I'm bored

[Agent Proto]

So, I would like to ask a question which regards all or most staff members to answer.

If you spot a signature that violates the signature restrictions, how would take care of it?

Why am I asking this? Well, once I have my question answered by some of the staff, I'll give an explanation. :)

[Yamaneko]

I'd remove it and replace it with an explanation of why it was removed.

[Del Murder]

I...delete it! ...and then do what Yamaneko said.

[Agent Proto]

I suppose two's good.

Anyway, why did I asked?

Well, clearly, I personally think it's better to inform the violater by PM to change the signature asap, and if the signature hasn't been changed by the next day, it'll be removed and replaced. Well, not that it matters, but I find it helpful to be told rather than finding out, most often too late. Most of the time, the violaters will not know that their signature has been removed. By receiving a PM, the violater will acknowledge that their signature is in violation, and may change their sig. If not, it'll be removed anyway, but they'll know since they would be told about it. If they bring back their violating signature and was told, then they could possibly have their signature priviledge revoked temporarely.

*nod*

Not like any of you would follow this anyway. :shame:

[eestlinc]

i'd delete the legal ones as well.

[Agent Proto]

i'd delete the legal ones as well.
:mad2:

[Del Murder]

What is too late? I've found that most of them notice right away, anyway. I'll send a pm if they break the rule a second time, since I think pms should be reserved for repetitive violations. Here's how I do it:

First time: Change sig
Second time: Pm with warning
Third time: No sig for me!

Thanks for the feedback, citizen.

[m4tt]

I PM them if I have to remove it twice. I shouldn't have to PM them the first time I see it to let them know, seeing as the signature guildlines are right next to where you make your sig. :rolleyes2

[Leeza]

The guidelines are clearly stated so a PM is not necessary. I do PM on occasion, but it's very rare. There are just too many people here that don't follow the guidelines and PMing and then keeping track of whether or not they have read the PM and have done something about the sig is something that is too time consuming.

I remove the sig and I always leave an explanation as to why it was removed. As far as that goes, this is just the same as a PM. If I see that it has been removed more than once I will say that as well. I have had to PM only a couple of people about their repeated sig violations and that is usually all it takes.

[Shlup]

Where did I put that image...? *looks*

Well, damn, I think it died. But, as Leeza said, you have plenty of warning with the restrictions being right next to the signature field. You want me to go out of my way to PM them, wait, check back, and then delete it? I don't get paid enough for that.

[Del Murder]

That 5% cost of living increase wasn't good enough?

[Zifnab]

I like the idea of PMing the members, especially if they have a sig with some hefty HTML code like tables and links, etc. If the member doesn't know much HTML it'd probably take them a while to code it back.

[Del Murder]

To solve that we could just comment out the sig rather than deleting it outright.

[crono_logical]

I like the idea of PMing the members, especially if they have a sig with some hefty HTML code like tables and links, etc. If the member doesn't know much HTML it'd probably take them a while to code it back.If they don't know what they're doing with the HTML, why do they have so much of it in the first place? :p

[Baloki]

If they don't know what they're doing with the HTML, why do they have so much of it in the first place? :p



Sexual favours ;) Or stealing :D

[Leeza]

<i>I like the idea of PMing the members, especially if they have a sig with some hefty HTML code like tables and links, etc. If the member doesn't know much HTML it'd probably take them a while to code it back.</i> - Jenova·Rebirth

I save a copy of every signature before I delete it, but I guess I should start signing my name after every sig that I delete so that people will know that they have to talk to me about it if they wish to have it back and not to another CK or Admin that doesn't have it.

<i>To solve that we could just comment out the sig rather than deleting it outright.</i> - Super Delete

This, again, is a waste of time because it ends up being something that is different than what was intended so it gets changed again anyways. I do sometimes go in and decrease the size of text so that the sig will fall within the limits, but I do this only when I have nothing better to do at the time.

[Baloki]

btw is my sig ok *Is worried now*

[Leeza]

Yes, Baloki. Your sig is fine. :cat:

[Del Murder]

Er, I meant putting <<b></b>!-- --> around the sig so that the the code is still there, but it doesn't show up on the screen. I don't see how that takes more than a couple extra seconds. That way in the edit sig box they still see their work and can tinker around with it, but when they make a post it only shows the warning.

[Leeza]

Oh! Okay, that's not a bad idea. :)

[m4tt]

OR people could just read the rules and we wouldn't have to do any of that at all. :p

[eestlinc]

or we could disable signatures :D

[Leeza]

No! :eek: ...but I do like Matty Pie!'s suggestion best. Commenting out some sigs might be okay in some circumstances, but really, just read the rules and follow them. It's really simple! :) I know some of these sigs take a lot of work to put together and I don't like it when I have to remove all of that work, but the quidelines are there right beside the sig field...you can't miss them.

[Yamaneko]

or we could disable signatures :D

[Leeza]

No! :eek:

[Baloki]

I'm with Leeza, quite a good number of sigs here are great and we should keep on letting people use them :D

[Agent Proto]

No! :eek: ...but I do like Matty Pie!'s suggestion best. Commenting out some sigs might be okay in some circumstances, but really, just read the rules and follow them. It's really simple! :) I know some of these sigs take a lot of work to put together and I don't like it when I have to remove all of that work, but the quidelines are there right beside the sig field...you can't miss them.

Just saying my opinion. :( It's like whenever I voice my opinion, I get slammed... though not really, but in a way, yes.

[Baloki]

Just saying my opinion. :( It's like whenever I voice my opinion, I get slammed... though not really, but in a way, yes.

I don't think your opinion is really getting slammed just debated, the only real people ignoring the topic and just posting for the sake of it seem to be the people saying, Just get rid of the sigs, and although I like your idea Proto I don't think they'd do it because it could potentially be a lot of work and the system could be abused quite badly...

[Kirobaito]

Yeah, I think I've mentioned commenting out the sig at #eoff a few times, but Arche never pays attention to me except when I provide him with cheap sex. Actually, he never really pays attention to me when I do that.

Comment it out. I suck at coding, and it took me about 20 minutes to fix it the one time I've violated it. (which someone said it was my second time...I still don't know what the first time was)

[Baloki]

Arche never pays attention to me except when I provide him with cheap sex. Actually, he never really pays attention to me when I do that.

I didn't think Archie would need to pay for sex with you? Is the wedding off :cry: ?


Comment it out.

Here, Here!

[TasteyPies]

I had a realy good quoted conversation in my sig and it was just a wee bit too big. Some dork deleted it and I forgot what the quote was so I couldn't retry it and make it smaller.

[Carnage]

Maybe somehting should be set up so when someone tries to change there sig the site wont let if they go over the limit. Less work for the mods.

[m4tt]

I had a realy good quoted conversation in my sig and it was just a wee bit too big. Some dork deleted it and I forgot what the quote was so I couldn't retry it and make it smaller.

*dork* :D I think...

[Loony BoB]

There is a very clear warning written into the Edit Sig page. This is the warning. Most people don't have a problem with it at all. I don't see why we should have to go to any extra effort. Personally, I think having a warning written into the Edit Sig page is far better than sending a PM warning, as it's a pre-emptive thing that doesn't require us to repeat ourselves in hundreds of PM's. Now, why should we repeat ourselves in a PM? Once you come down to it, it says in the warning that the limits are...


A maximum width of 550 pixels.
A maximum height of 250 pixels.
These include any text in the signature outside images.
Total file size of all images combined must not exceed 50 KiB (51,200 bytes).

It also states that...

Any signatures not following these or any signatures with questionable or problematic content will be removed/edited by staff, and you may have your signature editing privileges temporarily disabled if this happens several times.

So long as people read this, and it is their duty (not ours) to do so, there should be no problems and if they break the rules then they should expect their sig to be removed. Any reasoning we give to the removal of the sig is actually us doing that person a favour. I know this sounds harsh, but in a forum with so many members you don't want to have to send too many PM's.

As for tables and whatnot, I agree with clout (God forbid!) that people who spend so much time with sigs should spend enough time to check to make sure the sig is okay. If they aren't completely sure, then they should go one step further and keep a backup. If they REALLY want to be sure, they can always ask the question in the Sig thread in Help Forum, I'm sure someone there can check to see if it's okay or not.

So yes, we can comment it out, and I will try to remember to use this from now on (although to be honest, it's not often me that edits sigs), but keep in mind that it will be doing you a favour, and if your sig does happen to get deleted with nothing but "Sig was too big." then you'll just have to take it in it's stride and make sure your next sig fits the limits.

[Xander]

The limits are pretty obvious and clear and if somebody doesn't bother to check or ignores these then I don't see why a member of staff should bother sending them a PM. I see the idea, and how it might be a nice idea, but maybe a better suggestion would be for people to be more careful and make sure their signature does fit the guidelines.

If somebody isn't sure about what the whole pixel dimensions, filesize means or how to check it, maybe they can just pm a Cid's Knight first and ask them to check if it's okay before they put it in. Otherwise there's no reason why they really should have to make it bigger, if they were just being careless, and to me warning them to makes the process longer and more complicated than it needs to be.

[Shlup]

Just saying my opinion. :( It's like whenever I voice my opinion, I get slammed... though not really, but in a way, yes.
If you're gonna take it badly everytime we don't agree with your suggestion, maybe you shouldn't suggest things anymore. You always seem to bring things up that you know our policy on hoping that this time we'll change our minds for some reason, and then take it personally when we don't.

If that sounds harsh, I apologise. I don't mean it to be.

[Agent Proto]

I'm just saying that to see if anyone feels bad. Doesn't seem like it works in the most part. :tongue:

Edit:You know, don't worry about it. I'm being a bit finicky. Must be the Former Staff Syndrome.

[Shlup]

I think we're all too used to your shennanagins to feel bad. Haw haw... haw...?