About Forum Rules...

[ainwood]

How come? Just because it'll be flooded with OMG NECRO, or because people will be replying to posters long gone, or what?

Pretty much. Also, rules evolve over time, and some of the early threads here would not survive under today's rules.

 

[Turner]

Uncertain which Mod to address (Forum Rules make no mention of Moderator job descriptions or such), I'm posting the issue here.

That's more an admin function than a mod function. Mods mostly just enforce the forum rules. The actually running of the stuff is more an admin function.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Time for another question, albeit again very remotely related to Forum Rules: my avatar says "Images: 1", but (still) shows no image, though I've uploaded one for sure. Uncertain which Mod to address (Forum Rules make no mention of Moderator job descriptions or such), I'm posting the issue here.

This is because you've submitted a screenshot to the SOTD, but it's still in the moderation queue. Put another way, I haven't selected your image for a SOTD post yet...

There are many more submissions for SOTD than I can post, so every once in a while I will take the unused screenshots and publish them in the regular Civ4 - Screenshots category.

 

[Agent327]

Thanks. (Wow: getting 2 mod replies for 1 question.) I suspected it might be in a mod queue (strange word, that), just didn't know who to address on it. I'll be waiting patiently then.

 

[Agent327]

The rule that discussing moderator actions is prohibited actually makes it impossible to express agreement with any such action. (Perhaps not a problem, but put here as food for thought. Seeing as members can't not submit to moderators' authority anyway, I'm not sure why this rule exists per se, as any comment is in itself again subject to Forum Rules.)

On a completely unrelated note: there now is a UGO ad featuring EU Libertas. Is there any CFC policy on polit ads?

 

[ainwood]

Seeing as members can't not submit to moderators' authority anyway, I'm not sure why this rule exists per se, as any comment is in itself again subject to Forum Rules.)

Basically it exists because it keep the forums orderly. Moderators are more than happy to discuss moderator actions via PM, but when public discussions were allowed, they basically just resulted in ranting, and nothing constructive came of it.

Here is Thunderfall's take on it.

 

[Agent327]

I did not know that, thx. (Pity, though...)

 

[Bowsling]

Could we have the signature length maybe a bit more specific sizes?
What if say, somebody were to misunderstand the rule and think that one could have seven lines of size 1, 5 lines of size 2, and 3 lines of size 3 in total, instead of the actual three lines if size 3 is present in the signature, 5 if no size 3 is in the signature, and seven if only size 1 was in the signature? blush

 

[Turner]

Signatures are limited to 5 lines of regular (size 2) text. Using smaller text (size 1) allows 7 lines of text. Larger text (size 3) allows 3 lines of text. No text size larger then size 3 should be used. The number of lines for any text size includes blank lines and room used by emoticons and is evaluated at 1024x768 resolution.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. No where does it say that you can use 7 lines of size one and 5 lines of default sized text. Using a smaller font allows 7 lines, and a larger one (so long as it's size=3 and no larger) 3.

And should you misinterpret, then a moderator will probably give you a warning, and let it go at that. Continued signature violations can earn infractions points, but usually the first warning is enough and rarely do we have to go farther than that.

 

[LucyDuke]

Just a note for the next update, there's a typo in there. It ought to be "larger than size 3" instead of "larger then size 3". Sorry, just constructive criticism.

It would be nice if very very small violations didn't earn warnings, rather just a friendly off-the-record PM from a mod. I had seven lines of size 1 and asked some folks to check the lines since I couldn't get the right screen width to make sure. They said it was seven lines, but when a mod found it, there was one word spilling over to an eighth line. Now I've got a warning that will never go away.

 

[GenMarshall]

It would be nice if very very small violations didn't earn warnings, rather just a friendly off-the-record PM from a mod. I had seven lines of size 1 and asked some folks to check the lines since I couldn't get the right screen width to make sure. They said it was seven lines, but when a mod found it, there was one word spilling over to an eighth line. Now I've got a warning that will never go away.

I'd second that as well, that happened to me as well. I'd be nice if a moderator PMed you if they are going to muck around and edit your signature. Most people would think that their profile has been hacked and go back and reedit the signature, then a moderator slaps a warning on ya .

 

[ainwood]

Just a note for the next update, there's a typo in there. It ought to be "larger than size 3" instead of "larger then size 3". Sorry, just constructive criticism.

Fixed - thanks.

It would be nice if very very small violations didn't earn warnings, rather just a friendly off-the-record PM from a mod. I had seven lines of size 1 and asked some folks to check the lines since I couldn't get the right screen width to make sure. They said it was seven lines, but when a mod found it, there was one word spilling over to an eighth line. Now I've got a warning that will never go away.

My view is that a warning is more of a "please don't do that", but I recognise that different people will view it differently.

The reason why a 'warning' is often used is that its quick & easy - hit a button, and its sent to the user and tracked in the staff forum so we can check to see whether people comply.

 

[Padma]

The Warning/Infraction system helps manage a site as large as this. Like ainwood said, by using it, we have a log automatically generated in the staff forums so we can track compliance.

Some posters never deal with the issue, and then scream bloody murder when we follow-up, and fix things. This gives us evidence of what steps were taken.

And, FWIW, I virtually always PM a user if I am editing their sig. Even if it is not an infraction, I want to be sure they know I've been "mucking about", just so there is no misunderstanding.

 

[Camikaze]

Doesn't it tell you if your signature is too long when you change and save it? It does for me. Or at least, it has previously.

The message you get says this:

Your signature contains too many lines and must be shortened. You may only have up to 10 line(s). Long text may have been implicitly wrapped, causing it to be counted as multiple lines.

 

[Sharwood]

Doesn't it tell you if your signature is too long when you change and save it? It does for me. Or at least, it has previously.

The message you get says this:

It never has for me, and I wish it did. It would prevent there even being a need to police signature violations.

 

[Camikaze]

It never has for me, and I wish it did. It would prevent there even being a need to police signature violations.

Yeah, it only seems to do it some of the time. Once, IIRC, I only had 6 lines, and it gave this message. I deleted one character, or a space, or something, and it worked fine. Odd.

 

[Sharwood]

Yeah, it only seems to do it some of the time. Once, IIRC, I only had 6 lines, and it gave this message. I deleted one character, or a space, or something, and it worked fine. Odd.

My sig's been too long once or twice, and it didn't come up for me either time.

 

[LucyDuke]

It might only be triggered with line breaks.

It'll recognize

Blue blue blue!
Blue blue blue!

as two lines, but not

Blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue!



As for the warnings, I just take everything too seriously. My record is pretty clean and it bugs me that one of the few mars is something so incredibly trivial that could've been solved just as quickly with a PM. Oh well.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, look at it like this - if you're going to have a mar, better it be an incredibly trivial one like that than something worse.

 

[Sharwood]

Well, look at it like this - if you're going to have a mar, better it be an incredibly trivial one like that than something worse.

My opinion is that if you're going to have a mar, it might as well be a good one.

@Lucy: You might be right there, I think I had one sentence run on to the next line.