop-location to publish live data from personal weather stations, the site sells nothing. It is a non-profit site. Similar to Wikipedia.org etc...

I look forward to your reply.

Kind Regards
Danno.

Beruthiel

Danno wrote: »

providing a one-stop-location to publish live data from personal weather stations, the site sells nothing. It is a non-profit site.

You left out the bit where you are one of the Mods who help to run a site which is owned by exmods who threw a hissey fit herein the past, threw their toys out of their prams and set up this rival weather forum.

I'm not interested in what other sigs 'advertise'
I remember the trouble these people caused us in the past.
It was decided at that time that we would not be giving them free advertisment on our site.
I didn't come down in the last shower Danno.
If you want to pimp for business, contact sales@boards.ie

Danno

Beruthiel. I think you need to get your facts straight, seeming as you didn't come down in the last shower.

The forum on IWN was setup months before any problems were had on the Boards Weather Discussion - therefore it cannot be claimed that it was setup as a reaction to problems on the Boards Weather Discussion.

Secondly, your dis-interest in what other sigs "advertise" is hardly fair and balanced is it? Even your own signature has links to other sites - one rule for some and another for the rest?

I suggest that you take a review of my case, incorporating the points I have put across here.

Oh, and by the way, who was it that removed my sig, twice, without the decency to PM first?

Kind Regards
DANNO.

Zaph

Danno wrote: »

The forum on IWN was setup months before any problems were had on the Boards Weather Discussion - therefore it cannot be claimed that it was setup as a reaction to problems on the Boards Weather Discussion.

Fair enough, the site was open before the incident on the weather forum. So what? It still doesn't alter the fact that Boards is not obliged to give them free advertising, particularly after all that went on. If advertising the site on Boards is so important to you then I suggest you follow Beruthiel's advice and contact the sales team.

Danno wrote: »

Secondly, your dis-interest in what other sigs "advertise" is hardly fair and balanced is it? Even your own signature has links to other sites - one rule for some and another for the rest?

There's nothing in the rules against linking to other sites. And even advertising is permitted to a degree, as long as it's a discreet text link in your sig and not a banner ad. Not that any of Beruthiel's links could be considered advertising anyway. It's what the other site is in your case that's the issue. Why should Boards allow disaffected former members openly pimp their site after they caused so much trouble here? I'm sure you'll agree that that hardly makes sense.

Danno wrote: »

I suggest that you take a review of my case, incorporating the points I have put across here.

I've reviewed your case and agree with Beruthiel's decision that links to that site should not be permitted.

Danno wrote: »

Oh, and by the way, who was it that removed my sig, twice, without the decency to PM first?

I think Gordon explained it best in another similar thread earlier:

Gordon wrote:

FYI, we won't PM you about your sig, we have way too many sig infractions to be discussing specifics about this via PM. Also, if I send you a PM what's to say you won't reply to the PM, should I wait x days for you to reply and then clip the sig? Should I keep a document on my computer telling me who has replied, who hasn't, who to PM again about it? We just clip sigs if they breach the rules, sorry, but it's the only way!

Danno

Zaph wrote: »

Fair enough, the site was open before the incident on the weather forum.

So you agree with me...

So what?

...but it doesn't matter though? :rolleyes:

It still doesn't alter the fact that Boards is not obliged to give them free advertising, particularly after all that went on. If advertising the site on Boards is so important to you then I suggest you follow Beruthiel's advice and contact the sales team.

It is a link to a non-profit project like openstreetmap.org - not some business, did you even visit IWN to see the project?

There's nothing in the rules against linking to other sites. And even advertising is permitted to a degree, as long as it's a discreet text link in your sig and not a banner ad.

My sig was within the rules. There was no banner, it was text, size 2. Did you even see what my sig looked like?

Not that any of Beruthiel's links could be considered advertising anyway.

Of course, a Mod is never wrong - how stupid of me. :rolleyes:

It's what the other site is in your case that's the issue.

Again, what is wrong with the Weather Map project?

Why should Boards allow disaffected former members openly pimp their site after they caused so much trouble here?

I am not a former member, and what trouble have I caused here?

I'm sure you'll agree that that hardly makes sense.

I disagree. I find selective sig snipping makes no sense at all.

I've reviewed your case and agree with Beruthiel's decision that links to that site should not be permitted.

Again, I ask you to review, taking the time to view the Map Project, and my signature that was used.

I think Gordon explained it best in another similar thread earlier:

If there was a problem with my sig, fair enough on snipping it, but at least send a PM explaining why it was snipped, or is the person yielding the shears afraid to bear their identity?

Kind Regards,
Danno.

Zaph

Danno wrote: »

So you agree with me...

I'm taking your word for it. If you view that as agreeing with you fair enough, I haven't investigated when it was started.

Danno wrote: »

...but it doesn't matter though? :rolleyes:

Not in the slightest. It could be 10 years old, but it still doesn't get around the fact that it's run by people who previously caused problems here and we don't want their site promoted on Boards.

Danno wrote: »

It is a link to a non-profit project like openstreetmap.org - not some business, did you even visit IWN to see the project?

No, I have no interest in the site. Our sole interest here is in who runs it.

Danno wrote: »

My sig was within the rules. There was no banner, it was text, size 2. Did you even see what my sig looked like?

No, it was already deleted when I saw this thread. I wasn't specifically commenting on your sig however, I was merely referring to what's permitted within the site rules.

Danno wrote: »

Of course, a Mod is never wrong - how stupid of me. :rolleyes:

Mods are frequently wrong. However in this case your point is irrelevent. As I said, links are permitted in sigs, including discreet advertising. Beruthiel's links are discreet but don't actually advertise anything.

Danno wrote: »

Again, what is wrong with the Weather Map project?

You are completely missing the point. We have no issue with the project, the issue is with the people who run the site and who we'd rather not give free publicity to on this site.

Danno wrote: »

I am not a former member, and what trouble have I caused here?

I wasn't referring to you, apologies if that is what was inferred by my post. You are, however, a mod on the site owned by the aforementioned disaffected Boards members.

Danno wrote: »

I disagree. I find selective sig snipping makes no sense at all.

When it is in direct conflict with this site and its rules, it makes perfect sense.

Danno wrote: »

Again, I ask you to review, taking the time to view the Map Project, and my signature that was used.

Your signature will not be permitted to include a link to that site. This decision is final.

Danno wrote: »

If there was a problem with my sig, fair enough on snipping it, but at least send a PM explaining why it was snipped, or is the person yielding the shears afraid to bear their identity?

The link to Gordon's post explained quite clearly why no PM is sent to any user when their signature is edited. It's not a case of being afraid to reveal their identity, but rather that the admins responsible for enforcing sig rules are far too busy to make exceptions. In the end, what difference would it make? Your signature contained a link to a site that we don't want to give free publicity to and any admin would have done the same.

Danno

:rolleyes:

Petty.