|
Post by unifilar on Sept 7, 2006 3:08:54 GMT
Out of curiousity, why were the rules concerning spam lightened? It seems rather odd to me how it seems more like a pick-and-choose method, where favoritism and bias could come into play (not saying they are, but it's a possibility that could unconsciously happen). Some of the new specifications are needed and appreciated, but some I'm not comfortable with. Like this statement:
I feel that all threads should apply to the 'do not post offtopic things', for it's a rule that should be followed. There shouldn't make exceptions for certain threads because the aforementioned issues (favoritism, bias) would arise.
The part concerning spam that I whole-heartedly agree with is the following:
Some people like to talk about other things in a specified thread, and I can understand that. Offtopic-ness doesn't bother me as long as the post as some part that pertains to the topic. Because then it's really not offtopic. I feel like this rule could be a fool-proof way of distinguishing spam, because it's really not that hard at all to have at least part of a post that's on-topic. It's showing that the effort is there.
Otherwise, I feel the rules are well-crafted and easy to understand. Good job, mod/admin team. ;D
|
|
|
Post by chaos on Sept 17, 2006 23:19:04 GMT
Sorry to bug you guys again, but I used to have dail-up around 56k and loading a 250KB+ image took quite some time(approx 5 seconds). I thought that 100-150 is okay. Sorry if this is a bad idea, but just trying to help out and for the sake for the dail-up users.
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Sept 19, 2006 10:26:27 GMT
unifilarWell the rule you mentioned is for, say, threads such as "Post At Random". Furthermore, it is there to follow the Golden Rule Of The Forum: "Act in such a way that the enjoyment everyone derives from the forum is maximised." Making the spam rules absolute and not allowing for exceptions slowly turns the current bening paradigm of modding-by-consent into an authoritarian alles-in-ordrung paradigm, and that would not be an enjoyable change. However note that if you feel that the offtopicness of some thread is impairing your enjoyment of said thread feel free to point that out to me via PM. I, or another mod, of course, will then swing into action. @alexis The new sig rules were formed because according to the old ones we would have had to ban the entire forum at one point. It was simply proving to be utterly unenforcable. Now as for your problem, well, I regret it (I was a dial-up user for quite a while so I feel your pain) but I can't solve it trough rules. I can however suggest a technical fix: You can either increse the cache size in your browser settings and bank on the fact that signatures don't change all that often. Or (and this is the method I'd use) install Firefox, and then install an extension for it called Adblock. It will enable you to, when you righ-click on any image, block that image from being loaded thus saving your time. If you have any problems with my proposed solutions PM me and I will render assistance.
|
|
Delightful CoM
Field Operative
The Delightful One
(Insert generic text here)
Posts: 211
|
Post by Delightful CoM on Sept 19, 2006 20:22:37 GMT
The new sig rules were formed because according to the old ones we would have had to ban the entire forum at one point. It was simply proving to be utterly unenforcable. Good to hear the sig rules got revised. No offense, but that "ban for 1 day" policy was a little strict, especially if it was a first-time and/or a minor offense. (I was once a victim of it because my sig was 10 pixels too tall. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BTW, I got a comment about this rule: "1Fa: The existing thread has over 100 pages and must be locked for safety reasons." Shoudn't you guys lock, archive, and re-create all threads over 100 pages (the 1/5 thread, the Episode Downloads thread, and the Caption Contest thread for example)? I've seen you guys only seem to do it with the 2/5 thread.
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Sept 19, 2006 21:39:37 GMT
We do it with the 2/5 thread because it has shown to be quite prone to this problem. Any other thread can request archival but I, myself, don't feel comfortable doing so without the poster's consent.
|
|
|
Post by unifilar on Sept 24, 2006 2:47:44 GMT
No, I agree about the 'Post at Random' thread having spam. Spam is supposed to be there. It's posting at random. But when spam is plentiful when it doesn't need to be....that's where the problem lies. Spam is 100% avoidable. As said, I'm fine with parts of a post having some zany, off-the-wall comments, but some section should pertain to the subject, leaving room for topic continuation. It's really not that hard to do so, so you can imagine my impatience for people who do it continuously.
How about this- a spam warning rule. If a thread, one of which doesn't need to have excessive spam, has two-three pages or more of off-topic material, then a mod/admin will leave a warning on said thread as a gentle nudge to get back on topic. The warning itself could have subject matter in it that could lead to more on-topic discussions. I think this would lead to more meaningful conversations, give the threads more of a purposeful feel, and have the posters themselves feel for pride for what they're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by regan on Sept 27, 2006 23:21:56 GMT
I'm going to suggest adding a image size restriction to user icons as well... I just came across two three massive ones just today (700 kb, 900 kb, and 1.2 megs) and seriously, there is just no need for that. ~Regan
|
|
|
Post by ♥Comet..Adie♥ on Sept 28, 2006 0:51:51 GMT
the avatar images? or sig pictures? As for Sig pictures I agree. They are gettting reaaaallly big.
|
|
|
Post by regan on Sept 28, 2006 0:57:31 GMT
Avatar ones.... I know, you wouldn't think it, but some of those animated ones are ENORMOUS.
~Regan
|
|