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?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.
Mr Thou! Mr Thou!
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.
Of course, I could be wrong about that, but that was my interpretation of the discussion.
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
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?
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.
Recognized Member
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.Actually, from what Kane said, Leeza also removed the 24 images, but then put THAT back. She didn't put back the first two.
Of course, I could be wrong about that, but that was my interpretation of the discussion.
How was it annoying? Well that's all in the eye of the beholder.
Hello Pika Art by Dr Unne ~~~ godhatesfraggles
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.
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?
Wat
is
going
on
wtf
rawr
Posting Permissions
