where is the consistancy?

[Zeratul]

we have not received a single signature size report in the last month or so, so we're not sure why you're complaining over signatures not being policed... We certainly have not been overloaded with reports...

Signatures are usually modded when user has obviously read the notice. Normally, such notices are given in a PM.
If, within reasonable time after PM has been read (and potentially responded to) it is not changed, it will be modded.

Since you were, at the time when we last talked with Eärendil, posting a reply to this topic, it was presumed that you would notice the verbal warning he gave you here. That is the reason you were not PM'd.
At the time it was modded, Eärendil had limited time (he was about to go to sleep), he decided mod it a while after he presumed you had seen the verbal warning. As you may have noticed, you were not issued a board warning for the signature violation, even though that is usually issued for violations of the signature rules. (whether to give board warning is decided on case-by-case basis...)

We only mod signatures when we're sure of their height being above limits. The size we judge by is on the default skin, on a quite large monitor (usually 1920x1080), so a cramped window size that distorts signature height so that it appears higher is not the case.

Signatures will only be judged by how tall they are on the default skin, not on any of the non-default skins. The default skin is AcidTech tiger2. It is hopeless to judge by how signatures appear on all other skins.

[Clarkey]

we have not received a single signature size report in the last month or so,

That's odd I reported one in Aug which was dealt with.

There is nothing in the rules that states warnings will be given for sig height violations. It states the user risks loosing sig rights on a temporary basis and get given the sig o' shame.

Of all the times I have been aware of particular sig violations the user has always been given 24hrs notice to comply. But I guess that again is another inconsistency of the mods and rules.

[Zeratul]

Considering that mods are separate human beings (mostly at least), expecting them to behave the exact same way in all mod actions and situations is quite unreasonable.

The forum rules are of many generations, having been written over a long time period, and they are not updated constantly to adapt to the ever-changing forum situations. Sometimes, a direct interpretation and iron-hard enforcement is needed, while other times a more indirect interpretation and loose enforcement is enough. Anyone who has been here for a while knows that the forum community is not the same it was years ago.

While the community is easily changed in behavior and style, changing the rules is not nearly as easy...

That's odd I reported one in Aug which was dealt with.

We did not receive such report. The post above showed the situation from our PM inbox.

[Clarkey]

Considering that mods are separate human beings (mostly at least), expecting them to behave the exact same way in all mod actions and situations is quite unreasonable.

Unreasonable... I'll tell you what unreasonable is....

Empy warning me for replying to his "mod speak" in a GC thread.

Earendil ignoring and closing several reports on other cases within the last month where people have replied to Empy's "mod speak".

Earendil knew of my situation where Empy had warned me yet chose to ignore and close the other reports that had committed the same apparent rule foul that mine had.

That is unreasonable and unfair. If Earendil considers it not breaking any rule then I should not be treated any differently from the other reports that he closed and did nothing with.

What is your opinion on that Zeratul?

[Empy]

Considering that mods are separate human beings (mostly at least), expecting them to behave the exact same way in all mod actions and situations is quite unreasonable.

Unreasonable... I'll tell you what unreasonable is....

Empy warning me for replying to his "mod speak" in a GC thread.

Earendil ignoring and closing several reports on other cases within the last month where people have replied to Empy's "mod speak".

Earendil knew of my situation where Empy had warned me yet chose to ignore and close the other reports that had committed the same apparent rule foul that mine had.

That is unreasonable and unfair. If Earendil considers it not breaking any rule then I should not be treated any differently from the other reports that he closed and did nothing with.

What is your opinion on that Zeratul?

If it makes you feel better I dealt with one of your reports myself and it was not without action. However if it was a little old so if any others were even older it would have been pointless to take any action.. However the future is a different matter.

On another note, I think the page long argument about the EXACT height of Femme's sig was extremely pointless and I can't believe it just happened. How does it matter, AT ALL, how far over the limit it was if it was still over the limit?

I try my best, I'm sorry I'm not perfect.

[Clarkey]

On another note, I think the page long argument about the EXACT height of Femme's sig was extremely pointless and I can't believe it just happened. How does it matter, AT ALL, how far over the limit it was if it was still over the limit?

I try my best, I'm sorry I'm not perfect.

Because there are different forum skins that affect the sigs and there are different resolutions that affect the sigs.

If you read this thread you would understand that. If you have a sig that is 600 pixels high on a fixed width forum then on a fluid width forum it would be less than 450 pixel unless it is an image of 600 pixels.

Yes it made no difference on this particular occasion, but it needed to be raised along with many other inconsistencies in modding. Femme was going to change her sig, yes she argued it to begin with but as the discussion was still going on in this thread then it was unfair to take action against her sig after just 2 hours when most Mods give 24hrs notice to change their sig before taking action.

Since you were, at the time when we last talked with Eärendil, posting a reply to this topic, it was presumed that you would notice the verbal warning he gave you here. That is the reason you were not PM'd.
At the time it was modded, Eärendil had limited time (he was about to go to sleep), he decided mod it a while after he presumed you had seen the verbal warning. As you may have noticed, you were not issued a board warning for the signature violation, even though that is usually issued for violations of the signature rules. (whether to give board warning is decided on case-by-case basis...)

It is extremely clear in this thread that Earendil pointed out that femme's sig was breaking rules at (UK time) 07:05am. I replied to that post at 08:00am just after i got in to work, at which point I spoke to femme on MSN and she said that she had not even read any of the replies at that point since she started the thread. I have evidence she said this on MSN. Femme's very next post in that thread was at 09:14am and her sig was changed sometime during that time.

So it is not as if Femme was repeatedly posting in this thread without changing her sig. You can't say that she was constantly reading this thread. So no Zeratul, hardly ANY notice of breaking the sig rule was given to Femme.

The issuing of the sig o' shame is completely unfair. You gave her hardly any time to do anything with the sig.

[Rocky]

stop bullying femme

[Empy]

I suppose resolution might make a difference if you're sticking a ruler on your monitor and measuring or something like that... but if you're using a pixel ruler the difference caused by different resolutions will be in both the pixel ruler and the image so it doesn't matter. In the case of forum skins causing a difference... I doubt that makes anything but a very slight difference if at all.

[Clarkey]

I suppose resolution might make a difference if you're sticking a ruler on your monitor and measuring or something like that... but if you're using a pixel ruler the difference caused by different resolutions will be in both the pixel ruler and the image so it doesn't matter. In the case of forum skins causing a difference... I doubt that makes anything but a very slight difference if at all.

It makes a difference if you have quotes etc. Now again, if you read this thread you would see that Earendil and Zeratul claim femme's sig was over 1,000 pixels high, but on my fluid width skin it was only 770 pixels high.

Yes it's still over sig rules, BUT that's a difference of at least 230 pixels, therefore the could be instances where mods and admins see a sig of 650 pixels but on a fluid width is 420 pixels. So it does make a bigger than slight difference.

[Zeratul]

the rule is based on default skin, which is not fluid... read what we said earlier before you complain over size on a non-default skin!

[Clarkey]

the rule is based on default skin, which is not fluid... read what we said earlier before you complain over size on a non-default skin!

Empy had clearly missed parts of the conversation and I was explaining why it was an issue, an issue before you suddenly created the idea that it is based on default skin. Funny how none of that is mentioned in the forum rules.

[Zeratul]

so you would say that administrators, when inspecting signatures, should test every skin installed just to see if the sig is below limit on one of the skins?

Should the administrators check every common screen resolution as well?

[Clarkey]

so you would say that administrators, when inspecting signatures, should test every skin installed just to see if the sig is below limit on one of the skins?

Should the administrators check every common screen resolution as well?

i never said that did i. I pointed out it was not in the rules and it had never been mentioned before.

But the main problem here is that Femme was never given sufficient time to do anything with her sig which i clearly showed you earlier in this thread.

[Rocky]

She had over 2 hours to change her sig. She was on the forums, she was posting and replying. I'm sorry, an excuse of "I didn't see the post" is **Filtered** when she is the one who initially made this topic before letting you try to continue her rant.

what happened to 24 hours?
what happened to sending a pm

If both these occurred then she would have no reason for not changing it, and you could rightly punish her...

The way you did handle it opens up way too much unnecessary discussion that should be avoided

If you chuck standard procedure out the window this is bound to happen...

[Clarkey]

She had over 2 hours to change her sig. She was on the forums, she was posting and replying. I'm sorry, an excuse of "I didn't see the post" is **Filtered** when she is the one who initially made this topic before letting you try to continue her rant.

She made 2 posts during that time elsewhere on this forum, and she did not continously post in this thread. Therefore you are basing your hasty modding on an assumption.