Banned from using sigs, and I want to know why

[Nate Griffin]

I've noticed my sig has been removed. I would like to get this privilege back if I could, and this time I'll follow the rules (if it happens). I didn't think it was over the limit, but I'm sorry.

[shortkut]

if you had read the new sig rules before making an img sig, you would have known it was over the limit. it is your own fault you had them removed. the rules are there for a reason

[Nate Griffin]

Sorry. I now realize that it was my own fault and take full responisbility for my actions. Thank you for not banning me. Now, am I ever going to get my sig privileges back or not?

[Crazy Jamie]

As it stands now all removal of signature privileges are permanent. We know that because of the harsh line taken on images in signatures a lot of otherwise good members will get their signatures removed, but this approach is necessary because of the potentially severe effect that images can have on the server strain. No doubt in future the matter of returning such privileges to some members will be discussed, but for now there is no way to get your signature rights back.

[Leandros]

I fail to see how an outside image strains the server...

[Squall]

Images don't strain the Gamewinners server more than the image tag (<img src="url_of_image">) itself. That is much less of a strain than the text images that were allowed before.

[Tom]

Why has this person merely had priviliges removed when a much longer-serving and well known member (leandors) has been banned?

[Nate Griffin]

Ok. I'll get over it. But about the image tags putting such a strain on the server, is there any way at all a person could just use an image saved onto their hard drive, or would that just put even more strain on the server? Couldn't you just upgrade the server or the server's connection? Again I must say, thank you for not banning me.

[Crazy Jamie]

I fail to see how an outside image strains the server...Whilst I am far from on expert on such things, my understanding is that whilst the server must deal with the tags of an image it must also load the image itself, hence why the filesize comes into play.

Why has this person merely had priviliges removed when a much longer-serving and well known member (leandors) has been banned?My understanding of the current approach taken by the admins is that bannings will be handed out in more extreme circumstances, either where the rules have clearly been deliberately ignored or the filesize of the image is especially large. I did not see Leandros' image before it was removed so I can't comment on why especially it would have warranted a banning, but that's the approach that is being taken. His status as a long standing member wouldn't have made a difference.

EDIT: In response to Nate's post, images cannot be used directly off your hard drive. They must be uploaded onto a website first (which is an easy procedure) and then linked using the [img] tag. The restrictions are imposed as a protection for the benefit of everyone to keep the busy message away. And the server is already pretty powerful- bear in mind just how many members, threads and posts there are on this site. Upgrading the server would mean a lot of cost on Al's shoulders, and since you are already given the benefit of using these forums for free I think that request goes a little too far.

[Squall]

Whilst I am far from on expert on such things, my understanding is that whilst the server must deal with the tags of an image it must also load the image itself, hence why the filesize comes into play.
That is incorrect. The server never deals with the image, only the server that the image is actually on. Filesize restictions are in place so users with slower connections (dialup) won't have to wait for that 500 KB animated image of someone running into a wall to download for any other images to be loaded.

[Crazy Jamie]

That is incorrect. The server never deals with the image, only the server that the image is actually on. Filesize restictions are in place so users with slower connections (dialup) won't have to wait for that 500 KB animated image of someone running into a wall to download for any other images to be loaded.Well like I said I'm not an expert. Of course I knew that the size of files has an effect for people on slower connections, but I thought the filesize had something to do with server strain too. If I was mistaken then so be it- it's not as if I was certain to begin with.

Although the filesize limit of the image was put in place with regard to the average filesize of the complicated signatures that users were starting to implement. It is slightly lower than the average size of one of those signatures, which therefore allows people to incorporate images into signatures (which has long been asked for) whilst also not altering the performance of the server.

[Tom]

I was almost certain that there was a brain-fart in vbulletin programming that meant images were actually loaded off the site server when in fact they shouldn't be.

[Squall]

There isn't. Take my image for example. It would not be possible if it loaded off of GW's server (since it is really PHP code executing on my server to create an image). You are probably thinking about off-site avatars, since those are then stored and loaded off the forum's server (though that is by design, and I agree with it).

[Vinny]

There is a rather useless feature on vBulletin that means you can set the forum to store avatars on the server, but image tags aren't mentioned.

I fail to see how an outside image strains the server...
That is incorrect. The server never deals with the image, only the server that the image is actually on. Filesize restictions are in place so users with slower connections (dialup) won't have to wait for that 500 KB animated image of someone running into a wall to download for any other images to be loaded.
:(

[Squall]

Actually, vBulletin stores all avatars on the server. There is no option for it to not store them on the server. I think that should be left alone. The last thing you need is someone replace some nice avatar with a 5000x5000 sized image of Hitler.

[img] tags do not store anything, it just makes the equivelant of an HTML image tag.

[tworow2]

The last thing you need is someone replace some nice avatar with a 5000x5000 sized image of Hitler.

Hey, that was a signature we did that to.

[Squall]

It would be worse with an avatar though. ;)

[Nate Griffin]

EDIT: In response to Nate's post, images cannot be used directly off your hard drive. They must be uploaded onto a website first (which is an easy procedure) and then linked using the [img] tag. The restrictions are imposed as a protection for the benefit of everyone to keep the busy message away. And the server is already pretty powerful- bear in mind just how many members, threads and posts there are on this site. Upgrading the server would mean a lot of cost on Al's shoulders, and since you are already given the benefit of using these forums for free I think that request goes a little too far.
Thanks for filling me in. Yeah, about the last thing I want to do is pay to talk to other people about video games.

[Klowny]

...much longer-serving and well known member (leandors)My slightly different interpretation:

much longer-annoying, defiant and notorious member (leandros)

['Sabator]

Oh burn.

[Tom]

My slightly different interpretation:

much longer-annoying, defiant and notorious member (leandros)

It was all that Sam's fault! He's a bad influence on him! :D

Yeah, but seriously, this rule is being applied in an awfully slapdash and inconsistant way.

[shortkut]

It was all that Sam's fault! He's a bad influence on him! :D

Yeah, but seriously, this rule is being applied in an awfully slapdash and inconsistant way.
the members who only lost privileges had no priors or only one minor one for the most part

i don't think we can say that about leandros

[Tom]

Aren't warning anulled after a given period? :hmm:

[Klowny]

This topic isn't about leandros and his self-inflicted woes.

[shortkut]

Aren't warning anulled after a given period? :hmm:
never were. usually if it was one minor warning given like 6 moths ago then usually it is not taken into consideration but no, warnings are not annulled

[mr.rpg king]

Mine got removed too :(( , Its not that big a deal but I wouldn't mind having it back, I don't even see how Billy Corgan is 247(....whatever limit I am passing) but that's me, maybe you guyes just hate bald people :P. I still think that policy is metro sexualy challenged (there I didn't even break a rule by bashing some people).

[Klowny]

My sig guy is bald. I am bald. Bald rulz. Now go away.

[mr.rpg king]

....Can I have my sig back now....... :P

[Leandros]

My slightly different interpretation:

much longer-annoying, defiant and notorious member (leandros)
Notorious, huh? Hmm, I like that word.
....Can I have my sig back now.......
I kinda doubt you will :-\.
My sig guy is bald. I am bald. Bald rulz. Now go away.
Nothing wrong with bald, like there's nothing wrong with old people.
never were. usually if it was one minor warning given like 6 moths ago then usually it is not taken into consideration but no, warnings are not annulled
I got like on warning ages ago by HawkEye. That was my only warning ever, I believe.

[mr.rpg king]

Hey that's is kinda cool v

[mr.rpg king]

~Cant edit~ I think its stupid because think about it, if we got in trouble for putting images in our sigs earlier then why would we wanna risk it again, and curiously, why has my custom title option been removed with it, I never even had an avatar. I'd at least like that back since i've been here the whole year to earn it.

[shortkut]

~Cant edit~ I think its stupid because think about it, if we got in trouble for putting images in our sigs earlier then why would we wanna risk it again, and curiously, why has my custom title option been removed with it, I never even had an avatar. I'd at least like that back since i've been here the whole year to earn it.
1. why do people get warned more than once? because after getting in trouble they do the same thing again

2. sig and CT privileges are linked together, you lose one, you lose both

3. no one has ever had an avatar

4. good for you for staying the whole year :^:

[Cecil DK Knight]

I've been here for a whole 3 years Kut, do I get a thumbs up too?

[mr.rpg king]

o Mopple. I don't even really care about having an image in my sig, I only did that because everyone else had one so I figured why the hell not try, but it failed horribly. I just want my signature back, I'll take the image out and forever condem myself from putting images in again.

[Cecil DK Knight]

It'd be easier just to create a new account now.

[mr.rpg king]

Meh im to lazy, I'll just go sigless

[chipmunk_7800]

can sum1 plz tell me how to become a mod????????

[snakebite]

Be active and helpful in the forum you wish to mod, and don't break the rules. Oh yeah, and NEVER ask to become a mod.

[Fightingest Jester]

can sum1 plz tell me how to become a mod????????

You're on the right track. Keep doing what you're doing. :^:

[Leandros]

I've been here for a whole 3 years Kut, do I get a thumbs up too?
:^::^::^:
2. sig and CT privileges are linked together, you lose one, you lose both
No, they're not. Remember how you had to stay a whole year for a CT? Yeah, you had sig priviledges before that.

[Cecil DK Knight]

YESSSSS!!

I knew Lean would come through, speaking of which, when will you get your old name back?

Thanks for jack-diddly-ack Kut. :rant:

[Klowny]

When he gets enough posts on the Grey_Wolf account to change it to Leandros. :D

[shortkut]

:^::^::^:

No, they're not. Remember how you had to stay a whole year for a CT? Yeah, you had sig priviledges before that.
when you lose one you lose both

[Crazy Jamie]

When he gets enough posts on the Grey_Wolf account to change it to Leandros. Although that name will be taken, so he'll probably have to put some silly symbols around it.

['Sabator]

LEANDROS`