Thanks, Low. It seems there'* only a handful of members that seem to think the restrictions are worthless and not enforced.

The reasons for the restrictions are:

1. Less scrolling to read each reply. Compact.
2. Less loading time for the slower internet connections.

If you need help shrinking the file size, ask. Instructions will be posted when the NOTICE is updated. If you don't want signatures displayed, you can turn them off in your profile.

Signature policing is a constant battle the Moderators spend far too much time on.

I like the siggy picture, Tom sure has a beautiful dash..

hmm, not bad, but the rotor doesn't quite fit IMO.

In looking over this thread, I have a couple comments to make

First,
This really doesn't seem like an offensive post to me. Yes, there is some sarcasm, but he doesn't say anything about not changing it for the final product, and since it wasn't a sig at the time, it should be consider a picture post, with which there are no filesize limits (Right badnit?) Granted, the tone of hte post is sarcastic, and he does bring up that there are many more offenders on the club (atleast 15 that I notified right after this thread)

This post just seems to come over the top. Now, I understand you want to make a statement about moderator'* authority, which is relavent and all, but this doesn't seem like a mature way to do it. I know we all joke around with eachother, but when acting in an administrator, I would think a more formal tone would get your point across better. Just my observation on this one.


This is a valid point. He had just made this and given the recipient the option to use it. Now, the second statement seems to be going along the same tone of the previous poster'* comments, possibly with a little less sarcasm.

Now, this sounds like what I would think a Mod or an admin would do. Giving out the solution to the issue probably would have be best two posts prior to this, allowing him the option to go do it. In the link you posted before there is no mention of ways to reduce you sig size.


This post may, or may not be necessary, but it does bring light to the fact that even the mods are not immune to this. More on this in a minute.

And now we get to the meat and potatos. First off, there was no mention of the moderators not doing jack around here by any of the posters previous. Just some things that the mods may or may not have known. Worthless, Sig Police? This sounds very mellowdramatic. If you wanted to ask someone to take an hour and check people'* sigs, and/or provide instructions to change them, i am sure any one of the poster, or others in the club would step up. Heck, I checked out a bunch right after this thread and sent mesages. I didn't get any negative responses, just some people who were unaware of the issue cause they had others make the sigs for them. they all basically just asked how it could be fixed.

And I would have to say that the most important part about this quote is this part:
It appears that CC used photobucket too, which would have made the signiture file larger than the minimum as I was told by him that it was within limits beforehand. Now, if the moderators suffer from this, and the issue is unsolved, I don't think slight increases should be attacked when it may infact not be the person'* fault.

And yes, we can see how pissed you are, but I didn't see anywhere in here where people state that they don't think the mods do anything. If you are busy doing all these thing, why not off-load some of the things, like sig checking, to one of the members? Like I said before, it would be easier to deal with and you wouldn't have to worry. Plus, that person could be added to the link about hte requirements so that people can double check the sig with that person before using it.



Now, before I get banned, please take this into consideration. I think the moderation on this forum is great and works well. In this situation, from the facts here, it seems that the topic got blown out of proportion somehow (NOT laying blame on anyone.) especially since it was mentioned to me via PM that the filesize might be changing in the near future anyways. I know that there was more to this that happened via PM, so I am not going to say that punishing CC was not in order, but I personally believe that the extent, from what I have heard of the situation, might have been a little harsh. Again, this is my personal opinion. And I especially think this since he has been banned for over 2 weeks now. He has been a giving member of this forum, providing help to those with both audio and detailing responses to questions. And he has tried to make contact to discuss this with the admins, but has been unsuccessful. I have asked for an email address to give to him so he can initiate this, but I have not been given it. You say he'll find a way, but it'* tough when you can't access this forum, and the person you asked to get it for you is not getting the answer to the question.

Now, as for the rest of the population of this forum, there is NO NEED to respond to this post. Infact, it would be best if it was locked now. I decided to look over everything after I got the response to my Suggestion thread and could not comment over there. In coming here, I just re-read this thread and decided to post my comments on it, and tried to remain civil and not bash anyone here.

Again, Please DO NOT comment on this thread, especially if you are going to bash either party. it is not necessary.

Whoever locked this, thank you.

Geoff, CC wasn't banned for his comments in this topic. He was banned for what transpired via PM'* while this topic was growing. The content of those PM'* are not public, and I'm sure CC told you one side of the story.

The PM'* themselves are posted for the benefit of the Moderators, other Admins, and site owner. They were being posted as the whole deal transpired.

The vast majority of the members here comment quite regularly about how much nicer this Forum is than any other Forum out there. It remains that way because we enforce policy the best we can, and MOST of our members respect that authority and the policies.

We don't tolerate being crapped on. If a member craps on a Staff Member, and there are no consequences, the respect for authority on this Forum is degraded, and others will start doing the same thing. CC chose the path he chose. HIS decision. Over a SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT.

This is not your concern or issue, and I suggest you drop it AGAIN. Disciplinary issues are handled by the Admins and Moderators here. We don't need intermediaries in order to do that.

EVERY STAFF MEMBER HERE IS FULLY AWARE OF THE CONTENT OF THE PM'* THAT CAUSED HIS BAN, and the patience I showed before I finally pulled the plug. I cut him more slack than he deserved, and more than others would have given him.

Bottom line? If you say something to a Staff member that would have gotten you fired if you said it to your Boss at work, you're gone.
Banning is INTENDED to be a punishment and inconvenience. If he can't read his PM'*, TOUGH.