Thread Tools

mooglebunny
Truly, truly outrageous!
60.09
Send a message via MSN to mooglebunny
mooglebunny is offline
 
#26
Old 06-30-2008, 03:50 AM

Well, what I was more asking for was perhaps encouraging some users (perhaps those like me who either have slow satellite or dial-up, and that is all) to just use the option where it allows the users to turn all of the pictures into links instead. It's much more efficient, both for end user and for server. (A majority of internet users today are on DSL or Cable though... I mean, there aren't a lot of rural users, or people who live in rural areas anymore it seems.) (I wonder if many people even know of an option like that, to disable display of pictures?)

Blondheart
Dead Account Holder
0.00
Blondheart is offline
 
#27
Old 06-30-2008, 03:54 AM

I was typing my post before you posted Moogle, so that wasn't really in response to what you said. It was just a coincidence. But I don't think a lot of people do know they can disable pictures that way. But I know the automatic response is get a faster computer or internet connection. Not everyone has that as an option.

As for discussing bannings Logan, no...CK is not ridiculous, she is correct. Can you imagine if the staff just went around discussing people's private business with anyone and everyone? I don't think that would be very good. I am sure you wouldn't want your private business discussed now would you? ;)

Winterwolfgoddess
Miss You Guys
Penpal
17670.20
Winterwolfgoddess is offline
 
#28
Old 06-30-2008, 04:14 AM

Juru, thank you for understanding that. ^^
I know that you can't make users get over that, but it would not hurt to try. I am one of those who does not usually like to approach a person of authority with a problem. I have gotten better with it on this site. Though, it is easier for some users who knew some of the staff prior to modship. xD

Blondheart- xD I would just like to point out that I didn't say the user-staff relationship as horrible in my post.
But still not everyone is like the two individuals you stated, as I also stated.
And most users do have a working knowledge of the rules of here, but just the the US Constitution, people are bound to interpret them differently, no matter how simple the statement, which will cause a few conflicts.

Which is why if possible it would be a good idea to put up automatic limits which will correct that is easily fixed like this.
And honestly? I do not know the KB size of an image until I post it since I have no clue how to check it without, and most of the time, if the image meets the dimensions, I upload the image to my signature directly instead of using another site, and fix it from there if need be, which may have been the case with Brokenhearted. I do not know the details, nor do I want to know them. But this also leads me to another idea:

I know you can check any edits made to posts, so I assume it may be possible to check signatures as well, like when they are changed. If so, if the KB size is too big, and the signature was just recently changed with an uploaded picture to the site, would it be too much to ask for the mod checking to PM the user asking if they were fixing their signature or something like that? I try to remove mine instantly when I see the KB size is like that, so I can work to fix it, but some users may not think like that.

Blondheart
Dead Account Holder
0.00
Blondheart is offline
 
#29
Old 06-30-2008, 04:18 AM

Ok let me clarify, I was addressing everything said in the thread. I was not addressing any one person specifically.

Krissy
(^._.^)ノ
504.87
Krissy is offline
 
#30
Old 06-30-2008, 04:35 AM

Ah, this is why I'll donate to Gaia rather then Mene. xP

L o g a n
hay
387.85
L o g a n is offline
 
#31
Old 06-30-2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondheart View Post
As for discussing bannings Logan, no...CK is not ridiculous, she is correct. Can you imagine if the staff just went around discussing people's private business with anyone and everyone? I don't think that would be very good. I am sure you wouldn't want your private business discussed now would you? ;)
I'm not saying you need to give me her social security number. :)

What I'm saying, discussing her banning is very relevant. What Jayms said nailed most of it.

I'm sure the "inner workings" and "confidential" things that made her sig size the final straw was probably something stupid as well. But oh well. rules are rules. ;)

Last edited by L o g a n; 06-30-2008 at 05:45 AM.. Reason: spelled jayms wrong oops

Fabby
KHAAAAAAAAN~
498.51
Fabby is offline
 
#32
Old 06-30-2008, 05:12 AM

Fabby agrees with Logan...
It seems like the staff uses the "we can't tell you" line as more of a way to cover their own ass than to protect user privacy.

But hey. Whatever.

Chi
Dancing to her own beat..
Penpal
91045.91
Chi is offline
 
#33
Old 06-30-2008, 05:24 AM

I'm sorry you two feel that way, Fabby and L o g a n. And I suppose you as well, Jayms. Right now we have nothing explicitly stated in our privacy policy that says we'll share banning information. Perhaps we will add it, that way we have nothing to "hide", unless I'm misinterpreting what you all assume we do behind closed doors. We do actually sit and hash and rehash (for hours at times :P) over our feedback, and this thread is one of those hashings.

We do sincerely avoid discussing bannings for a user's privacy. It's no one's business what an individual did in the past to get banned. A user can share it if they wish of course, but why would we as staff want to air dirty laundry? Where is the point in it? It seems a bit childish to me.

I do apologize that our actions may seem immature, inappropriate or otherwise "wrong". Looks are often times deceiving..

As staff we will never be able to make this place accepted by all. There is conflict everywhere (I'm speaking in global terms, not just online and on Menewsha). We will, however, work to get things situated for Mene in a manner that hopefully is appreciated by most.

Mama Juru
Why you crying?
Assistant Administrator
156155.52
Mama Juru is offline
 
#34
Old 06-30-2008, 07:12 AM

I am not sure Winter how any single staff member can make themselves more approachable. I know that the users who know me from the 50% store, the quest raffle, and even before I was even a mod on this site, will come to me with questions and sometimes just to say hello. We do try to be as visible on site as possible and interact as much as possible. As far as doing more than that, what do you suggest?

My understanding of this software was that it shouldn't allow images that exceed the size limits to be uploaded. That is the way I interpret it to work. I will not actually know if I am correct or not until I can speak to Ken (or one of us catches him) so I will reserve further comment on that point until I have a solid answer. It is also because of this that we will continue to discuss Brokenhearted and what happened at the AA level. I cannot say what will happen at this time since not all of us are on right now. Please keep in mind that we try to be as fair as possible. We don't just hit the ban "button" on a whim. We do discuss and debate and sometimes argue until we reach consensus. I know that you as the users do not see this but I can assure you it does take place.

Will we ever let users know what someone did to earn themselves the ban hammer? I don't know. I can't say that I'm comfortable in saying "well so and so was caught cheating and that is why they were banned". I realize that many users know what people are doing when they are banned and are not surprised when it comes. I'm not comfortable saying "this user did this and this, so the rest of you... don't do this or you'll be next".

Anoni
is a cool kid.
16590.62
Anoni is offline
 
#35
Old 06-30-2008, 11:55 AM

I have to agree with Winter's comment about approaching authority. I'm not scared of staff members or anything of the sort, but I try to avoid PMing staffers unless it's absolutely necessary so I don't feel like I'm bothering them. P: Also, there was a time where I PMed a staff member and they didn't bother PMing me back at all. >>; I forgot to check the PM receipt box so I wasn't sure if they had read it or not. But I digress.
I know most of the staff are willing to help and I'm sure many people know that but, like me, are still hesitant to PM a staff member. XD

But as for Broken, I have yet to see a regular user agree with her ban. We know she broke a rule and due to a previous ban, had once chance left, but is an oversized sig really worth a ban? When I think of offences that would warrant a ban, I think of things like off-siting, excessive spamming, excessive trolling, and in general, things that are damaging to the community. An unintentionally oversized sig is hardly detrimental to Mene. @[email protected];; I'm sure Broken would've complied and changed her signature if she was approached about it first. I know you guys have procedures to follow when it comes to bans and warnings, and it is the user's responsibility to know and follow the rules, but a little flexibility with the rules wouldn't hurt when it comes to having to ban a perfectly good member over a minor issue. Also, I wasn't saying that you shouldn't ban a member because they donate to the site - I was merely mentioning the fact to support the notion that Broken was a normal/good member. XD

I agree with Logan and Fabby about the typical "blah blah users don't know what goes on behind the scenes" line. No, of course we don't. XD We can only act on what we see because the staff have decided to keep reasons for bannings private. I don't agree or disagree with that rule, but I hope the next staffer to use the line understands that unless they disclose extra information regarding a ban, we can only judge based on what we see and what we believe to be the truth. In other words, it's pointless to use that line because it's not convincing and it's not going to shut anyone up. XDD

Back to judging based on what we see - I see people on another sites discussing Broken's ban and you know, I'm not the only one who can see that. Other Menewshans can see it, as well as potential/future members. The issue spreads along the grapevine and at the end of the day, it's going to portray Menewsha in a negative light.

[L]ove[H]ate
(◎_◎;)
Banned
52.00
[L]ove[H]ate is offline
 
#36
Old 06-30-2008, 02:03 PM

I AGREE WITH YOU 100,000,000,000%! I got a warning infraction and then I did it again because I got my height and width mixed up and I got a permanent infraction!! It makes me soo effin mad. I think and automatic width/height reducer should be implemented because this it is totally not even fair to do this. Half the people that get in trouble because of it don't try.

anoni: Yeah and when I got my first warning infraction from the mod for my siggy exceeding the amount, I replied to her and asked her to explain how pixels are and she didn't write back. So I did it myself, messed up the height and width, and got a permanent ban. It's completely messed up the way the siggy is working. NO ONE ever told me my pics were too big before and out of the middle of nowhere, people are? wtf?

Last edited by [L]ove[H]ate; 06-30-2008 at 02:06 PM..

Saisei
Flying close to the sun on wings...
83.22
Send a message via ICQ to Saisei Send a message via AIM to Saisei Send a message via MSN to Saisei Send a message via Yahoo to Saisei
Saisei is offline
 
#37
Old 06-30-2008, 02:26 PM

I can't help but agree with the statement that it appears we're being evasive when we can't discuss the details behind someone's banning. However, it's doubly problematic because when we have to remain silent, all you, the "other users", have to go on is the banned user's side of the story which if we're being honest, is rarely objective or fair. Because of that, our privacy policy leaves us in an indefensible position where we can't explain a ban, but still have to attempt to calm the waters in topics like this where rule discussions turn into multiple page rantings about a banned user and how unfair the staff is.

Furthermore, if you use the "upload signature picture" section of the "edit signature" profile area, it automatically downsizes the image to be within the constraints. This feature has been online and active since the software switch. You simply have to use the [sigpic][/sigpic] tags to display it once you either upload an image using the upload section or enter a URL to your own image in the url section.

This feature is ineffective if you simply use the [img] tag to hotlink to sigs on your own hosting, use a sig randomizer, or have text above or below a sig that's already at the limit. The responsibility for these things fall onto the user to be aware of the rules and simply be aware of the sizes they're using. It is even explained in the signature rules how to check these things.

Mama Juru
Why you crying?
Assistant Administrator
156155.52
Mama Juru is offline
 
#38
Old 06-30-2008, 03:29 PM

Alright then it is working as I interpreted it to work.

We could alter the settings and not let anyone have additional images in their signature and limit users to one. That would eliminate the need for checking kb and/or size restrictions since the system will do it automatically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinmotsu View Post
Furthermore, if you use the "upload signature picture" section of the "edit signature" profile area, it automatically downsizes the image to be within the constraints. This feature has been online and active since the software switch. You simply have to use the [sigpic][/sigpic] tags to display it once you either upload an image using the upload section or enter a URL to your own image in the url section.

This feature is ineffective if you simply use the [img] tag to hotlink to sigs on your own hosting, use a sig randomizer, or have text above or below a sig that's already at the limit. The responsibility for these things fall onto the user to be aware of the rules and simply be aware of the sizes they're using. It is even explained in the signature rules how to check these things.

Winterwolfgoddess
Miss You Guys
Penpal
17670.20
Winterwolfgoddess is offline
 
#39
Old 06-30-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:
Furthermore, if you use the "upload signature picture" section of the "edit signature" profile area, it automatically downsizes the image to be within the constraints. This feature has been online and active since the software switch. You simply have to use the [sigpic][/sigpic] tags to display it once you either upload an image using the upload section or enter a URL to your own image in the url section.

This feature is ineffective if you simply use the [img] tag to hotlink to sigs on your own hosting, use a sig randomizer, or have text above or below a sig that's already at the limit. The responsibility for these things fall onto the user to be aware of the rules and simply be aware of the sizes they're using. It is even explained in the signature rules how to check these things.
Was it ever explained in the rules that that was what sigpic did Kinmotsu? The answer is no. Thus, by your explanation, this falls in the hands of those who wrote the rules and explanations. I would not have known that unless someone had told me. In fact, I didn't until just now. Any time images did not fit the signature dimensions, I fixed it myself.
And checking it does not ALWAYS work, as I previously explained:
Quote:
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 or when I used an image alterer online, 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.
Juru- I may have an idea, but I am not sure if it is thread appropriate on here.

Rusalka
(。☉౪ ⊙&...
79.76
Send a message via MSN to Rusalka
Rusalka is offline
 
#40
Old 06-30-2008, 04:43 PM

It was not the sigpic jub was referring to when stating how to check was in the rules but the actual normal images - it tells you how to check, but as the sigpic failed to find it's way into guides that can be changed to be dealt with so people do know how to use the sigpic. The one restriction is that it'd be one image in a signature because it keeps it at that.

Other than this I've not much to add that others have already said though. Though there's no way for you to learn what goes on behind the scenes there's no way us as staff can legally say without losing our own positions on staff. There's a privacy statement for a reason between the user and the staff that it cannot be stated, unless that changes any point soon I feel users would like that they don't have to worry about us telling people everything about them. And to use them as an example is something more would have qualms about than just the friends of the user.

With this it's generally only getting the one side of it leaving us defenseless of telling you what truly appeared to happen. Though you have to take our word, it is not a lie when we tell you everything is discussed. Our mouths are sealed shut by legal obligation, but that does not mean we lie about what actually goes on behind the scenes... we just have to keep the true content out of it.

Signatures do need a way to take away the ability of having to worry whether they are too big or not. However until the solution is in place.. the rules have always stated the limits and how to check the sizes of images. Since it is there, there's no reason to have 'not seen' the rule, it's the user's responsibility to be sure to follow them. The staff have an obligation to do their job and that's to pay attention that everyone is doing so, signature violation or spamming.. they're both clearly stated in the rules that is easy to get to if you have any doubts about something.

Winterwolfgoddess
Miss You Guys
Penpal
17670.20
Winterwolfgoddess is offline
 
#41
Old 06-30-2008, 05:05 PM

Am I correct to presume my post was completely misinterpretted?

Quote:
It was not the sigpic jub was referring to when stating how to check was in the rules but the actual normal images - it tells you how to check, but as the sigpic failed to find it's way into guides that can be changed to be dealt with so people do know how to use the sigpic. The one restriction is that it'd be one image in a signature because it keeps it at that.
No clue who jub is, but I assume kinmotsu. The know he was not referring to sigpic in the rules. However, I was referring to the fact it is not in the rules, so thus the knowledge was lost to the community, unless you tested it out, and quite frankly, I can't see many doing that. Plus, sigpic does not keep one picture per signature. I have combined the two in the past.

Quote:
Signatures do need a way to take away the ability of having to worry whether they are too big or not. However until the solution is in place.. the rules have always stated the limits and how to check the sizes of images. Since it is there, there's no reason to have 'not seen' the rule, it's the user's responsibility to be sure to follow them. The staff have an obligation to do their job and that's to pay attention that everyone is doing so, signature violation or spamming.. they're both clearly stated in the rules that is easy to get to if you have any doubts about something.
Apparently the newly discovered function of the sigpic does that. And although the rules state how to check, for the third time I will state that it does not always work, so what then? Is it the user's fault it does not show up? I do not see how. I would say, however, in instances like these, that if the dimensions or KB size do not show up, do not use it, since there is a chance it will be oversized.

I am not saying to limit us to one signature image. What I am saying to to make the rule more clear and to put information in it to avoid it. That is the point I am trying to argue.

And also, I do not think sharing users private information is a good thing, and I can see where the privacy policy comes into place. That is why I tried strictly avoid that and I am addressing signatures in general

Chi
Dancing to her own beat..
Penpal
91045.91
Chi is offline
 
#42
Old 06-30-2008, 05:07 PM

Winter, you are correct that the vB system wasn't explained beforehand. No one has pointed fingers that people should be using the signature uploader. Not at all. It was not in our rules to begin with.

However, our current guidelines state how we wished signatures to be conducted. It has always been up to the user to find how their signature is. We've received negative feedback on this, so we are modifying it. :yes:

Winterwolfgoddess
Miss You Guys
Penpal
17670.20
Winterwolfgoddess is offline
 
#43
Old 06-30-2008, 05:12 PM

Thank you. xD

I feel as if I have been a nuisance now. :lol:

Chi
Dancing to her own beat..
Penpal
91045.91
Chi is offline
 
#44
Old 06-30-2008, 05:20 PM

Not at all. :) We really do enjoy the feedback, especially when it's constructive. No worries!

I am going to close this topic though, but only because the signatures are already being worked on in a way that will hopefully be fair to all. I'll be making an announcement about it in the near future to better explain things, but I assure you, it is fair, easy to deal with, and no one will have to worry about it for the future. :)

 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump

no new posts