Andrei's banning

[Al-back from the BigWhoop]

I must say i fully disagree with Andrei's ban.

Since the last time i logged was in the 10th, i must have missed a part of the story, but even if andrei IS completelly wrong, im disappointed cause i ddnt have a chance to express my opinion

As a memeber of the comunity, i think i should have had the chance to vote and argue, aswell as every other member in here, including andrei.

 

Now i would ask you all to reconsider the banning because:

- 1) I havent seen any strong offence to the comunity or to any member that would be worth the banning (ex: Max paininthearse saying that he is gonna kill us all, and other stuff we all remember him saying)

- 2) If this is about the sig (which i doubt), i must say this was completely stupid and childish, since every1 here can skip sig. Besides, if thats the reason for his banning, u might aswell ban ME, cause i also disagree with teh "sig policy" made up by some members.

- 3) If it is about spamming (as some have accused), i personally think a lot of ppl spam much more than him, like that r... i better not say names. And that game cannot be showed as a spam evidence because it was a game just like any other, and like any other, the main objective was to entretain, no matter how stupid it was.

 

I am very fond of Met, and i dont wanna fight with him, but i would please very much if he posted the reasons for this banning, since i am suspecting (no offence, im just really suspecting) this had a personal background.

 

And finally, i invite every1 for a debate, and if necessary, after the debate we might as well have a poll

[Kjølen]

1) I havent seen any strong offence to the comunity or to any member that would be worth the banning (ex: Max paininthearse saying that he is gonna kill us all, and other stuff we all remember him saying)

 

He kept calling Met a loser in Mixnmojo and flaming other people.

 

2) If this is about the sig (which i doubt), i must say this was completely stupid and childish, since every1 here can skip sig. Besides, if thats the reason for his banning, u might aswell ban ME, cause i also disagree with teh "sig policy" made up by some members.

 

It wasn't the sig it's just that hes been obssessed with his post count and annoying people buy spamming in MANY different parts of LucasForums.

 

3) If it is about spamming (as some have accused), i personally think a lot of ppl spam much more than him, like that r... i better not say names. And that game cannot be showed as a spam evidence because it was a game just like any other, and like any other, the main objective was to entretain, no matter how stupid it was.

 

It is about the spamming. Only he spammed a lot with things as cover ups for post count raising in my opinion, annoying people and flaming.

 

1) Over-spamming

2) Insulting and Flaming many people

3) Post count "whining"

 

No offense to Andrei, or anythng, i dont like picking fights or making someone look bad.

[Metallus]

Well, you're definitely entitled to your opinion, Al. Let me explain my reasoning behind the ban, as most of this occured outside of the the EMI forums.

 

Andrei visited many forums on Lucasforums, and was not contributing very much to discussions; rather, his posts were usually only about one line long. However, he put up a very large signature that bugged quite a few people, since he was posting at a high rate, in many established communities that didn't agree with having large sigs.

 

People told him almost immediately, in more than one of the forums he visited, that they were not fond of his signature. He refused to shorten it, claiming that he had the right to a signature. After about a month of people telling him directly to shorten it, several members came to me with their complaints. So I cleared his signature. Then he changed it back. I got another complaint so I re-edited it, and it was restored within minutes along with a PM which I found to be rude. This all happened before Andrei got flamed at the mojo boards. His unwillingness to alter his signature for about a week after the second time I had to change it, and overall disruptiveness (see the "Bye-Bye!" thread) during this time led me to issue an ultimatum, which he did not meet. Hence, the username ban.

 

I did not single Andrei out because of a long sig, or attempt to make an example out of him by banning him, as I have been privately accused of doing. I only acted after people came to me with complaints.

 

Al- It's true that your signature is quite long, but no one has come to me about it because you rarely (if ever) post outside the EMI community, where people are more used to longer sigs. If you were to start posting at another community with that sig, there might be a problem, but I wouldn't take action until then, and all would depend on your level of cooperation if that ever happened. Anyway, I hope this clears a few things up for people who are still wondering.

[Kjølen]

Well spoken well spoken!

 

I guess this hopefully settles the matter so we can go back to normal lives, eh? *hopefully*

[Al-back from the BigWhoop]

it does, thank you met.

although i do not agree with the "sig size policy" (since no1 has to read it), the reasons you posted here explain the banning from mixnmojo. He should have realized it was his time to leave mixnmojo, or at least try a counteroffer (did he try that? ddnt seem he tryied from your post, so im assumind he ddnt), but i still think that wot he did in ESCAPEMI is not worth banning.

i dont think there is a way to get him banned only in MIXNMOJO, but something like that should exist.

 

(PS- in the end of July and beggining of Agust 2001 i posted in mixnmojo too, but i ddnt find it as warm as escapemi, no offence - as always)

[Metallus]

Having a signature is a privilege, not a right, and problem sigs will be dealt with. My feeling on the matter is that people shouldn't feel forced to make all signatures invisible in their user preferences just because there are a few that are in bad taste. If one tries to entertain with his/her signature, and posts often, it won't be long before people will get tired of it. If this signature happens to be longer than the average length of this person's posts, readers must do a lot of scrolling, which will only add to the annoyance. I have to agree with the idea raVen_image had for those who insist on using lengthy sigs.

Originally posted by raVen_image

Have you considered only showing it once per thread? Not showing that block of text 10 times in the same thread would go a long way to my accepting it.

As it is, sigs are generally hard on the server, and if too much controversy arises over something as trivial as what goes at the end of someone's post, the administrators might just globally disable them to eliminate the problem and the burden on the server in one fell swoop. I don't think this is necessarily the best solution, but I can't say that I would mind terribly if it were to happen.

[Natty]

Is it possible that all forums can have a limit of say 5lines per sig? (or however many lines the mods think reasonable)in which people can use these lines for their sig how they see fit? Of course if someone has 6 or 7 lines then they do receive a warning? of course then if they still refuse to change their sig to the specified limit (5lines) than admins can take action?

 

Of course this is just a suggestion, but obviously it seems like there needs to be some form of restrictions as to how many lines people can have. Maybe Met or someone could ask every mod via PM or something what they think a reasonable size sig line wise is?

[Joshi]

i think Natty's idea was actually pretty good. some of you may have seen my standing up for Andrie's big sig in the near past, but it seems to be causing quite a lot of contraversy so i think a limit would be a good thing (something tells me i'd have to change my sig a little, i can't remember what it says, but it's probably more than 5 lines, but i don't mind if i have to).

 

and mek, thanks for the clear and concise post portraying your reason/s for banning Andrie as i can now see exactly what happened. good work.

 

let's hope something productive is done about this.

[Kjølen]

Maybe this will be to hard on the servers but: Multiple Sigs

 

EVery forum you gotto, you have the exact same sig. Lets say you gotto the ForumName.Com forum and they don't like your sig. Gotto Profile and Select:

 

Sig1 for

[x] All Forums

[x] Except

 

(list of forums, you select all the forums that are bothered)

 

Sig2 for other forums: (Insert more "appropriate" sig)

 

That may be very hard on Lucasforums server but it's a good idea.

Or Natty's 5 line idea. 5 lines 0 pictures... or 2 lines 1 picture eh?

[Al-back from the BigWhoop]

i agree with neil's first opinion, that it just takes a little time to scrool down if u dont wanna read it. Though i must say andrei's sig was quite long, i still think that sigs are originally a right, taht can be misused and turned into something against u.

i remember a topic we had about this, b4 grannen was a mod, that ppl should use less their sigs, and the "show sig" button was unlocked. In november, ppl asked for the "show sig" button to be locked again, and i think it was murta that did it.

Old members must remember some of my remarks in my own topics like, "{{ok, this post is getting to big, im stopping here}}" or "{{if i post one more line, it will fill my line quota and then i wont have any more space to put my sig. Danmit, that was 2 lines }}" and others, but eventually i started to forget about my "line quota" and forget to uncheck my "show sig" button if my post wasnt too big or wasnt my first in the page.

 

so, something that should be done is to re-unlock the "show sig" button, so if we forget to click it, the sig wont appear.

 

natty's idea is good, but i dont think it is needed if each one of us just show our sigs once in a topic/page (choose it, i dont care).

[Grannen]

It seems as if some of our honourable (which you all are) members doesn’t fully understand what a signature is. They think it is some type of last minute information that is repeated over and over again or a long essay that should be read every time at the end of his/hers post.

A signature should be a short but representative text or a picture that immideately identifies him/her for us, not 10-15 lines of nonsens.

Some of your “signatures” have now turned into Spamatures and I fully agree with Metallus' decision to ban Andrei when he refused to shorten it and he became abusive.

 

_____________________

 

and Grannen

[Natty At School]

I always thought of sigs as a line or 2 that identifies myself or helps me to identify someone else and gives me a bit of an insight to someone's personality.

 

It's not like I need to read someone's autobiography in a sig, which is why I suggested the line limit, as some people have quotes as their sig, which of course can reflect their personality, but sometimes quotes can be long.

 

If a conclusion can't be reached about sigs, maybe we need to get rid of them altogether, no pictures, no text, the only text we can have is for our custom title thingies over there

 

<---------

[Kjølen]

I'm not saying that Natty's idea is a bad one, but i like the fact that i get to express myself. But i can never find anything worth putting there so i dont mind whatever happend.

 

"Somewhere between the skin eating, we forgot the love."

"Yeah, isn't that the way, you go nuts on the skin eating."

 

Hey...that's a good one...for a sig...I was just trying to say the PEOPLE of LucasForums are all that are really important, not in a disney type of way like someone once said.

[Deadmeat_X]

Originally posted by Natty At School

If a conclusion can't be reached about sigs, maybe we need to get rid of them altogether, no pictures, no text, the only text we can have is for our custom title thingies over there

 

<---------

 

Pretty good idea, exept for thing: I can't have a custom title yet! I don't really like the idea of having to have 100 posts to get a little line below my name. Can't someone change it to 200 or, like in other forums, 0? It's not like anyone is gonna misuse it

 

I don't really care bout sigs anyway, I use the avatars to see whose post it is.

[Joshi]

my sig maybe satys a little about me (it's not obvious to most, but it says what books i like to read) and i've changed it so it's only 2 lines so people can read it once and then discard it later. but my avatar and name identify me and that's how i idntify everyone else (although the avatar thing is getting annoying because people are starting to get the same ones). but really, i intended my sig to make people laugh, not show them who i am, if they want to nkow about me, ask, that's what i'm here fore., this is a discussion forum where we can discuss just about anything, and we're all basically on some kind of messenger service. i'm keeping my sig as something entertaining, and tehy can't bann me for that.

 

p.s. it seems that a lot of people are being banned lately and i can't seem to see any reason why (you've explained Andrie, but what about the rest?)

[Al-back from the BigWhoop]

i have never agreed that much with josh like i do now

 

in my sig i have/try to have:

- info (MSN)

- "annoucement" (in case some1 has the portuguese version of ducktales - and believe me, ppl already pmed me for that, but he had it in english)

- entretainment (it was much more fun when the RANDOM TXT code was allowed, but hey: we gotta adapt, right?)

 

 

PS- Josh, if you r talking about me, im not banned, although i did get a rather offensive pm. I havent posted lately cause my internet crashed (actually, the cable broke, but it took me quite a long time to figure that out )

 

 

BTW- by reading this topic, we all can see how confusing this "sig policy" is. and i think its quite unfair to ban andrei in such confusing accusations (in his topic "my isg isnt THAT big now" he had a 5-10 lines sig and ppl were still annoying him for his sig size.)

Ive been on the other side of the line, a member opened a topic to tell me my sig was too big, and i replyed in that topic about everything we r talking here, how some ppl had bigger sigs than mine and finally, ive agreed to shorten mine, but i was waiting for a convincing argument. the reply for that post (that post had my sig shortened) was "that reply is too big!!" or something like that.

so, wot im trying to say is: once we've shítted, ppl wont leave us alone. We had quite a big discussion, and for a long time we were enemies (he said he was my friend, but he was just being hypocrite) but now i think we r friends.

[Guybrush122]

Oh this is rediculous. You ban Andrei for flaming others and having a large sig?? What kind of infant are you?

 

There have been countless times where we all flamed people...rudely, ruthlessly, stupidly, crudely, and without mercy

 

and so what, hes stubborn about his signature...he has every right to be

 

christ, who complains about a ****ing signature...."oh no, its taking an extra three seconds to scroll down, help me! help me!" talk about immature.

 

Adrei should stay...for one good reason:

 

 

he did jack **** to deserve banning. and if someone complains tell them to go suck it up. for the sake of sanity...be reasonable.

[Al-back from the BigWhoop]

HAHAHA, honestly ROFLMAO @ GB122

[Guest King Andrei 2]

Hey, GB122 and Al, thanks for the support!

 

Ahhh, who cares about an old dumb account anyway? I got THIS one now!

[Kjølen]

See even Andrei agrees, so everythings fine now eh?

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Al-back from the BigWhoop

i have never agreed that much with josh like i do now

 

hang on, does that mean that you never agreed with me before, or you did, but not this much?

 

PS- Josh, if you r talking about me, im not banned, although i did get a rather offensive pm. I havent posted lately cause my internet crashed (actually, the cable broke, but it took me quite a long time to figure that out )

 

no, i didn't mean you, i meant Fender was banned for no apparent reason. (also, someone said guybrush!22 was banned, even though he wasn't but i foud that out after posting so never mind that comment now)

 

BTW- by reading this topic, we all can see how confusing this "sig policy" is. and i think its quite unfair to ban andrei in such confusing accusations (in his topic "my sig isnt THAT big now" he had a 5-10 lines sig and ppl were still annoying him for his sig size.)

it's sad really, it just goes to show how much time these people have and how bored they are that they need to pick on someone because of something so insignificant as a sig size.

 

Originally posted by Guybrush122

"oh no, its taking an extra three seconds to scroll down, help me! help me!"

it's not even three second, people have to scroll down to the next post anyway, what a mere ten lines gonna do. i really don't understand this.

[Al-back from the BigWhoop]

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

hang on, does that mean that you never agreed with me before, or you did, but not this much?

erm... both!

 

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

it's sad really, it just goes to show how much time these people have and how bored they are that they need to pick on someone because of something so insignificant as a sig size.

it's not even three second, people have to scroll down to the next post anyway, what a mere ten lines gonna do. i really don't understand this.

 

lol

[Joshi]

both!? you cant say both. it's a monogomous question (if that's the right word for it), it's either one or the other.

[Guest King Andrei]

Hi, I'm back.

 

Using my hacking powers, I managed to infiltrate the LucasForums database and get myself unbanned....

 

*requests that this topic be closed now*

[Feral]

The worst case like this I've seen was on a Black & White forum I was on, and I had a picture that was about, say, the size of those advertisements at the top, and everyone in the forum told me to change it, which was ridiculous, especially when there was one guy who insisting in putting long anecdotes in his sig and posting it every time, so I got scalded for having a 468 x 60 pixel sig, and his literally would have been 468 x 600.

Anyway, I think the ban was justified as long as it was only a temporary measure, which evidently it was.