Printable View
Kane's sig was 540 x 120 and under 50 KB, safely under the sig limits. If you want to make a rule stating you can only have X number of images in your sig, go right ahead, but make it a RULE. You shouldn't just ban someone from using sigs because they broke some secret rule. Make it a rule now, go ahead, it's a good one. But it wasn't a rule THEN, and he shouldn't be punished under some ex post facto ruling.
Do we really have to hold you guys by the hand like mommy used to do in kindergarden and tell you what's right, what's wrong, and what's just plain annoying (which gives us the right to enact some sort of punishment for being annoying)? Please don't say yes.
Some things are just plain obvious. But this is the Internet, so I guess you're right.
This wouldn't of happened if Kane hadn't put it back after it was removed once already.
Yes, that has been EoFF's tendency in the past. There's no UYFB Rule here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
And also from the Signature Limits:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne from the other thread
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.
It was problematic and questionable so it was removed. End of story.
Also two pictures of the same source still eat the same bandwidth worth from both, meaning two images = two images bandwidth, not everyone has a cache you know
The two WEREN'T. Of course he shouldn't have put 24 in, because inconveniencing others to prove a point is downright Dingo-ish. It DID plainly show that the load time was nowhere near 1.2 MB. His sig was removed incorrectly. If it had been edited to say "don't put 24 images in your sig" you'd be completely right. But it didn't, it stated the sig filesize limits, and so he put up a sig that (still) complied with that.
EDIT: testing baloki's statement now, hold on
EDIT2: Firefox still behaves exactly like I said with the cache off, it only downloads the image once and displays it as many times as needed. Of course, it has to load the image every time you visit the page, now. As for IE, I don't know or care.
IE is a different kettle of fish and still the most used browser out there, whether anyone likes it or not.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baloki
Ok, I'll admit it, I don't know how to turn off IE's cache to test it >_>
EDIT: I set the cache size to 1 MB but it still caches a 1.7 MB image. Damn IE >o
Green! So it was Leeza who deleted it the second time, but added it back a few minutes later, before Matt banned me. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeza
Also: There's no normal way to set the cache less than 1MB on IE, so Doom's right.
It doesn't appear to work any different with IE. At least, not to me. However, I didn't disable the cache but instead reset it while looking at two .bmps of the same image. Dunno if that'd change anything, but I wouldn't think so.Quote:
IE is a different kettle of fish and still the most used browser out there, whether anyone likes it or not.
Also, Yams: if you guys don't want people using multiples of the same image, you should make a rule, because it's fairly obvious to us that Kane did nothing against the rules, or even wrong, except for being an ass by putting 24 of the same image in his sig - but it was to make a point(successfully, I should add).
Leeza: yes, it may have been questionable to someone unfamiliar with how the cache works. However, once that was cleared up, it should've been the end of that.
If Kane wants to make a point he should do so in a mature way. Like PMing a mod or admin and talking about it. Not acting like a child and filling his signature with even more images. If he had gone about it that way I wouldn't of put him in the no sig group and everyone would be happy.
We should just disable all sigs.
Interesting indeed. Yes, I added you back because I was under the impression from your one post that you actually had a discussion with one of the other mods regarding a wrongful removal of your sig. I see that I was wrong about that. Why would you put back again if it was already removed?Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
Raistlin: 24 images that are 49 kbs each linked together are questionable and problematic to me regardless of whether or not I know how the cache works. The sig limits are set to 50 kbs total and anything over that is going to be gone.
eestlinc: I'm beginning to almost agree with that idea.
I didn't put it back, I put a different one back. If the silly 24 one was the same as the 2 one, then if I said "Golly gee sorry guys!" and put it there only once it'd be the same, and I'd still be in the same wrong for putting it back.
And they weren't 49KB each, one was 49KB and the others were using that same 49KB of data.
Probably got too carried away with 24, though. But I'm sure I'd be in the same situation if I put 3. And there are pleny of people with 3 images in their sigs.
Let's all whine just a little bit more. Boo hoo, whine whine.
Oh, snap. :eek:
Yes, Kane, there are plenty of people who use three or more images in their sig and they're all judged the same way...all images together must be within the 50 kb limit.
How you could figure that putting up a 24 image sig would be okay after your two image sig was removed is baffling to me. It gives me the impression that your only purpose in doing so was to be a troll.
I tried to explain how a two image sig should've been ok, but then the thread about Nicky was closed, and then I made a thread explaining it further, and that was closed, and then Doom made this thread and we pretty much proved it but noone's paying attention to that and just reiterating how horribly bad 24 images are.
This is trite and pointless. We're telling you now not to do it again. I'm sorry we stopped you from getting your message across since you obviously care what happens to the banned of EoFF.
Only Nicky.
So add the rule and give him his sig editing abilities back. His sig was perfectly legal. I know if someone deleted my sig and put in some text that said "No linking to TGA because Raistlin sucks" I would put it back.
Bad example, because Raistlin actually does suck.
"Yes, Kane, there are plenty of people who use three or more images in their sig and they're all judged the same way...all images together must be within the 50 kb limit."
They were. There was 49 KB of data or whatever the actual filesize is.
The space an image(s) takes up is measured by how much it takes for the image to load. All those images together took up less than 50kb of space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeza
My ass doesn't say "kiss me" but I still encourage you to do so.
Whether he broke any signature rules or not, he broke the "don't be blatanly obnoxious" rule and was dealt with accordingly.
However, we have taken your suggestion into consideration and are currently discussing its merits verus the implications of actually putting in writing the sorts of "we can do whatever we want" disclaimers.
The ONLY thing that we're saying is that having two of the same image in your sig is not wrong on the basis of simple internet logic, and that Kane's sig of two of the "unban Nicky" images should not have been taken away in the first place. If I can get that out of one of you guys, I'll be happy - if only so I'll know that I won't get yelled at if I decide to do something similar.:p I, for one, am perfectly fine with Kane's sig being taken away on account of him being an ass for putting 24 of the same image in his sig to try and make a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I didn't care that he had two of the same image in his sig, personally, so I can't really go and defend it being removed except to say... there used to be a clause in the signature rules that said sigs could be removed if a staff member found them annoying. I know it was there because I put it there. It must've not been added back in after the vB 3 upgrade.
So suck an egg! You get nothing from me!
Every feedback thread is the staff complaining and getting defensive over small issues these days. Whatever happened to just calmly addressing the problem and working out some solution of some sort to prevent something from happening in the future?
The feedback forum was fun. :(
We wouldn't get defensive over small issues if you guys didn't bring them up every five minutes.
Thanks and have a nice day.
edit: :)
Every feedback thread for the last day and a half is a member complaining and getting defensive over small issues these days. Whatever happened to just not bitching and moaning about every small issue under the sun until all the good staff members quit to save their sanity and we're left with goons like RSL?
Quit yo' bitchin', sucka.
Where was the staff complaining? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Graves
[qq=Raistlin]If I can get that out of one of you guys, I'll be happy - if only so I'll know that I won't get yelled at if I decide to do something similar.[/qq]
You will get yelled at regardless. The question is to what extent. In fact you can consider this very post as myself yelling at yourself.
Other than that, this thread is dumb. I take that back: INCLUDING that, this thread is dumb.
Crap, Red Sexy, she's on to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I knew it!!
RSL strikes again...
This all seems oddly familiar.
This is why you need to put the UYFB rule in writing.
I'd like to point out that Kane's defense of how bandwidth was not taken is the exact same "excuse" cl_out used for the longest time to have his sig appearing normally (the animated gifs he has now) and a mirrored version of it below, totalling by his own count 32k, but 64 according to the "filesize limit" thing you used. :p And honestly, I think cl_out and Doom are right (or I wouldn't have made that user note made of :cookie: and :alien: ).
Editing Kane's sig was right, but was done for/justified by the wrong reasons. A bit like WMDs in Iraq and removing Saddam, if you want a comparison.
The ONLY thing that we're saying is that having two of the same image in your sig is not wrong on the basis of simple internet logic, and that Kane's sig of two of the "unban Nicky" images should not have been taken away in the first place. If I can get that out of one of you guys, I'll be happy - if only so I'll know that I won't get yelled at if I decide to do something similar. - Raistlin
The only thing that you'll get out of me is a Thank you for teaching me something about cache that I did not know before. However, his sig was rightfully removed by the standards that we use now and also by the part of the sig limit restrictions that was inadvertantly left out with the change to EoFF...the part about a Mod being able to remove whatever sig for whatever annoying reason. So, if you did anything similar yourself, you will still get yelled at.
Anyways, thank you for giving me a cache lesson. I'm sure I'll find some use for it sometime in the future. :)
Outta curiosity...
Kane, did you put your sig back up after you were told not to use it? Because really, that's all that matters with regards to the ban. I can't be bothered reading this whole thread, so sorry if that's already been answered. :p
Also, "simple internet logic" is an oxymoron and therefore should never be used in an argument. :p
Also, I can set my IE cache to 1MB, so Kane was wrong when he said there is no normal way to do so. Maybe he's using a different version, but I just checked my settings and dragged the bar to the left and it went all the way down to 1MB. So if everyone is going to use "internet logic" then whoever bought that up originally is right. :D But to be honest, I never cared about that argument anyway, but I just felt like making sure people weren't misinformed by Kane. :p
I just felt like making a fire and going camping :cry:
I said there is no normal way to set it less than 1MB, or to set it so there's no cache at all, and when Doom and I did that it still cached and displayed a 1.7mb image 80 times without having to redownload it each time.
And I was only told it was too big, not to not use it outright, so I put it back and made perfectly sure it wasn't too big. :-x
You're an oxymoronQuote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
I'm not trying to pour gas on any fires here, I'm just responding to the question.
Taken from Proto's thread....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Krang
Quote:
I told her I wont unban her until I see some "Unban Calliope!" signatures.
Granted, I don't think the "unban [banned username]" signature is funny, but that's me. I did it once (with my custom title, not the sig =P) when HOORJ was banned since it was all in good fun.Quote:
I'd think she'd get ten times the signature following as that whats-his-name.
As well as because I thought HOORJ was an funny member and all.
That about the only case where the staff complained that I saw. I'm not really on here enough to notice anything else.
That's not complaining. :p
Every forum have unwritten rules that should be understood by everyone. Having an annoying signature being "against" the rules of signature is one of them.
Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
Bleys: the UYFB rule doesn't apply here, 'cause they WERE when they realized that two of the same image would not impact the loading times anymore then one. Well, you could say Kane's sig was taken back down after he put 24 of the same image in his sig, which would kinda apply with the UYFB rule. Ah well. :p
Oh, well, back to not caring.
Ah, cool. Forget I mentioned it. xD BTW, wasn't Lord Krang the brain in that old Ninja Turtles show?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Krang
Yar!Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys
Ah, we could still go. lalala. *grabs the marshmellows and walking stick*Quote:
Originally Posted by Baloki
Uhh yes, I think it was. Kishi chose my name so he must of been in a TMNT mood.
The UYFB rule does not only apply to technicalities, but also to subjective matters, like actions that piss people off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Who's to say what's annoying!Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Proto
I find people's sigs where they have links to their boy/girlfriend's profile more annoying than most sigs, let alone one that's not meant to be taken seriously, at all.
Of all the MSpaint sigs, crappy poetry sigs, sigs with :chop: or :shoot: in them, mine was the most annoying, I guess. :eek:
Well, in terms of annoying the staff, yes.
You forgot the countless Eizon advertisings too.
Or people just dislike you/like winding you up Kane, but hey if your happy moaning I'm all up for popcorn and camp fires :greenie:
The situation as I understand it:
1) Someone (I forget who) didn't understand the whole cache thing, and took the sig down.
2) Kane responded innapropraitely, adding the image multiple times.
3) His signature privilages were removed due to this innapropriate response.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, since I missed the whole thing.
More or less. Except for the fact that no one's admitting that Kane's original sig wasn't against the rules in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I've come to learn that when it comes to Raistlin there is no "admitting" anything. No matter what anyone says, if something you disagree with happened in the first place there is no pleasing you after the fact.
This is probably the best you will get:
There is currently no rule that says staff can remove sigs they find annoying. There was, but it wasn't put back up after the vB3 upgrade; it was overlooked. The reason the sig was removed in the first place was because it was thought to have broken the size rule, which several staff members admit they didn't know about. It remains down because Kane was a brat about it.
But Leeza didn't say she found the sig annoying; she said it went over the 50 KB limit rule, which we explained that it did not. Putting in some of staff's arbitrary "cover my ass" rules after the fact doesn't change the original intention.
I don't think Leeza's even the one who removed it in the first place, is she?
I think that's already been covered...
Oh give it up already, its not like the staff don't have enough trouble already without you going off on one everytime something happens. Just leave them alone, I think they do a damn fine job keeping this forum in order, even if I don't agree with every decision they make.
Your moaning makes baby jesus cry!
How can you support them making things up to make it look like they did nothing wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Baloki
Leeza removed it first, then put it back about a minute later. Kane being the weirdo that he is saw that his sig was removed BEFORE she got to put it back and freaked out about it. I removed it the second time and put him in the no sigs group because he was going about things the wrong way and I didn't have time to sit and edit out his sig when he put 60 images in it the next time.
They work here and in the end they chose what they want to do. You can't contest complete control, even if theres reason too. Also I condone it because it was fair enough to complain 3 days ago, its kind of old news and I doubt they'll admit wrong doing at this late in the day...
Actually, from what Kane said, Leeza also removed the 24 images, but then put THAT back. She didn't put back the first two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Krang
Of course, I could be wrong about that, but that was my interpretation of the discussion. :p
Here, I'll make Raistlin happy. I'm sorry that we removed Kane's annoying sig in light of there being no specific rule saying we could remove it. Will you forgive us?
I bet you mean more to beat Baloki, but no matter, if it shuts them up I'm all for it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
Edit: For some reason I want to say sweet potatoes...
Kane originally had a perfectly valid sig. It was removed, he added an "annoying" one, there was some shuffling around by the mods, and his sig editing abilities were revoked. Banning someone from using sigs because they broke an imaginary rule is a bit harsh. What's more, there was never a warning that his sig was "annoying", merely the incorrect warning that his sig was "too large" which it of course wasn't.
I think if you read one of the FAQ's (Not sure which one), staff can remove sigs without warning as theres the rules next to the sig editing box, I could be wrong, but maybe one day this will blow over *Can't wait till 2012*
1. How was it annoying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
2. There was a specific rule - the 50 KB rule which made Kane's sig a perfectly valid one, within all the rules.
3. I'll only forgive you if you come to bed, snookums. :love:
Nope, I have never removed the two image sig. I removed the 24 image one for only about 1 minute before putting it back because I seen Kane's post and I wanted to be sure if he was correct or not on the issue before doing anything further. Of course, I didn't realize that Matt had already removed his two image sig once so I don't know which removal he was referring to, mine or Matt's, but it doesn't matter because by inserting the 24 image sig instead of PMing a Mod to discuss it, he blew his privileges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
How was it annoying? Well that's all in the eye of the beholder.
The "staff can remove any sig they find annoying" rule is irrelevent as that was not the reason the sig was removed in the first place. It was removed because of the 50 KB limit rule, which means it wasn't annoying, but was wrongly thought to be too large for a sig.
So when clout goes around removing everyone's sig that has non asian music groups in it, that's perfectly fine? >_>
Or pretty much anything at all? He finds lots of stuff annoying.
How many different ways do we have to say that several staff members, not just the ones involved but a couple others too, were not aware of how caches work when the same image is displayed multiple times? There are only so many ways to say it!
And I think its very clear that Kane's signature privilages were not removed for a signature that broke no rules, but they were removed for a signature that was deliberately put up with the intention of breaking the rules in an immature display of disdain. If Kane had PM'd a mod asking why his signature was removed, told because it was over 50kb, and then explained like a grown up how a cache works then I'm pretty damn sure this wouldn't've happened.
And I don't see why anyone should have to apologise to people who treat them this way when they make a mistake. Yes, removing Kane's signature on the basis that it was over 50kb was a mistake, but reacting like Kane did and like others are continuing to do is way over the top and I really don't blame others for not wanting to apologise after this.
Kane, you can kiss my butt. Doom, you can suck an egg. Raist, you can just go shave your crack and make a birds nest to raise some eggs so maybe you can hatch someone who cares.
You people are silly. :p
How about Kane apologizes for overreacting to a mistake and promises not to do it again, and then you guys can give him his sig priveledges back and everyone is happy? :tongue:
I wasn't asking for an apology, nor was anyone else that I noticed. What I was asking for was for someone, anyone, to admit a mistake(preferably nicely). If that had happened sooner, I'd have been done. I found it amusing what lengths I had to go to to get that end, and now you suggest I'M at fault for this tension, when the staff in this thread at the beginning were trying to deny all blame and/or justify the action.
Now that that's cleared up and I learned a lot about certain staffers here, I'm content.
Boy howdy.
At least when i overreacted over soemthing stupid it only lasted a day. C'mon, now chilluns.
And they all lived happily ever after.