StarGateWars Forums

I believe the removal of my siggies was unfair.
I received no prior notice or warning of any sort that I was exceeding the set limit.
I was told by another forum user that it had been mentioned by Easy in another thread, I logged in immediately to rectify the situation (with in minutes) only to find someone had removed my siggies and replaced them with the siggy of shame one.

I would like the siggy of shame removed, and be allowed to use my own siggies again.

tnx

femme

Eärendil wrote:You were online the entire 2 hours that the verbal warning was posting, in a topic that YOU created.

Can you confirm the verbal warning was read by femme? We all know it can be confirmed by use of PM's, but can you confirm it was read?

it pains me to tread into this matter.

I mentioned to femme on Fcaebook, that her siggy "was red and black now"...

as far as I know, she didn't know it before then.

I disagree. I have no wish to repeat what half a dozen people have already said half a dozen times in the other thread, but sufficed to say that I think the removal and replacement of your signature was valid. You are responsible for being aware of the forum rules, including those regarding signatures, and ignorance is not an excuse; any time limit extended to you by the moderatators was a courtesy and nothing more. I consider the frankly tedious debate over whether or not you had 'time to read it' to be entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Unless Jack disagrees, then this is an open and shut case.

Mordack wrote:I disagree. I have no wish to repeat what half a dozen people have already said half a dozen times in the other thread, but sufficed to say that I think the removal and replacement of your signature was valid. You are responsible for being aware of the forum rules, including those regarding signatures, and ignorance is not an excuse; any time limit extended to you by the moderatators was a courtesy and nothing more. I consider the frankly tedious debate over whether or not you had 'time to read it' to be entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Unless Jack disagrees, then this is an open and shut case.

stop being such a ponce,
seriously what if people don't measure their sigs and accidently have a too large one, the mods are the ones being pedantic about sig sizes i don't think femme was purposely disobeying a rule.

Forum Guidelines wrote:those violating the signature rules without rectifying when informed of violation, will risk:
temporary loss of rights to change signature gaining this lovely sig:

Key part is bolded. Hope that helps.

Jack is 700 miles away from his PC for the next two days.

Eärendil wrote:You were online the entire 2 hours that the verbal warning was posting, in a topic that YOU created.

I was not on forum for all that time at all. I had logged out and logged back in as soon as Dubby told me about the warning.

my thread posted at 1.50pm Wed 25th Aug 2010. I logged back in at 4.10pmish to recitify it, but it had already been changed.

25/08/2010 4:19:17 PM Join GamerPerfection!!!!!!!! (F)femme- GreyWardens did you know they changed ur sig?
25/08/2010 4:19:51 PM (F)femme- GreyWardens Join GamerPerfection!!!!!!!! only now, when dubby told me that eary replied to my thread my mentioning my siggy
25/08/2010 4:20:03 PM (F)femme- GreyWardens Join GamerPerfection!!!!!!!! i logged into to shrink it and it was already changed
25/08/2010 4:20:26 PM Join GamerPerfection!!!!!!!! (F)femme- GreyWardens usually mods give 24hrs notice
25/08/2010 4:20:43 PM (F)femme- GreyWardens Join GamerPerfection!!!!!!!! i was given no notice at all
25/08/2010 4:21:44 PM Join GamerPerfection!!!!!!!! (F)femme- GreyWardens i guessed that

If I was on forum the whole 2hrs you claim, how many posts did I make between your warning and my post about my siggy being removed? Any forum activity at all?

Also for the record Eary my comp is online 24/7, as is my msn, just because my msn shows online doesn't necessarily mean I am actually here.

Rocky wrote:

Mordack wrote:I disagree. I have no wish to repeat what half a dozen people have already said half a dozen times in the other thread, but sufficed to say that I think the removal and replacement of your signature was valid. You are responsible for being aware of the forum rules, including those regarding signatures, and ignorance is not an excuse; any time limit extended to you by the moderatators was a courtesy and nothing more. I consider the frankly tedious debate over whether or not you had 'time to read it' to be entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Unless Jack disagrees, then this is an open and shut case.

stop being such a ponce,
seriously what if people don't measure their sigs and accidently have a too large one, the mods are the ones being pedantic about sig sizes i don't think femme was purposely disobeying a rule.

Exactly. Plus the fact that femme has or had sigs turned off at the time so couldn't even see that her own sig was too big when making it.

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:

Forum Guidelines wrote:those violating the signature rules without rectifying when informed of violation, will risk:
temporary loss of rights to change signature gaining this lovely sig:

Key part is bolded. Hope that helps.

Exactly and Earendil has no proof whatsoever that femme had read the warning. Did she speak to Earendil about it? No. Did she reply to the thread before Earendil changed the sig? No. Did Earendil PM femme about it? No. Frankly Earendil handled it cack handedly compared to the majority of Mods on his forum.

If the other Admins agree with and stand by Earendils handling of it that just goes to show they will support ANY decision staff make on this forum over actually admitting an Admin was wrong to do what they did.

Mordack i find it preposterous that you can think the changing of femme's sig is valid when Earendil gave femme NO opportunity to change it herself.

Eärendil wrote:http://talk.gatewa.rs/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172147&p=2174647#p2174647

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172147&p=2174647#p2174647
(the last one, the time is messed up for some reason on the actual post)

So, yes you were online.

And the proof she had read your verbal warning? Did the PM move from outbox to sent items..... oh wait.

Just to point out this sig rule was initially devised by Zeratul when the Administration consisted of Zeratul, Myself and you Mordack. The sig rule was completely Zeratul's idea which included a time frame for rectifying sigs before Admins forcible changing it themselves.

Clarkey wrote:

Eärendil wrote: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172147&p=2174647#p2174647

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172147&p=2174647#p2174647
(the last one, the time is messed up for some reason on the actual post)

So, yes you were online.

And the proof she had read your verbal warning? Did the PM move from outbox to sent items..... oh wait.

Just to point out this sig rule was initially devised by Zeratul when the Administration consisted of Zeratul, Myself and you Mordack. The sig rule was completely Zeratul's idea which included a time frame for rectifying sigs before Admins forcible changing it themselves.

Just an idea. Don't break the rules.

knight wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Eärendil wrote: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172147&p=2174647#p2174647

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172147&p=2174647#p2174647
(the last one, the time is messed up for some reason on the actual post)

So, yes you were online.

And the proof she had read your verbal warning? Did the PM move from outbox to sent items..... oh wait.

Just to point out this sig rule was initially devised by Zeratul when the Administration consisted of Zeratul, Myself and you Mordack. The sig rule was completely Zeratul's idea which included a time frame for rectifying sigs before Admins forcible changing it themselves.

Just an idea. Don't break the rules.

Oh yes of course good answer.
So why have mods and Zeratul himself once not been issued the sig o' shame as soon as their sigs broke the rules?.... oh wait that's because they were given the opportunity to change it themselves.

knight wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Eärendil wrote: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172147&p=2174647#p2174647

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172147&p=2174647#p2174647
(the last one, the time is messed up for some reason on the actual post)

So, yes you were online.

And the proof she had read your verbal warning? Did the PM move from outbox to sent items..... oh wait.

Just to point out this sig rule was initially devised by Zeratul when the Administration consisted of Zeratul, Myself and you Mordack. The sig rule was completely Zeratul's idea which included a time frame for rectifying sigs before Admins forcible changing it themselves.

Just an idea. Don't break the rules.

errrr what pm?

bit hard to know you are if noone bothers to contact you and let you know you are.. As I have previously stated as soon as mods have let me know in the past I was exceeding the siggy thing, I changed my siggy immediately. And would have this time if I had known.

There was over an hours time difference in my posts Eary.. as I said I may have appeared online but was actually afk.. went to shops and vet in between I think.. may have left forum page open when I was gone. I tend to do that Do you think I would be on here over over an hour and not make one single post?

Just an idea. Admin/mod ALL siggies breaking rule by current forum users. Don't single me out.. after all warnings been up for days now.. everyone that's logged into forum obviously read that thread when they logged in... going by your argument.

After all this happened i reported Dmonix sig for breaking forum rules. Strangely enough hours later he changed his sig. But it wasn't forcibly changed straight away by Earendil. Probably because a Mod correctly informed the user of their sig and asked them to change it.

explain why JP has been allowed to have a siggy breaching the so called rules for months..

I shall find other examples if you like

I doubt if mine did so for 24hrs