Page 1 of 4
where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:50 pm
by ƒëmmë ƒatalë
I posted a thread which contained a song, that mentioned a so called masked word..
now thal has posted a song, with more masked words and imo worst ones that the single one word mine contained.. his thread has been up for hours unmodded and no warnings issued.
Mine was up less than a couple of hours.
Also in the FS v Me thread a certain unmasked word is repeatedly used, Knight modded one post that contained it but numerous others remain.
If my warning for a word that was briefly on forum (and fleeting mentioned once in the song) remains, then these users should be also warned for words that are still on here hours later.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:53 pm
by Empy
I dealt with the masking about 20 or 30 minutes ago, Earendil just dealt with Thaltek about 5 to 10 minutes ago. All before you posted this. Although your intentions may be admirable, you need more patience I believe..
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:54 pm
by knight
MY god, I have better things to do than look through every post in a thread that I do not care about.
Report the posts that break the rules. We will get to them when we can.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:02 pm
by Thriller
One could make the argument that the mods know little concerning proper use of censure or how and when to apply it properly.
Does it then follow that the mods should not be aloud to pass judgments and make posts condemning such actions those same mods know little about?
But i digress
I find your lack of understanding towards the op a little disconcerting and i believe a more professional attitude and courteous demeanor would be more appropriate.
Like EMpy's post
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:00 pm
by Clarkey
knight wrote:MY god, I have better things to do than look through every post in a thread that I do not care about.
Report the posts that break the rules. We will get to them when we can.
So Mods have better things to do than do their role that is expected of them? The report function is not the only method for Mods to deal with rule violations.
There is a clearly inconsistency issue with the Admins and Mods which Earendil himself has demonstrated in the past day.
Eärendil wrote:FF. Your sig is well over 1,000 pixels high. Please shrink your total sig area down to less than 450 pixels.
I think i'll quote you here.
Eärendil wrote:How about this. You don't post things that you have no idea about? Please and thank you.
Try not to over exaggerate when using authority. Yes that sig is breaking the sig rule, however 770 pixels is nowhere near over 1,000 pixels.
This thread has a very clear point about consistency issues on the team. Admins demonstrate those inconsistencies themselves. It's not uncommon to have inconsistencies in a team this large, but when it comes down to the inconsistencies affecting warnings then it is a big issue.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:03 pm
by Zeratul
Clarkey wrote:Eärendil wrote:FF. Your sig is well over 1,000 pixels high. Please shrink your total sig area down to less than 450 pixels.
I think i'll quote you here.
Eärendil wrote:How about this. You don't post things that you have no idea about? Please and thank you.
Try not to over exaggerate when using authority. Yes that sig is breaking the sig rule, however 770 pixels is nowhere near over 1,000 pixels.
that is true, if you stop measuring the height some 300 pixels from the end of the signature...
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:10 pm
by Clarkey
Zeratul wrote:Clarkey wrote:Eärendil wrote:FF. Your sig is well over 1,000 pixels high. Please shrink your total sig area down to less than 450 pixels.
I think i'll quote you here.
Eärendil wrote:How about this. You don't post things that you have no idea about? Please and thank you.
Try not to over exaggerate when using authority. Yes that sig is breaking the sig rule, however 770 pixels is nowhere near over 1,000 pixels.
that is true, if you stop measuring the height some 300 pixels from the end of the signature...
Trying to be a smart ass? Well try this..... how can you enforce such a rule when.....
a) the various skins on this forum vary between fluid width and fixed width - therefore squashing sigs.
b) the various sizes you can have your browser window open at
c) the various resolution one can have
I personally have a stand resolution, i always have my browser maximised and i have a fluid width forum skin. So yes the sig in question IS 770 pixels high not 1,000+.
Thank you Zeratul for yet again demonstrating inconsistency within the Administration.
Last time Tetrismonkey accused me of having a sig that broke rules I got support from deni who was an Admin at that time that stated the rule should be judge on a standard resolution and maximised browser window.
@Earendil no of course breaking the rule by 770 pixels is not any better than breaking it with 1,000 pixels, but you clearly deliberately ignored the point I was making about you over exaggerating when speaking with authority. Or maybe it's just that you have a 800 reolustion, fixed width forum skin and non-maximised browser window.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:21 pm
by Clarkey
Eärendil wrote:Clarkey wrote:@Earendil no of course breaking the rule by 770 pixels is not any better than breaking it with 1,000 pixels, but you clearly deliberately ignored the point I was making about you over exaggerating when speaking with authority. Or maybe it's just that you have a 800 reolustion, fixed width forum skin and non-maximised browser window.
Nope, Nope and it's always maxed
best way to watch **Filtered**, but anyways, it doesn't matter when a sig, anyone's is that big now does it?
No, but what happens when someone claims someone has a 680 pixel sig when it is in fact 450 if you have a standard resolution, fluid width skin? It's not users fault if the Mods or Admins have a fixed width skin with squashes sigs.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:46 pm
by Dubby_CompGamerGeek2
A note to myself,
to my dear friend, Femme,
and to all of my other friends:
Despite the existence of sections such as this one,
the ombudsman section,
reporting rule breakers, etc.
I've learned through the years that even during those occasional
situations when a person is being perfectly
reasonable in reporting someone else's actions on the open forums,
it is almost always better to attempt to do things via private messages first.
I have found this to be true no matter the actual circumstances of whether the person being reported deserved it, sort of deserved it or did not deserve it at all.
fact is, people don't like to be reported... even, especially if it's true...
and they tend to take that out on the people reporting them.
I've given up on the game and the forums repeatedly for these reasons in the past, and I hope to avoid it in the future.
Thank you all for listening.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:55 pm
by renegadze
Eärendil wrote:FF. Your sig is well over 1,000 pixels high. Please shrink your total sig area down to less than 450 pixels.
Lets not get into that, seeing as I reported so many sig violators to you personally and many have still not bothered to change them, I believe at the time you were too freindly with the alliance that was must guilty of it.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:01 am
by Dubby_CompGamerGeek2
renegadze wrote:Eärendil wrote:FF. Your sig is well over 1,000 pixels high. Please shrink your total sig area down to less than 450 pixels.
Lets not get into that, seeing as I reported so many sig violators to you personally and many have still not bothered to change them, I believe at the time you were too freindly with the alliance that was must guilty of it.
In that case, I would suggest that now is a good point to start reporting them openly, in the proper thread, without any, um, extra comments about their relationships to anyone or any particular group...
Giving "just the facts", will hasten the proper resolution.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:06 am
by renegadze
Dubby_CompGamerGeek2 wrote:renegadze wrote:Eärendil wrote:FF. Your sig is well over 1,000 pixels high. Please shrink your total sig area down to less than 450 pixels.
Lets not get into that, seeing as I reported so many sig violators to you personally and many have still not bothered to change them, I believe at the time you were too freindly with the alliance that was must guilty of it.
In that case, I would suggest that now is a good point to start reporting them openly, in the proper thread, without any, um, extra comments about their relationships to anyone or any particular group...
Giving "just the facts", will hasten the proper resolution.
I provided just a list of names...no comments.....it wasn't me that brought up their relationship to each other.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:14 am
by ƒëmmë ƒatalë
Eary I have sigs turned off I can not see how big mine was.. if someone had asked me to reduce it I would have ... a friendly pm would have sufficed
I logged into rectify my siggy as I was told it was mentioned here, but I see someone had already taken it upon themselves to alter mine with out notice.. I have always rectified my siggy asap as I've been notified of it being too big.
Now do you really want me to start reporting all the sigs breaking that rule too?
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:24 am
by Clarkey
Femme was going to change her sig, but found it already changed.
I guess that's another inconsistency as Mods usually give 24hrs notice before enforcing the sig for breaking rules.
Re: where is the consistancy?
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:26 am
by ƒëmmë ƒatalë
oh and btw it wasn't Clarkey that let me know
but another forum user
And I hope in the name of consistency on these forums, ALL OFFENDERS had their Sigs removed at the same time as mine was and without warning.