I kept reverting my signature because I had not been informed of why it was being reverted. No-one was informed of the new rules regarding signatures. I was not informed of any of the new rules until I infringed upon one of them, and only then was I told one rule at a time, and only then after asking why my (to the best of my knowledge) non-rule-infringing signature was being changed.
There's nothing I can do now, but hope that someone will either move me back into Members or change my group name to something reflecting my current position ("Signature Privileges Revoked") rather than thinly-disguised pointless name-calling ("Signature Abuser"). Or at least remove my signature for me.
RunasSudo-AWOLindefinitely's Content
There have been 233 items by RunasSudo-AWOLindefinitely (Search limited from 10-February 22)
#79621 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 08:44 PM
in
Forum Discussion
#79595 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 07:35 PM
in
Forum Discussion
TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:
RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:
I have no idea who is behind this all (I suspect it is Lyqyd, but it could be others).
#79592 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 07:30 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:
You getting around rules, and arguing that you are going to change it again prompted this change.
I was arguing that I was going to change it again because I was unaware that there was a maximum size of each line.
Under my (and I suspect, everyone elses) understanding at the time, my signature was being needlessly reverted as the total length did not exceed "3 standard lines".
It was only afterwards that Lyqyd announced that there was a maximum font size of 12 as well, which, of course, had not previously been mentioned.
After that, I stopped doing that, updated my signature to conform, and stopped arguing. Until you changed my rank.
And here I was, thinking that we were all mature enough here to not revert to needless name-calling. Evidently, I was mistaken.
Also, I used the words "get around" in quotation marks, because I did not mean it literally. I meant "I was actually trying to insert an internetometer link into my signature without using an image, therefore not breaking the rules."
#79590 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 07:23 PM
in
Forum Discussion
TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:
RunasSudo, on 23 January 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:
Seriously? I hope you never get to run anything larger than a forum with this management system.
#79588 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 07:19 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Dlcruz129, on 23 January 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:
And we still haven't been told what purpose this serves. What the hell can be accomplished by this?
#79584 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 07:15 PM
in
Forum Discussion
You change the signature requirements without warning.
You do not update the signature section of the stickies until pestered to do so.
You do not include all of the necessary information about the new signature requirements. Anywhere.
You repeatedly revert my signature for
^ You conveniently forget to mention that the meaning of that isn't actually what it means, and that it means a completely different thing.
^ ^ Oh, and you still conveniently haven't added that to the sticky.
You then change my rank to "Signature Abuser", after I had made my signature conform to the new standards and I had stated that I had conceeded defeat and would stop arguing.
And you still haven't told us the purpose of these new restrictions.
^ Unless you count "Cloudy doesn't like image signatures", which is a silly explanation, and only covers part of the problem.
Seriously? I hope you never get to run anything larger than a forum with this management system.
You do not update the signature section of the stickies until pestered to do so.
You do not include all of the necessary information about the new signature requirements. Anywhere.
You repeatedly revert my signature for
Quote
The use of formatting to make your three lines larger than three standard lines
^ ^ Oh, and you still conveniently haven't added that to the sticky.
You then change my rank to "Signature Abuser", after I had made my signature conform to the new standards and I had stated that I had conceeded defeat and would stop arguing.
And you still haven't told us the purpose of these new restrictions.
^ Unless you count "Cloudy doesn't like image signatures", which is a silly explanation, and only covers part of the problem.
Seriously? I hope you never get to run anything larger than a forum with this management system.
#79579 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 07:01 PM
in
Forum Discussion
TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:
I think they broke changing display images while changing the signatures... I get "
Failed to set a new photo
"... Tried it on multiple browsers... All to the same effect...EDIT:
Group: Signature abuser? Really?
Your rules changed and you conveniently forgot to mention that the maximum font size is 12.
Yeah, real "abuser".
#79545 What free game(s) are your favorite?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 04:48 PM
in
General
I enjoy playing "Grammar Nazi on YouTube Comments". But mainly logic/board/puzzle-type games. Like sudoku. And quantum tic-tac-toe. I do believe both of those are "free".
#79542 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 04:44 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Alright. I concede. As silly as all of these new rules are (It's the size of each line? The size of each line??!), it's clearly not going to matter what anyone apart from the admins think.
Seeing as my signature now doesn't infringe of any of these new rules, unless the admins have a sudden change of heart and decide to hold a referendum, I'm going to stop now.
Seeing as my signature now doesn't infringe of any of these new rules, unless the admins have a sudden change of heart and decide to hold a referendum, I'm going to stop now.
#79536 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 04:29 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Cloudy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:
And that makes a difference why?
Accident isn't quite the same (mostly, but not quite the same) as sidestepping the rules.
EDIT: Seriously. I'm going to keep reverting my signature, because it definitely is within 3 standard lines. I'll post a size comparison if you need more evidence.
#79531 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 04:25 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Cloudy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:
There's also no need to try and sidestep the rules.
#79528 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 04:22 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Lyqyd, on 23 January 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:
The use of formatting to make your three lines larger than three standard lines will also get your signature edited.
EDIT: There. Approximately the same size as 3 standard lines.
#79523 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 04:17 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Oh, look. Those rules were amazingly effective. Now, it's just slightly less flashy.
#79514 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 04:08 PM
in
Forum Discussion
dissy, on 23 January 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:
-snip-
Of course, the only thing this has forced me to do is to manually paste my signature at the end of every post I make. (I won't but if I was determined enough to have an internetometer link at the end of each of my posts, I could).
Wow. Look how amazingly effective those signature restrictions were...
#79502 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 03:43 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:
You can see that nobody's signatures have been altered at this time, unless it is a blatant violation of the rules. Large images, and really long sigs have been changed, but existing signatures that have been kept to a reasonable size have not been changed. This includes yours. I don't see any reason you should be complaining, as the new rules are not unreasonable in my opinion.
However, notice that your name is at the top of that infringement list. What if you were to create a new program, and you wanted to add it to your signature. But noooooooooooo. You have to pick 3 of your best to put there, or do one of those "Click for a list of my programs" things.
I just don't see the point.
Make signatures have a scroll bar if they're too big. That would make sense.
Limit the number of URLs? That doesn't.
EDIT: Oh, it looks like my signature has been updated to conform to the new requirements. Now can I complain? whinewhinewhinewhinewhine
#79494 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 03:32 PM
in
Forum Discussion
dissy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:
But by some peoples definition (mine included) 75-90% of the forum regulars have spammy signatures.
dissy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:
A signature used to be just that, your name and/or nick, and possibly a piece of contact info. One-two lines of text.
#79492 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 03:28 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:
Well, I know that dan200 has added some new methods to prevent spam today, such as having to approve the first 3 posts for new users. This may be one of those changes.
Cranium (1,928) - Signature Infringes
TheOriginalBIT (1,471) - Signature Infringes
MysticT (1,451) - Signature Infringes
PixelToast (1,282) - Signature Infringes
Orwell (809) - Signature Infringes
BigSHinyToys (806) - Signature Infringes
ComputerCraftFan11 (757) - Signature Infringes
Sammich Lord (701) - Signature Infringes
Kingdaro (626) - Signature Infringes
Dlcruz129 (618) - Signature Infringes
That is way too high a percentage (50%) to be reasonable. If you're going to ban something that 50% of the most respected people of the forum participate in...
#79489 PNGNFP - The ComputerCraft Image Converter
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 03:19 PM
in
APIs and Utilities
Just released v0.1b2.
Removes the unnecessary "c" option and adds a new "d" option to use the new (still in testing and kinda glitchy for some reason I can't figure out) Delta E (CIE94) colour matching algorithm (for more "accurate" colour matching).
Download in main post or at http://bit.ly/V5ENA9
Removes the unnecessary "c" option and adds a new "d" option to use the new (still in testing and kinda glitchy for some reason I can't figure out) Delta E (CIE94) colour matching algorithm (for more "accurate" colour matching).
Download in main post or at http://bit.ly/V5ENA9
#79482 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 03:14 PM
in
Forum Discussion
Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:
I believe this is in an attempt to quell some spam. Not sure, but just a guess.
Lyqyd, on 23 January 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:
These seem like quite reasonable signature guidelines to me.
0 images is pointless. 5-ish? images with a maximum size would make far more sense.
The 3 URLs rule is just 110% completely stupid. How on earth does limiting the number of URLs in your signature help to combat spam???
In any way, how many "spam" signatures have you ever seen? Even counting the ones that infringe on the rules (but aren't spam), I've only seen 2 or 3.
OFF TOPIC: Congratulations, Cranium!
#79383 Spelling error D:
Posted by
on 23 January 2013 - 11:44 AM
in
Forum Discussion
TheOriginalBIT, on 23 January 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:
Cranium, on 23 January 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:
TheOriginalBIT, on 22 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:
really... your being that person... 
/>
/>#79081 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 22 January 2013 - 11:42 PM
in
Forum Discussion
TheOriginalBIT, on 22 January 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:
RunasSudo, on 22 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:
Just then. I saved a copy to my hard disk at... 8:56 PM (ACDT).
#79078 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 22 January 2013 - 11:32 PM
in
Forum Discussion
TheOriginalBIT, on 22 January 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:
RunasSudo, on 22 January 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:
This better be an accident/mistake/admin was drunk and screwing around with settings.
#79075 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 22 January 2013 - 11:26 PM
in
Forum Discussion
TheOriginalBIT, on 22 January 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:
Well thats different from last time I saw it... o.O
Trying to add PNGNFP to the list:
This better be an accident/mistake/admin was drunk and screwing around with settings.
#79073 New signature requirements? What?
Posted by
on 22 January 2013 - 11:19 PM
in
Forum Discussion
So, I was trying to add a program to my signature, when I found, to my dismay:
What?
3 lines? The signature guidelines in the stickies allow for 4 lines (plus 1 leniency line).
0 images? That just doesn't make sense.
3 URLs? Just what purpose does that achieve????
Someone please tell me this will be reverted...
Quote
Your signature may contain:
- Up to 0 images
- Images up to 0 x 0 pixels
- Up to 3 URLs
- Up to 3 lines
3 lines? The signature guidelines in the stickies allow for 4 lines (plus 1 leniency line).
0 images? That just doesn't make sense.
3 URLs? Just what purpose does that achieve????
Someone please tell me this will be reverted...
#79070 Spelling error D:
Posted by
on 22 January 2013 - 11:14 PM
in
Forum Discussion
TheOriginalBIT, on 22 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:
really... your being that person...
