Spammer and Sigpo notification thread?

xw2lj9uspm1eyh

First off sorry mods if this is in the wrong forum or been posted before I did check back through the last few pages to see if this was brought up.Just wondering why non-mods are allowed to post in these threads reporting users isn't this a form of backseat modding?

I know it's handy for admins if someone reports a spammer or someones sig is too big etc.But if a user gets a warning for spamming or sig is removed checks the thread to see someone reporting them that isn't a mod this might cause tension even though the reported user is completely in the wrong.

Another scenario if someone has an argument with another user.Notices his\her sig is too big for instance and posts in the notification thread isn't this just stirring the pot between the two users.


I know there would be genuine people that would report someone and not do it for oneupmanship.Maybe I'm completely in the wrong but isn't this what the report button is for to report spammers etc etc for users so why is there a need for non-mods to be replying to these threads.Besides if a user gets it wrong and uses the report button instead of posting in the thread a mod sees it and takes no notice instead of clogging up the threads with bad calls.

Rabies

The spammer thread is good. Helps the Admins find the 'tards the forums really easy. Some spammer and shill posts contain porn links. As much as I love a bit of pron here and there, we can't have it all over the site.

The sig thread is a personal hate of mine. On the positive side people point out usually new posters with massive sigs. Thats a good thing. On the other side, there is now a "team" of people scouring the site looking for any little reason to report sig issues.

"OMG, ur sig is 5 pixels 2 wide!!"

Over all, it is to help the site

Tom Dunne

mendusa wrote: »

isn't this a form of backseat modding?

Not really. On a thread, in a forum, commenting on somebody else's post is backseat modding. In this forum, in that thread is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Do you see the difference?

mendusa wrote: »

but isn't this what the report button is for to report spammers etc etc for users so why is there a need for non-mods to be replying to these threads

The Report Post button notifies the forum mods. What if they are not around? It is conceivable that the CMod and mods are not around, so if the Admins can step in and delete any offensive/spammy posts.

So it's kinda like a second round of defence against spammers.

Spiritoftheseventies

I don't really see what the fuss is about here. If posters sig is too big or isnt dont conform to standards, poster changes it, end of. As I have had to do.
Why posters take it so personally is beyond me. It matters not one iota why the post is reported.

_blank_

Rabies wrote: »

The sig thread is a personal hate of mine. On the positive side people point out usually new posters with massive sigs. Thats a good thing. On the other side, there is now a "team" of people scouring the site looking for any little reason to report sig issues.

"OMG, ur sig is 5 pixels 2 wide!!"

I can fathom no reason why anyone, anyone, would report sigs that slightly bend the rules a bit. It's idiotic pedantry at best, and malicious nastiness at worst.

Fair enough, if someone has a huge picture of a dead child as their sig, it should be probably taken down.

As for the idea of SigPo as a whole. Twats, the lot of them. Brown-nosing, lick-arse twats.

What do they get out of it? A warm fuzzy feeling when an Admin admonishes someone for having a slightly-too-large picture?

Seriously? Get a bleedin' life, have you nothing better to be doing than inspecting other people's sigs? If sigs bother you that much, turn them bleedin off.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I don't really see what the fuss is about here. If posters sig is too big or isnt dont conform to standards, poster changes it, end of. As I have had to do.
Why posters take it so personally is beyond me. It matters not one iota why the post is reported.

Nope, you don't HAVE to do anything.

you report the sigs of people you have perceived to have wronged you in a petty attempt to "get them back".

I find sigpo to go against the spirit of boards.

It seems that there is a culture similar to the Guards in that it feels like there has to be a "quota". It seems that sigs are getting reported every day and most of these sigs are harmless.

Sigs that are obviously too big or that are eyesores etc are obviously going to be reported and dealt with. But we don't need a bunch of "do gooders" (rats if you ask me) hopping around all day reporting several sigs a day. It screams of a petty "I'm telling the teacher" sort of attitude and creates no feel good atmosphere on the boards. And as Des said it seems to be used as a sort of revenge tool for some petty childish users.

Without naming any names there are a few posters who I have no time for at all as a result of their behaviour in the sigpo notification thread.

event

i didnt know such a thing as sigpo existed until a few months ago and im here nearly 5 years. i couldnt believe people would ever bother to do that

i think its very sad altogether, people actually look at other peoples sigs, check them and report them if they break the rules?

there are not enough smilies on boards to sum that up.

what is the point?

ShiverinEskimo

event wrote: »

what is the point?

It's the closest many of these sad bastards will get to ever being a mod.

These are same type of wannabes that put themselves forward to be hall monitor/prefect in school - generally just cúnts with no mates.

Spiritoftheseventies

Des wrote: »

you report the sigs of people you have perceived to have wronged you in a petty attempt to "get them back".

And you know this for a fact Des do you. Dont even know half the posters i have reported.
End of the day its up to the poster to make sure his sig meets the criteria.
Same applies to me.

ShiverinEskimo

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

End of the day its up to the poster to make sure his sig meets the criteria.

Exactly. It's up to the poster - not you.

I went into the thread and saw you reported a picture that was 1k over the 20k limit. Not cool man. So not cool.

Spiritoftheseventies

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Exactly. It's up to the poster - not you.

I went into the thread and saw you reported a picture that was 1k over the 20k limit. Not cool man. So not cool.

Again Shivering Eskimo I have had to change my sig when it was too big. It takes two or three minutes to change it.
And lets say you make it an exception for 21kb. That becomes 22 kb tomorrow and so on.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Again Shivering Eskimo I have had to change my sig when it was too big. It takes two or three minutes to change it.
And lets say you make it an exception for 21kb. That becomes 22 kb tomorrow and so on.

Are you always so contrary? Actually. No need to answer that. Like I already said, being THAT petty goes against the good community spirit of boards IMO and it also generates a lot of ill will towards certain people who really do themselves no favours (and I'm not exclusively referring to you here before you ask)

ShiverinEskimo

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Again Shivering Eskimo I have had to change my sig when it was too big. It takes two or three minutes to change it.
And lets say you make it an exception for 21kb. That becomes 22 kb tomorrow and so on.

No one has a problem with the rules SOTS. They have a problem with how a collection of posters feel the need to go around hunting for offenders like the gestapo.

I'm not having a go at you personally by the way but I just cannot comprehend how you or anyone else feels they need to go to the effort to report a picture that is 1k above the recommeneded size. It makes no difference to your day whatsoever and visually the picture would be the same if saved in a better format (png, jpg, gif etc.).

Can you not see how that irks people no?

My name is URL

SigPo is crap, as Neil said, it goes against the spirit of Boards. If the policing of sigs and enforcement of the rules pertaining to them is that bloody important then write a bot that simply deletes offending sigs

Spiritoftheseventies

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

No one has a problem with the rules SOTS. They have a problem with how a collection of posters feel the need to go around hunting for offenders like the gestapo.

I'm not having a go at you personally by the way but I just cannot comprehend how you or anyone else feels they need to go to the effort to report a picture that is 1k above the recommeneded size. It makes no difference to your day whatsoever and visually the picture would be the same if saved in a better format (png, jpg, gif etc.).

Can you not see how that irks people no?

That sig you are talking about stood out. And I have come out before and said that people who put some effort into their sigs should be acknowledged.
But really all poster has to do to check if sigpo is okay is click on image properties. Takes two seconds.

The Recliner

Do we even need this thread with its level of bile

Sigs and things associated with them are being talked about in Feedforward, if anyone has anything positive to suggest about them it should be posted there

Spiritoftheseventies

The Recliner wrote: »

Do we even need this thread with its level of bile

Sigs and things associated with them are being talked about in Feedforward, if anyone has anything positive to suggest about them it should be posted there

Well I think what Overheal says below is a good idea.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65756196&postcount=46

What I think should happen though re the other stuff is that reporting sigs should be done via report post and mod then passes it on the admin. Seems the easiest thing to do and there is less strife all round.

event

The Recliner wrote: »

Do we even need this thread with its level of bile

Sigs and things associated with them are being talked about in Feedforward, if anyone has anything positive to suggest about them it should be posted there

the discussion threads there seemed to be closed now though

hopefully they will make changes to the rules though, it could eradicate the need for the Sigpo

Spiritoftheseventies

End of the day there has to be a limit on how big your image can be. The main problem is that a 66 kb image maybe the same size re height and width as a 20kb sig but may be denser in colour.
I would take out the size limit myself and just restrict it to 500 x125. Would maybe allow 5 pixels either way to give posters the benefit of the doubt.

event

oh i have no doubt there needs to be restrictions on sigs, obviously.

but maybe a way of vetting them before people use them, it would mean people arent reported by someone for being 1k over a file size. it is a very poor side to boards IMO

ShiverinEskimo

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Would maybe allow 5 pixels either way to give posters the benefit of the doubt.

Yet 1kb cannot be classed under 'benefit of the doubt' according to your report in the sigpo thread.

As previously said - people have no problem with the rules, its the system of reporting that is flawed as it encourages one small set of posters to go about ratting users out. It's counter-intuitive to the kind of online community boards promotes.

Spiritoftheseventies

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Yet 1kb cannot be classed under 'benefit of the doubt' according to your report in the sigpo thread.

As previously said - people have no problem with the rules, its the system of reporting that is flawed as it encourages one small set of posters to go about ratting users out. It's counter-intuitive to the kind of online community boards promotes.

At same time if you notify a poster that you are reporting their post (which used to be the procedure but the rule has been relaxed a bit now) they wont take it kindly either as what happened to me awhile back.
Again if this can be done privately it cuts out a lot of the stuff that has been going on in last month.
It makes no difference if mod sees sig or I do. Mod makes the ultimate decision.

Kiera

Des wrote: »

As for the idea of SigPo as a whole. Twats, the lot of them. Brown-nosing, lick-arse twats.

What do they get out of it? A warm fuzzy feeling when an Admin admonishes someone for having a slightly-too-large picture?

Seriously? Get a bleedin' life, have you nothing better to be doing than inspecting other people's sigs? If sigs bother you that much, turn them bleedin off.

em?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62413635&postcount=3694

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61604786&postcount=3629

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61028363&postcount=3588

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60012989&postcount=3517

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58110144&postcount=3279

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57653933&postcount=3188

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57633692&postcount=3187

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55461586&postcount=2574

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55077968&postcount=2455

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54020182&postcount=2185

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53864067&postcount=2132

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53851717&postcount=2124

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53657784&postcount=2050

So, not only have you been insulting other users, you are being hypocritical.

In your own words:

Des wrote:

If sigs bother you that much, turn them bleedin off.

Spiritoftheseventies

Kiera wrote: »

em?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62413635&postcount=3694

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61604786&postcount=3629

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61028363&postcount=3588

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60012989&postcount=3517

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58110144&postcount=3279

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57653933&postcount=3188

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57633692&postcount=3187

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55461586&postcount=2574

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55077968&postcount=2455

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54020182&postcount=2185

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53864067&postcount=2132

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53851717&postcount=2124

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53657784&postcount=2050

So, not only have you been insulting other users, you are being hypocritical.

In your own words:

21 posts in all. And he was in his right to report them. But not right to singling out others doing it. Large case of Kettle pot black here.

Kiera

Kiera wrote: »

So, not only have you been insulting other users, you are being hypocritical.

In your own words:

To be fair, you've gone out of your way to have a go here. You've neglected to acknowledge that he also said:

Des wrote: »

I can fathom no reason why anyone, anyone, would report sigs that slightly bend the rules a bit. .........

Fair enough, if someone has a huge picture of a dead child as their sig, it should be probably taken down...............

Do we have any idea of the size of any of those sigs that Des reported? My guess is that he didn't report any thing that was 1kb over for sure.

I do remember Des was modding a forum and one user had a MASSIVE sig (like those infuriating ''I'm awesome x 1000 times'' groups on Facebook, and after asking the user several times to remove it he reported it. I remember it specifically because I posted in the thread. Undfortunately the topic eludes me and trawling through Des' posts to find it would take the whole summer!

The point is, I'm pretty sure the posts reported by Des were the obnoxiously large ones, which is fair enough IMO, and that side of sigpo I agree with. The side of sigpo I most certainly do not agree with is where you have a select few who seem to spend half of their day looking for sigs to report. I'd guestimate that 99% of the sigs reported would be deemed harmless by 99% of the users on boards. But looking at the thread you'd think boards had a huge problem with giant sigs, which it doesn't.

So why then is that thread so freakin busy?

The Recliner

Kiera wrote: »

em?

So, not only have you been insulting other users, you are being hypocritical.

In your own words:

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

21 posts in all. And he was in his right to report them. But not right to singling out others doing it. Large case of Kettle pot black here.

I don't think so

Des pointed out that he sees reporting of sigs as ok when they are in clear breach of rules

He was giving out about people who report tiny breaches of the rules

Des wrote: »

I can fathom no reason why anyone, anyone, would report sigs that slightly bend the rules a bit. It's idiotic pedantry at best, and malicious nastiness at worst.

Fair enough, if someone has a huge picture of a dead child as their sig, it should be probably taken down.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

21 posts in all. And he was in his right to report them. But not right to singling out others doing it. Large case of Kettle pot black here.

No there isn't because like I just said, Des isn't running around reporting sigs for being 1kb over.


So no, unfortunately this one doesn't prove you right.

Spiritoftheseventies

Have to admit there was one poster on sigpo thread whose high post count I noticed. But now i see where he is coming from.
Admins dont have time to check every sig. We are not mercenaries here. No money changes hands. No thirty pieces of silver.
End of the day if a poster takes lets five minutes putting a signature together he can take an extra minute to make sure it meets all the requirements.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Have to admit there was one poster on sigpo thread whose high post count I noticed. But now i see where he is coming from.

There are a number of people in there who could do with a new hobby or a girlfriend alright.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Admins dont have time to check every sig. We are not mercenaries here. No money changes hands. No thirty pieces of silver.

No, but those who persistently rat people out do get that feeling of having some kind of power. Or whatever they get out of it.

Remember, that kid that everyone hated back in school who used to tell on everyone for any little thing wasn't getting paid either?

Bit of a strange point to be fair.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

End of the day if a poster takes lets five minutes putting a signature together he can take an extra minute to make sure it meets all the requirements.

True, and fair enough. Just like taking the extra minute every day to retype your password reduces the odds of someone else being able to access your account/profile etc, but that remember password button is very tempting isn't it? And most people's lives don't revolve around boards/the internets, so most people will go with common sense instead as it's quicker. And common sense will usually see people staying under the limit. However the odd time they might be out by 1kb.

As far as I'm concerned as long as they're using common sense then the sigpo job is mundane. Sigpo itself could do with a bit of common sense. Some of the rats on sigpo could do with doing themselves a favour and nipping it in the bud unless the sig is an obvious eyesore.

Spiritoftheseventies

You are getting stuck on that 1kb. Its not the issue here. The size involves density of sig as well so its irrelevant really that it was 1kb over.
Again most posters who are asked to change their sig do so with minimum fuss. But there are also the postes who go on as if they have had their car impounded.
If you look at the history of the sigpo thread there were folks complaining about it five years ago.
The fact that it is now five years old says that for all its critics, the sigpo notify thread has been a success.

Overheal

The Sigpo is a success because it has run for a couple years now in what I would consider Peace Time: nobody really bored enough to trawl through Threads, scan people's sigs and make sure they're up to par by a few Bytes or Pixels. When people do spring up on sigpo its to report something thats largely distracting.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

That sig you are talking about stood out.

I dont know how you can possibly claim to "see" a sig being 1kb over the limit. Are you Neo?

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I would take out the size limit myself and just restrict it to 500 x125. Would maybe allow 5 pixels either way to give posters the benefit of the doubt.

Then why are you policing people for being 1px or 1kb out of place if you agree that its bull****?

the mind boggles.

Gordon

Des wrote: »

As for the idea of SigPo as a whole. Twats, the lot of them. Brown-nosing, lick-arse twats.

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

It's the closest many of these sad bastards will get to ever being a mod.

These are same type of wannabes that put themselves forward to be hall monitor/prefect in school - generally just cúnts with no mates.

Eh?! Tone down your attitude and language, or kindly don't post here, thanks.

The sigpo thread has been running for over five years now and hasn't caused that much of a stir in the half a decade it has been running. As time goes on boards gets bigger and bigger so trying to create a community led initiative like this gets more difficult. It seems that the people that report excessive signatures are unfortunately seen as petty and brown-nosing when the people that report posts aren't. That is something I find saddening, people are only trying to help out and they get lambasted for it. Well done to the begrudgers.

I must admit, though, I get the impression that some recent signatures have been reported due to personal reasons/gripes/whatever. This is something I find a little sad. But, at the end of the day - there are rules, and everybody wants consistency, so this is how it is.

For now at least, hopefully Feedforward will come up with the perfect solution to signatures, as I admit that this current half-decade old tradition needs a bit of a polish

As for the spammer thread, it's a direct line to spam removal, otherwise people will report the posts and shunt the spam to the moderator. This could delay action and when spam is concerned speed is of the essence. Sometimes spam is just one post advertising some crappy online store, but sometimes a spammer will post a bucketload of threads which in turn causes even more reported posts. So having the thread in feedback where anyone can help out and report spam really enables us to catch them quickly and cause minimal disruption to the site.

copacetic

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is, I'm pretty sure the posts reported by Des were the obnoxiously large ones, which is fair enough IMO, and that side of sigpo I agree with.

Thats not true from a simple read of the reports.

The Recliner wrote: »

I don't think so

Des pointed out that he sees reporting of sigs as ok when they are in clear breach of rules

He was giving out about people who report tiny breaches of the rules

Thats not true either:

As for the idea of SigPo as a whole. Twats, the lot of them. Brown-nosing, lick-arse twats.

Is simple abuse and as it turns out hypocritical abuse at that, self abuse even! The admins setup a thread asking users to help them out by reporting sigs, admins then act on the reports if they feel action is required. The people who do report issues often get abused for it, it's always been that way. Until an admin decides to close the thread (and/or the system is changed)anyone abusing people for helping out should have pretty harsh action taken against them.

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

The Sigpo is a success because it has run for a couple years now in what I would consider Peace Time: nobody really bored enough to trawl through Threads, scan people's sigs and make sure they're up to par by a few Bytes or Pixels. When people do spring up on sigpo its to report something thats largely distracting.


I dont know how you can possibly claim to "see" a sig being 1kb over the limit. Are you Neo?

Then why are you policing people for being 1px or 1kb out of place if you agree that its bull****?

the mind boggles.

Im absolutely astonished you would say this. Overheal this the op from sigpo thread

All signatures should not exceed the following size limits.

* Text: Including horizontal spaces - 4 lines normal size OR 8 lines small size, and up to 90 chars per line. Font sizes above 2 are not allowed. Do not use the

tags. Carriage returns/new lines are a separate line, so if your sig has three lines of text separated by two spacer lines - that's 5 lines. Sorry, I know it's rather pernickety, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere /pun.
* Images: Images totalling up to 500 pixels wide, 125 pixels tall and 20k in size. No animated images are allowed.

These guidelines were drawn up by the admin and now we are being accused of being neos for merely following the guidelines.
End of the day posters were given a lot of scope on that thread to voice their disapproval when they were told to take it to help desk.
Some not only didn't do that but took it up on other feedback threads.
Either there are limits or there is not to re the sigs. As to whether or not I can see the difference its simple enough. Click on the image properties and it tells you.

ShiverinEskimo

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

As to whether or not I can see the difference its simple enough. Click on the image properties and it tells you.

People are questioning why you would view the properties of the image in the first place man.

There is no way anyone could look at a 18kb pic and a 21kb version of same and tell them apart. The fact you seem to actively view the properties of images you come across and report the ones that are even minutely outside the guidelines speaks volumes. It's not cool to report a image 1kb over the limit.

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Im absolutely astonished you would say this. Overheal this the op from sigpo thread

All signatures should not exceed the following size limits.



These guidelines were drawn up by the admin and now we are being accused of being neos for merely following the guidelines.

You're not merely following the guidelines, you're actively seeking out infringements as well. I don't know how else to explain your recent string of 1px reports.

And have you attempted to contact any of these users, as described in Gordon's new signature rules of last week?

Gordon wrote:

Remember though, boards is a community, why not politely PM the user and give them a chance to adjust their sig themselves? You don't have to, but the Admins don't have time either. Some users would appreciate the chance to keep their sigs within the rules if they knew they were breaking them.

Gordon

Quality > Quantity.

End of the day posters were given a lot of scope on that thread to voice their disapproval when they were told to take it to help desk.
Some not only didn't do that but took it up on other feedback threads.
Either there are limits or there is not to re the sigs. As to whether or not I can see the difference its simple enough. Click on the image properties and it tells you.

Fine if you see something, but you are talking about 1 pixel's different in length or width. Evidently you're actively trawling the website looking for signatures that step in any way out of line.

I don't know what you find so shocking about my response. You demand leeway when it affects you but insist on the full weight of the rules when it doesnt.

I can't speak for everyone, but I do not recommend playing that game, lest the letter of the law be sent right back to you.

Kold

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Im absolutely astonished you would say this. Overheal this the op from sigpo thread

All signatures should not exceed the following size limits.

This made me smirk.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

These guidelines were drawn up by the admin and now we are being accused of being neos for merely following the guidelines.
.

This actually made me laugh out loud.

John Mason

why doesnt boards just switch sigs off permanently ?

i have them turned off because they annoy me and it hasnt affect my viewing pleasure in the slightest but while we are on the subject is there anyway of turning of the annoying man waving at me in the corner of the screen? he scares me sometimes:(

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

You're not merely following the guidelines, you're actively seeking out infringements as well. I don't know how else to explain your recent string of 1px reports.

And have you attempted to contact any of these users, as described in Gordon's new signature rules of last week?Quality > Quantity.

Fine if you see something, but you are talking about 1 pixel's different in length or width. Evidently you're actively trawling the website looking for signatures that step in any way out of line.

I don't know what you find so shocking about my response. You demand leeway when it affects you but insist on the full weight of the rules when it doesnt.

I can't speak for everyone, but I do not recommend playing that game, lest the letter of the law be sent right back to you.

Actually Overheal I have notifield posters and I can send you the PMS if you want.

As for demanding leeway this is what i posted
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66063421&postcount=19

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

As for demanding leeway this is what i posted
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66063421&postcount=19

I saw. Which is why the mind boggles.

As I have already asked, if you really believe there should be a leeway, why are you reporting sigs that dont fall within your proposed leeway? One minute you're reporting a sig for being 1px to big and then the next minute saying thats bull**** and it shouldnt be bothered with if the difference is less than 5px?

What the hell, like?

Gordon

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

End of the day there has to be a limit on how big your image can be. The main problem is that a 66 kb image maybe the same size re height and width as a 20kb sig but may be denser in colour.
I would take out the size limit myself and just restrict it to 500 x125. Would maybe allow 5 pixels either way to give posters the benefit of the doubt.

My brain then sees "new sig dimension allowed = 505 x 130" so it's not technically 'benefit of the doubt' it's policy change. Which I'm cool with as I wouldn't report that margin if I was a sigpoer also.

The only reason rules have to exist is to keep some form of global happiness, as much happiness as is possible compared to strife. But there have to be rules, so there have to be margins. And the person/people tasked with actioning on the margins must be actioning the margins, surely.

If anyone is shooting the messengers, why not shoot the system instead and offer real solutions to what you think are bad problems? Bear in mind that this has been discussed already in Feedforward forum, but they haven't made any policy change decisions yet.

Bonito

Wait, so, Des gives out about sigs and says if they annoy you then just turn sigs off. Yet, half his reported sigs had "Bleedin flashin, it's annoyin me bleedin head" or "Bleedin size of it, it's annoyin me bleedin head" written on them.

Why didn't Des just switch sigs off if they annoy him? Not only insulting posters in the SIGPO thread he insults himself (because he is a SIG reporter and according to him they're, wait 'til I go back up and check. Ah yes, brown nosing twats, the whole lot of them) and is being hypocritical. Fascinating stuff altogether. Carry on.

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

I saw. Which is why the mind boggles.

As I have already asked, if you really believe there should be a leeway, why are you reporting sigs that dont fall within your proposed leeway? One minute you're reporting a sig for being 1px to big and then the next minute saying thats bull**** and it shouldnt be bothered with if the difference is less than 5px?

What the hell, like?

Was suggesting the leeway be included if sigpo guidelines were updated. re this border sig reporting.
In case of one post, he had been asked to change his sig, did so and it still didnt meet the standards. Sig is okay now.
And while you're on the subject one poster actually reported a sig of mine saying at 126 pixels in width, that it was too wide. Forgetting that the height dimension limit was 125. Width limit is 500.
That same poster had his original sig reported and remarkably another poster took it upon himself to tell the poster on a totally unrelated thread on feedback that I had reported it and in doing so undermined the good work that is being done on Sigpo thread.
End of the day posters have the option to report these signatures privately. As such are those who report posts in public answerable when those who do it in private aren't?

My name is URL

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

And while you're on the subject one poster actually reported a sig of mine saying at 126 pixels in width, that it was too wide. Forgetting that the height dimension limit was 125. Width limit is 500.

That same poster had his original sig reported and remarkably another poster took it upon himself to tell the poster on a totally unrelated thread on feedback that I had reported it and in doing so undermined the good work that is being done on Sigpo thread

That somewhat highlights why it isn't a great way to deal with sigs.. it creates unnecessary hostilities between people and problems that wouldn't otherwise exist.

I really don't think that members should be tasked with policing sigs, and especially not when the reporting is done publicly.

Spiritoftheseventies

My name is URL wrote: »

That somewhat highlights why it isn't a great way to deal with sigs.. it creates unnecessary hostilities between people and problems that wouldn't otherwise exist.

I really don't think that members should be tasked with policing sigs, and especially not when the reporting is done publicly.

agree but again a simple enough solution is to report the sig via the report button and then the mod in the forum in question passes it on when he/she gets the chance to admin.

Bonito

Scrap the thread. It creates a bad vibe about the site. Give the thread to one person. Then posters Pm the admin/mod of who's sig is too big and then they post it in the forum. Choose someone who's willing to take all the guff from the posters on the chin. Also make sure they have some cop on. For example if they get a report of a sig that's maybe 5-10 kb too big, leave it be.

It'll cut out all this personal grudge shíte.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

agree but again a simple enough solution is to report the sig via the report button and then the mod in the forum in question passes it on when he/she gets the chance to admin.

Bonito wrote: »

Scrap the thread. It creates a bad vibe about the site. Give the thread to one person. Then posters Pm the admin/mod of who's sig is too big and then they post it in the forum.

All that's doing is creating more work for Mods, plenty of whom don't agree with Sigpo in the first place. It's not a duty to report someone who's sig is too big, some people just choose to do it.

Personally if it went down that route and people were reporting sigs in either of the forums I mod I wouldn't be passing it on, just ignoring it and eventually PMing the people doing the reporting to tell them not to bother. Imagine implementing that system in AH or Soccer were there is already massive amounts of reported posts, there'd be faaaaaar too much work to do for Mods of those forums for the sake of a couple of pixels.

Spiritoftheseventies

There are a few simple options as I see it.
One : the sig goes and I dont want to see that.
Two: That any text included with an image is run along side image and not above or below it.
What we have had lately is the situation where some posters literally taking over pages with big chunks of text and images and it just looks awful to look at.
More is less is something that should be pursued.

therecklessone

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

And while you're on the subject one poster actually reported a sig of mine saying at 126 pixels in width, that it was too wide. Forgetting that the height dimension limit was 125. Width limit is 500.

Not the first time that's happened...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65912812&postcount=4295

Nevyn

Sigpo has a long tradition on boards and never has caused this much strife,
if it's being hijacked and abused for petty reasons then those who do it should suffer a weeks site ban for "being a dick" imho.

The system works, if it's being abused then stop the arseholes doing it rather then scrapping it.

There has always been wiggle room with sigs, as along as they aren't huge, flashing animated or offensive being 2 or 3 pixels over was never a huge issue.
Those that are making it so and putting up sigs which are that deliberately to shítstiir frankly need to find something better to do the same with those who are reporting those who are a tiny fraction over.

Sigpo goes back to the day of when the majority of people were on dial up and we didn't have the broadbrand packages we have to day, and it's also about taste and not being an eyesore, big stupid sigs can run a discussion site.

And no turning them off is not fair either as many sigs are works of art, part of the look of someones account and there have been many funny things in sigs, and links to intresting things and campaigns. The lack of all the the above as far as I am concerned would be a loss to the over all boards experience.

So please cop on, we are meant to be grown ups, don't be a dick about sigs.

Spiritoftheseventies

therecklessone wrote: »

Not the first time that's happened...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65912812&postcount=4295

Yes and I clarified it /. . And ideally speaking would like to see the sig size reduced. How the page looks is important and one persons sig should not take over anothers.
Andt what I dont like to see is concrete blocks of text and images encorporated into sigs that as I have already stated just take over. And as PP said the politicizing of sigs are something that need to be looked at to.
As for the current dimensions I assume there is a reason for those limits and they are big enough as it is IMO.