signature limits
 

As some of you may or may not know, active poster and monthly donator BrokenHearted was recently banned. Why? Because her signature exceeded the maximum kb size limit. She was a previously banned member, so she only had one chance before getting rebanned, and looks like exceeding the signature limit was enough to get her banned again.

Now, the point of this thread isn't to discuss BrokenHearted's ban (though I will allow it to be part of the main discussion theme), it's to discuss signature limits. I have a few suggestions as far as signatures go. First off, maybe instead of automatically dishing out a warning (or a ban, for those that have been previously banned before, which was BrokenHearted's case) for having your signature exceed the limit, height, witdh or kb size wise, a simple, friendly unofficial warning should be given out instead. I mean, honestly, how many people do you think purposefully exceed the limits to cause trouble? I'm positive that most, if not all, people with signatures exceeding the limit have them that way because they didn't know about the limit (I'm sure at least 70+% of Menewsha didn't even know there was a kb size limit), or just didn't realize that it was too big. And seriously, if you can find a single person (other than staff suck ups) that's bothered because of someone's signature being a few kb over the limit, I'll take back everything I said. I don't even know how you could tell it's over the limit just by looking at it, you'd have to check the properties to see, so really if you're bothered by it it's because you want to be :/
Secondly, my other main suggestion. How about you just make a signature size limit that automatically disables signatures that are too big? That'd save a whole lot of people a whole lot of trouble. Or do what Gaia does and have the signature cut off if it exceeds the limits. This, to me, seems like the most logical solution.

On a final note, here's some feedback from BrokenHearted herself! ^^

Anyway, there's my feedback! Opinions?

With the new software, we have a new warnings system in which infractions are given instead. An unofficial warning on the old software is generally equal to an expiring infraction on this software.

For first time offenses, an expiring infraction is given, which does what it says, expires in 28 days. The staff can see all infractions so only when multiple offenses occur will someone receive a permanent infraction (equivalent to an official warning on the old software). So we are actually issuing 'unofficial warnings' to start with so the user is aware of what they did and then they hopefully won't do it again.

The reason for signature limits is purely for loading/lag time, and no one wants to read a stretched page because of a large signature image. I can say I know nothing about coding and such so I don't know how hard/easy it is to implement something like you suggested, but it is a good suggestion.

It's also my job to check signature size limits, and as I've been doing it for so long now, I can actually tell when an image might be over the limit. But as you said, many will have done it by accident and so an expiring infraction should remind them to check before putting something in their signature. And if someone isn't aware of what is allowed in a signature, then they haven't read the rules and so will need to be reminded of them when given an infraction for breaking them.

That's really all I have to say ... I'm just trying to show you the technical side of signatures and why we check them, what the limits are for, etc.

First off, I have to say that Broken's ban is completely lame. She followed all other Mene rules, donated each month, and even ran a successful charity, only to be banned because she's not so savvy in the graphical area. I don't condone the breaking of rules but I'm hoping that Mene's moderators can provide a little leeway and be more reasonable when it comes situations like these. :\

Like Creps said, it's not like Broken was purposely out to harass us with her oversized sig of doom. :gonk:

EDIT:
From what I understand, Broken first received an unofficial warning because her sig was oversized, pixels-wise, due to extra text. So she removed her signature and later added in another image but she made sure that her signature fit the sizing rules, as per her previous warning. What she didn't realise was that it was over the kb limit.

Anoni, I can't discuss what happened with Broken because I personally don't know the details, and it's between staff and the user. But I know another mod handled the signature issue and then I think it was passed onto AA's because as Crepsley said, she was a previously banned member and they only get one chance - though the rules have changed now for banned members, when Broken was first banned, the one chance rule was still in place.

Shouldn't Broken have just gotten another another expiring infraction then? Signatures being over the limit pixel size-wise and kb size-wise aren't the same thing... but okay, I'll wait for another person to reply. Thanks ^^

And just another random note, on Avaricia, they're a new site that just started a few months ago, and the admin openly admits to knowing close to nothing about coding, yet the signatures over there automatically cut off if they're too big. Why can't Menewsha have it then, seing as how Menewsha's more than a year old and has a supposedly very experienced coder?

Crepsley: A signature has to be within pixel limits and/or kb limits. So for example, an image was 50 pixels in height and 100 in width, but was 300kb, then they would receive an infraction for that.

I'm only a mod so I don't deal with the technical side of Menewsha so an AA would have to explain that to you.

Anoni: Like I said to Crepsley, I don't know Ken's actual list of things to do so I can't say anything about implementing new features and how long they would take.

The signature file-size limit is actually specifically mentioned in the warning generally sent out with the violation notice as I'm pretty certain it's standard operating procedure to quote the rule broken when sending out the warning.

I can't discuss this specific banning because, again, we're not meant to discuss the banning of an individual.

Well, I do not know the exact details. but what I do know is that the coding for the signatures should be possible because of our albums on here:
Taken straight from uploading page.

I think this would be the best solution because I would rather upload my signature images straight to the site instead of going, for instance, to imageshack to have them resized. And then I always have to make sure the KB size which always annoys me. xD

I like Broken, and I'm sad that she was banned BUT the size limits of signatures are in the rules Any signature that someone has should be checked to make sure it isn't over the limits. It's all part of following the rules. I don't see why this needs to be discussed? it is a Site wide posting rule, if you read the faq it is RIGHT there to be seen. :/

As a mod I can tell you that people break posting rules all the time because they 'didn't see it' the solution? read the rules. It's not that hard to right click and check the dimensions and KB of an image.

Do note I'm not technical in every aspect of vB. We will look into it and see if the automatic limit can be implemented here. Creps and Anoni are both correct in that it would save a lot of headache, and people wouldn't have to worry or wonder if they were over the limit by adding something in. It's good and honest feedback, and we very much appreciate it. :) Thank you.

It is more of a suggestion of a way to prevent something like this from happening again rather than a discussion from what I see. The best fix it to have in automatically done by either A) putting something on the site for it or B) suggesting a program that will do it.

Also, properties does not always show KB size. There have been instances when I went to check it and it was not shown. This typically happened when I used images that I had in a randomizer, but none the less it did happen so I had to find the original image to find out the KB size, and sometimes, even that did not work because I had deleted the images. So in some cases, checking can be futile.

Yeah, Broken told me she finally got it to where she just put it in a link but then they banned her.

I don't think its fair at all just because it was a little over the limit and it didn't offend anyone at all. Shes a kind and sweet poster/charity owner (was) and I miss having her here in Mene.

I'm still not sure that discussing BrokenHearted's ban is constructive in any sense.

Every banning is given due consideration.

You don't know what went on behind the scenes and the staff is not supposed to discuss what happened as it is between the user and the staff to discuss if necessary.

Now I've said my bit too.

Right now Chi and I are discussing the best course of action both on Broken AND on signature issues in the future. We discussed it for almost an hour the night she was ultimately banned. My issue is that if a user does not understand either the width/height dimensions or the size limitations, why doesn't that user ask one of us? I had a user PM me just yesterday asking to help her understand. Why is it that a user cannot simply send us a message and say "I'm changing it right now, please give me a few minutes" or something like that? When does the user have to accept the responsibility for their actions and the rules here and what happens to them when they are in violation of the rules?

The "I didn't know that was there" excuse doesn't hold water IMO because as people sign up, it is their responsibility to read both the rules and the TOS. We are not asking that you memorize them but when in doubt, is it too much for us to ask you to check or ask one of us directly?

Are we as staff suppose to be bias in that we don't ban those users who provide monetary support, even if they break the rules? That's silly.

Juru, not everyone is comfortable asking people in authority questions. Some try to figure it out for themselves.
I am not saying that mene has a horrible user-staff relationship, but I do think that it would be more productive to try and work with user's in this kind of situation and try to explain to them should this happen again it is okay to ask the mods for help, and then explain how to correct the situation.

Oh I understand your point. There are several users who would rather stick hot pokers in their eyes than come to me with a question. It's not that I'm scary and difficult to talk to (a little on the crazy side, but that's something else entirely ;)) but it is the fact that I am in a position of authority. My name is pink and that automatically deters some people.

People can ask us questions but I can't make them get over their own reservations about doing so.

oh my god. you're ridiculous. :roll:

What I don't get, is that if you are concerned more for the lagging users, well, they can do what I have set on my account, which is not show any images at all. I mean, it reduces lag for the user (and probably the site), but still allows me to click on links to pictures if I really am curious to see them. (Of course, I can't tell anything about signature limits because of this.) It is good to keep down the limits though, because if you have to wait a few minutes for 15 users' signatures to load like, 3MB images... well, it wouldn't be that much of a difference on most Cable internet users or high-high speed DSL users (6MBPS and above).

I know that having a signature a little over the limit seems like a small matter and that it doesn't harm anyone. But the truth is if every user had a signature that was "just a few pixels" over the limit that would result in a huge difference site wide. It's important that even the people still using dial up can enjoy the site without it taking five minutes for every page to load.

As Juru stated, it's not that hard to PM a mod and ask if your signature is ok. I have had two users do that before this ever came about.

The staff on this site has an amazing relationship with it's users. I have been on sites where you never see the staff out and about because they maintain a distance. It's not like we are ogres that you can't PM to ask questions of us.

But ultimately it's about two things on the users part; responsibility and respect. It is the users responsibility to have at least a working knowledge of the rules and abide by them. Maybe they don't seem important to you, but they are in place for a reason. That's where the respect comes in. Maybe a few extra pixels in a signature isn't going to effect those of us with DSL or cable, but it's not all about us. It's about everyone being able to enjoy the site.

Never be afraid to PM someone on staff and ask for help if you're unsure of something. That's what we are here for. We are happy to help you. We love it when people take the initiative to do that. It shows you care about this site. :)