NationStates Jolt Archive

Why was Word Games deleted?

I have been spamming ALOT less lately.

I got no warning or anything.

For the record, I am not the Moderator who handled this case.

The official notation says that you were deleted for violating a ruling about large signatures by editing the warning to the maximum font size. I assume that this means that the warning came in the form of a Moderator edit of one of your posts and that's how you were able to take that warning and edit the font size.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

And that warrants deletion?

For the record it was NOT increased to maximum

It was four out of seven.

And that warrants deletion?

For the record it was NOT increased to maximum

It was four out of seven.
Okay, I think I see what happened. A Moderator decided that your signature was too large and edited a warning in the signature itself to keep the signature small. You then increased the font size of the warning. This was probably seen by that Moderator a s a deliberate attempt by you to annoy that Moderator. This qualifies as flamebait.

As for the deletion, you have been deleted for rulebreaking in the past. Reincarnations of deleted players are given less leeway than players who don't have any deletions on their record.

--The Modified Demcoratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Not meaning to question the mods here, but that's a really bad excuse for deleting some one. Just my $0.02

Defying a ruling from a member of the moderation staff is not a bad reason for a player to lose their nation. If you have issues with a ruling a moderator has made you should post in the Moderation forum questioning it, that's what it's here for.

Defying a ruling from a member of the moderation staff is not a bad reason for a player to lose their nation. If you have issues with a ruling a moderator has made you should post in the Moderation forum questioning it, that's what it's here for.

The size of the font in their sig? Give me a break. It's not like he had it so large that it threw frames out of whack. Mods are human too and they are not always right. I know, I use to be one. I'm just saying it seems like a pretty poor excuse to delete some one. It's just my opinion. The mods will do what they please. I'm just giving my opinion.

If you think about it, some mods have pictures or graphics in their sigs some times that are far bigger than the font size that Word Games had in his sig. It was not a good reason to delete him. Again, my opinion.

Just two things first off which caught my eye.I have been spamming ALOT less lately.ALOT less =/= ZERO though, does it ? Let alone you your-self seem to assume it was due to your history and I guess, recent spamming.I got no warning or anything.Well they ( Moderation Staff ) are not likely going to telegram your main account and all ( Should you have any ) puppets with the message " Citizen Word Games will be taken from their disk cluster at first light of dawn and shot against the metallic disk surface by a burst of electron force ", are they ?Not meaning to question the mods here, but that's a really bad excuse for deleting some one. Just my $0.02Funny, I've always been just another Honest Jack / Jill Citizen of N.S. ( So to speak ) and I've seen this happen what feels like count-less times in an attempt to finally get through to people that the rules, the game staff and the other players will not be walked al over by those who want to push over the line just that little bit further and bugger the rest of us off for their own amusement.

If you think about it, some mods have pictures or graphics in their sigs some times that are far bigger than the font size that Word Games had in his sig. It was not a good reason to delete him. Again, my opinion.

Since when has it been possible to have a picture in your sig?

This issue here is that Word Games chose to act in a manner contradictory to a ruling from a moderator on the size of his sig rather than follow the correct procedure and post in this forum pleading his case. Regardless of what the ruling was or what it was for, he deliberately disobeyed it rather than requesting it be reviewed, and that is grounds for deletion.

Since when has it been possible to have a picture in your sig?

This issue here is that Word Games chose to act in a manner contradictory to a ruling from a moderator on the size of his sig rather than follow the correct procedure and post in this forum pleading his case. Regardless of what the ruling was or what it was for, he deliberately disobeyed it rather than requesting it be reviewed, and that is grounds for deletion.

Hmm you're right, I stand corrected, I meant post a pic in the body of the post. Sorry about that. Any way, It just seemed odd to me that some one would get deleted for font size is all. I'm not making a battle out of it. Just seemed odd to me.

It would look more fair to me when forum rules are broken, that people are deleted from the forum, rather than the game. Isn't it true that game rules and forum rules are different?
I understand that many have a nation created just to post in the forum, but banning the forum account looks more apropriate in my vision. It is not like his nation was just one day old.

As Cog said, people who were deleted before because of rulebreaking, get less leeway. Also, he already recieved a warning about his signature, and reacted by making it even bigger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see it right now. He could've just contacted the mods about this and discuss this, but he chose this way and now he must face the consequences. Just like in real life.

just to add my .02

isnt there a way to turn offf the viewing of sigs?
because if there is then there realy should be no limit
if you dont like a sig you can just turn your sig viewer off plane and simple

Not sure if there is, bt some people's sigs are pretty funny or interesting. Would be a shame to have to miss those because some people think it's needed to let others scroll half a page to get through their sig. Like anyone would bother to read a big long sig anyway :rolleyes:

Having a big signature is against forum rules. Nations can't have big signatures, so it was an explicit forum rule that was broken. A forum ban already looks like a far to harsh measure to me, but a deletion of a big nation is out of proportion. After all, mods have the power to IP ban, and nation ban from this forum. I understand that he has broken rules before, but here in the forum it is much easier to brake rules, with NS and Jolt already having different rules, together with gamerules, that can be pretty confusing. I have seen signatures with very explicit flames in them, and they are still around us, yet for some reason, NS mods feel they are above that all and punish their own member much harsher than Jolt mods do. Trying to keep this forum "cleaner" than the Jolt forum will prove to be a lost cause, because we have new members every day, who all see the example of the Jolt forumites.

Not sure if there is, bt some people's sigs are pretty funny or interesting. Would be a shame to have to miss those because some people think it's needed to let others scroll half a page to get through their sig. Like anyone would bother to read a big long sig anyway :rolleyes:

It was not that big. This mOd made the sig really small. I left that alone and increased the statement that the mOd left there a little bit. NOT Maximum.

I think that the what the mOd did was flame bait ME by making the sig size 0.

Furthur, I believe this mOd has had it in for me for a long time.

I believe this mOd has had it in for me for a long time.
I believe you've gotten responses from two current mods. I further believe that making inflamatory and unsubstantiated claims, such as the one quoted above, will make your request less likely to be resolved in your favor rather than more. It might be best just to wait for a response from the 'moderator in question'.

So why is it that "the mOd in question " Never answers for themselves, prefering to hide behind the blue wall?

This is harsh for a small infraction.

Usually, if another mod gets to the thread first, the "Mod in ?" will stay out of it until their presence is required. This is, I believe, done to prevent people from accusing the mod of being biased right to their face, which will usually end up as a forum-ban.

Usually, if another mod gets to the thread first, the "Mod in ?" will stay out of it until their presence is required. This is, I believe, done to prevent people from accusing the mod of being biased right to their face, which will usually end up as a forum-ban.

My sig was similar in size to yours. It was made size 0.

Since I don't know who "the mOd in question" is, I couldn't even tell you if they are online or not. It's strikes me as arrogance on your part that they should rush immediately to respond to your charges.
This is harsh for a small infraction.
I've been watching you post since long before I became a Forum mod, and frankly I'm astonished you've survived as long as you did. You've done everything possible to prod, insult, and complain about the moderator's actions while doing whatever you could do to sneak around the rules they are charged with enforcing. There is such a thing as cumulative infractions, and you've had more than your share, from my perspective as a player.

If you want to keep whining about questions that have been answered until one of us locks the topic, go ahead. You're making your case weaker with every post.

If you want to keep whining about questions that have been answered until one of us locks the topic, go ahead. You're making your case weaker with every post.

And at the same time he is scrolling my legit arguments away. I think it is time for a lock.

Okay... just a stupid observation.

I am the forum master for my regional forum, as well as the webmaster and many other exploits.

If I were to type them all out in my sig, it would easily fill half the screen, even in 8px TNR... (most forums use 12px Arial)

What I do instead is I have made a website, and post in it my sig via an IFRAME of rather short height (you can view about 3 lines at a time)... perhaps moderation can look into this for this forum? Then again... should the problem here be font size, well, then nothing can be done. Perhaps just have the max sig size cut a bit from 500 characters, and disable the change font size BBS?

Just my stupid little oppinion.

Enabling HTML in sigs is a security problem we would prefer not to deal with.

I have to say, and I may be wrong, that as it was only NS Local members that had their sigs lowered to 0 in that particular instance (btw, isn't 0 a bit TOO small....perhaps 1? 0 seems excessive), even though many people who post more and have larger sigs were and still are kept as they were (let's pick one off the top of my head...Keruvalia), there's a possibility of prejudice on the mod in ?'s behalf. Although I may be wrong. I was just wondering. I won't press anything.

Indeed, chinkkopodia is correct. It was only members of local 8976 that had their sigs reduced in this particular crackdown, and not even all of us. My sig, for instance, was left as is (or reduced slightly...I can't tell) while others' sigs were reduced to 0. Though I understand the concept of cumulative offernces, I'm puzzled as to why a mere issue of signiture size would be dealt with in so harsh and inconsistant a manner. I thought the increase in the size of the warning was just a bit of a dig... it would be more funny than offensive...but that's just me.

I have to say, and I may be wrong, that as it was only NS Local members that had their sigs lowered to 0 in that particular instance...
While I was not the moderator in question on this case, I can assure you that this Forum Mod would not knowingly pick on "NS Local members", as I have read that topic only once, when it was originally started. What I saw was an invitation for all rule-breakers, spammers, and others who were dissatisfied with the current forms of moderation to make their positions known. Given that this group would necessarily and by definition contain a disproportionate number of known rule-breakers, I am not at all surprised that they get dinged by moderators more often than others.

You don't get picked on because of your chosen organization, you get picked on because you break rules. Other people report those violations, and we act. If the violations go unreported ("off the top of [your] head...Keruvalia"), we don't act. Such is life for non-omniscient moderators.

Your argument that the 'union' members are the only ones to have their sigs modified or called out is incorrect. There have been ample signatures that have been addressed, modified, corrected, adjusted, warned, what have you, all over the place. What I've seen happen is when a signature is noticed, or has attention called to it, those in proximity often get looked at too, because hey, they're right there and visible. Same thing that happens with a lot of these flaming/baiting/complaint threads, if you'll take the time to look back and read up on some of them. One person calls attention to one problem, and others turn up. Visibility.

Why aren't all signatures looked at? The answer seems simple enough. Who has the time to go through every signature one at a time on this site? If you have a complaint about an over-large sig, make mention of it. Just don't be too surprised if your own stuff comes under question as well.

What size is or isn't appropriate? Other than the '10 line' guideline I've heard, I'm not sure there is an absolute of yet - though I could be wrong. Any sig that takes up more space than most of the posts gets a little annoying to have to scroll through in reading threads. Yes, I'm aware there's an option to turn them off, but plenty of folks actually have useful information in their sigs - like my own rp links - and I don't want to have to switch on and off just to be able to view them. Perhaps there needs to be some absolutes concerning what is and is not appropriate for signatures put down just so there won't be any confusion, though regardless, someone will invariably complain about it no matter what's done.

All that really isn't the question at hand here, however. It's the fact that Word Games, as stated by the mods, has been pushing things for a while, and this stunt put him over the edge. I'd like to think that they'd make the same call for anyone who made a game out of baiting folks, regardless of who they might be - or think they are. The problem with confusion over sigs seems just the current medium for an ongoing argument.

Very well. Actually, you might want to have a little look at the topic again - your opinion is, in my opinion, not based that well and perhaps what you have to go by is WG's outburst at the mods. (in which case I can understand your opinion). It's not so much a group of rule-breakers but a group of people who would like to take the people's ideas and present them to the mods in a succint fashion, hoping that perhaps you would tae some of these into account (indeed Cogitation already has taken in one of our ideas and is apparently discussing it with you at present).

No active member apart from WG I know of to be a rule-breaker, or seems like one. I certainly haven't (although I think I submitted a bad proposal once...but that's on the main NS site) broken any rules.

Oh yes - the NS Local slogan was in our signatures specifically mentioning it. One would not have needed to read the topic to understand this. (it mentioned the name specifically)

Enabling HTML in sigs is a security problem we would prefer not to deal with.

Ah... true, I did not think of that.

Perhaps it is a bit different on a forum of 50 members with 2 admins rather than the size of this forum... in future, I'll try to prevent saying short-sighted things like that.

Carinthe']Having a big signature is against forum rules. Nations can't have big signatures, so it was an explicit forum rule that was broken. A forum ban already looks like a far to harsh measure to me, but a deletion of a big nation is out of proportion.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8103946&postcount=118

Except , I'm sorry to say, that Word Games already had had information regarding signatures and and mods' rulings about them.

(indeed Cogitation already has taken in one of our ideas and is apparently discussing it with you at present).
I know I said something of the kind, but I forget what this particular thing you refer to was about*. Could you refresh my memory, please?

* I deal with lots of stuff both in and out of NationStates. Things will slip past me.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

What's wrong with a size=0 sig? Mine's size 0 and it's only one line long. I've also noticed that most mods have size=0 sigs. Actually, I wouldn't mind size=0 being mandated. It's far less irritating, even if they're long.

What's wrong with a size=0 sig? Mine's size 0 and it's only one line long. I've also noticed that most mods have size=0 sigs. Actually, I wouldn't mind size=0 being mandated. It's far less irritating, even if they're long.
There's nothing wrong with a size=0 sig. I believe you misread the problem here.

There's nothing wrong with a size=0 sig. I believe you misread the problem here.
No, I think I hit the nail on the head:

It was not that big. This mOd made the sig really small. I left that alone and increased the statement that the mOd left there a little bit. NOT Maximum.

I think that the what the mOd did was flame bait ME by making the sig size 0.I have to say, and I may be wrong, that as it was only NS Local members that had their sigs lowered to 0 in that particular instance (btw, isn't 0 a bit TOO small....perhaps 1? 0 seems excessive)

Just a reminder: Valid values for the SIZE tags are limited from 1 to 7. 0 is treated as 1 and anything larger than 7 is treated as 7.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

No, I think I hit the nail on the head:
Oh, I couldn't tell you were talking about that and assumed you thought the mods deleted Word Games for having a size=0 sig.

Sorry about my astounding lack of logic.

It's just a signature. Seriously, this is being blown way out of proportional. Word Games shouldn't have made the warning bigger, he should have pleaded his case, and perhaps then something good would've come from this.

I know I said something of the kind, but I forget what this particular thing you refer to was about*. Could you refresh my memory, please?

* I deal with lots of stuff both in and out of NationStates. Things will slip past me.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

It was over the idea of a 'social thread' - Look'a here! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8259705&postcount=50)

In my own forum, I simply delete big signatures and leave a little message in their box. When they persist, I simply revoke signature privileges. Also members cannot have more than 100 characters in their posts. I have no mercy on big signatures. I can even set the number and sizes of pictures in signatures. Man, I love mod powers. You better never make me mod in NationStates. I kinda rule with an iron fist :p

:eek: (Suddenly gets really afraid of Carnithe)

Back on topic, why are we still discussing this? Or is Karm not the Mod in Question?

I think WG just wanted to brag about a mod editing his signature. Lots of people do it (I might be wrong). Just my 2 Cents.