Ask a moderator about the forum and the rules

[oyman 0]

Kronzky that 170kb just about killed my entire internets please stop posting such huge files I did not come here to see photos that large

I agree, I nearly had smoke and flames coming out of my 56k modem

[ozanzac 0]

Why there's no discussion on the rules? As we're no democracy.

You all can follow the rules or, if you don't want to respect them, leave the forums.

Simple logic dictates that 350 (lets say that is the amount of really active members at any one time after a large release) people know more and come up with more good ideas then 10 moderators. Of course that doesn't mean anything when you have your own little playground to irritate people and rule over your kingdom.

Also people leaving the community because of moderators/developers feeling like all-knowing Gods = loss of revenue for BIS. In a community where everyone loves the game and there are only 2 or 3 unhappy people that is no problem, after a release like ArmA that some people love and some people hate, that is troubling.

Apperantly the only thing that people are allowed to post in this thread since Placebo left is something similar to "we love you moderators".

As said before by Placebo, these are the BIS forums, and that means that every action of the un-paid moderators reflects on BIS' image as a company.

Quote[/b] ]You all can follow the rules or, if you don't want to respect them, leave the forums.

Ok, and moderators don't have to respect members then? Just shut up and behave or feel our wrath?

I was the english section moderator on OFP.info for a few years, and I too refused to accept anyones advice or feedback, strictly enforcing the rules "or else" and banning everyone that thought otherwise. It seemed to work at first...

In the end, it drove members away in large quantities. Apperantly the new BIS forums moderators still have to learn that lesson. Just enforcing the rules you think are right and ignoring user-input is not always the best thing to do. There is no golden way of moderating that always works.

Right you are, JdB.

However, let's look at it from the moderators perspective. They operate the forum under the guidelines imposed by the owners of the forum, BIS.

The moderators can't impose change on the site, without the express approval of the owners of the site, as the moderators are here to enforce the rules that are imposed by the owners.

If you’re asking the moderators to change a rule, that could affect the cost of running this forum, then you’re asking the wrong person. This is an issue for the owners of the site, as they are the powers in charge.

The owners response, whatever it may be, is the law, as we are all here, ‘in their grace’. If the owners handball the responsibility of the creation and modification of forum rules over to the moderators, then the ball truly is in the moderators court, and they do have the power to change the rules.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I think they made up their mind.

Too bad, though. I think most gamers now a days have 2mbit or more connections, no?

So it takes half a second or so more to download those images.

[shadow 6]

The current rules have been the same for the past 6+ years. They've just been worded differently.

They were never a big issue then, I doubt they've suddenly become one now.

Just because some of you have gotten a faster DSL-line over the years does not warrant a rule change in regards to the image file-size.

Respect that rule or you are free to leave (if you plan on breaking it).

The moderators are members of this community too but our first priority is to keep this board clean for you members to enjoy. We do not get paid for this and we do it voluntarily in our own free time while we always represent BIS.

We can change the rules to whatever we want as long as it is in the best interest of BIS + the community, and I think the current rules are just that.

[Monkwarrior 0]

It makes sense what you say Shadow, but not all of it I'm afraid.

Thinking the world and especially internet and pc's have not changed in 6 years is an illusion. Therefor the rules might be outdated a bit here and there.

Discussion about the rules are inevitable in a changing world. Not changing them in 6 years could mean 2 things:

1) the rules were perfect in 2001 and still are perfect in 2007

2) moderators tend to look at the rules like they are carved in stone with little flexibility in this area

I tend to agree with my second observation.

I'm having no problem with the rules on this board. Just noticing some lack of personal skills on raedor's part. If he continues to show this lack of skills he is free to leave of course

Greetingz, Monk.

[Pathy 0]

I don't understand where some of you are coming from here. We have a team of moderators who don't make things personal, don't abuse thier powers, and stay within the rules that have been set. In my opinion, that is what makes for good moderation. Nevermind that buying the game doesnt give you any sort of say into the running of these forums, i don't see how the mod team could do a much better job than it does already - it enforces the rules. If you follow those rules you've no need to worry, if you break them, then you should accept that you're going to be punished for it.

I know this post isnt really needed but as Raedor i think said, it's tends to be a vocal minority who shout loudest, and i thought i'd offer a positive post to oppose the negative ones.

[Maddmatt 1]

Maybe for most parts of the forum the 100KB rule is okay, but it would be nice if the photography thread allowed 200KB or something. When I look at the pics there I want to just be able to scroll down the page without having to open separate pages to view the bigger/higher quality images.

People who don't want to load up big pics will probably avoid that thread anyway or put up with loading times if they want to see the pictures.

I am not being inconsiderate of 56k users, I was one myself until I got ADSL last year.

Or maybe just allow a total of 600KB of images per post instead of restricting individual images - that way people don't have to get around the rules, it saves the pointless splitting up of images. Having people merge pictures to get around the rule does bother me.

[karantan 0]

*doh!*

Maybe for most parts of the forum the 100KB rule is okay, but it would be nice if the photography thread allowed 200KB or something. When I look at the pics there I want to just be able to scroll down the page without having to open separate pages to view the bigger/higher quality images.

What's this, a lazyness perhaps?

People who don't want to load up big pics will probably avoid that thread anyway or put up with loading times if they want to see the pictures.

What's this, a selfishness perhaps?

I am not being inconsiderate of 56k users, I was one myself until I got ADSL last year.

You're not incosiderate? Think twice, dude. I'm asuming when you still had a 56k connection you've been nicely and politely quiet regarding this, yes? But now,,,all the world have ADSL if you have it, yes?

I think Kronzky has maded a very nice exsample to all of you/us, that there's no real need for changing that rule, but as it seems for some of you this (or any other) 'proove' is just not enough. So what's this, a stuborness perhaps? Or (an empty) defying? And I think if Placebo would be still around he would make a very short breath of this discussion.

We do not get paid for this and we do it voluntarily in our own free time while we always represent BIS.

Realy? Didn't know that. I had some idea and a suggestion (forum rules for the moderators   ) but now,,,kudos to you guys, you have my respect.

[Maddmatt 1]

You're not incosiderate? Think twice, dude. I'm asuming when you still had a 56k connection you've been nicely and politely quiet regarding this, yes? But now,,,all the world have ADSL if you have it, yes?

Why? Even on 56k it would also be easier to see the higher quality pictures as I could just open the page and not have to browse through the topic and open individual pics.

200KB pictures isn't going to make browsing the photography thread any worse for 56k users - they have to open bigger pictures through the links anyway.

It's not like a slightly bigger image size is going to do harm to 56k users.

I had 56k before, I know what it's like and I realise some people still use it. But it's not going to make life a nightmare by changing image size rules. How is having 1x300KB pic instead of 3x100KB sections to make one pic going to make things harder for 56k users?

It's not like I have a fast ADSL connection. It's 384k with a 3Gig monthly usage limit (both upload and download count).

[karantan 0]

Why? Even on 56k it would also be easier to see the higher quality pictures as I could just open the page and not have to browse through the topic and open individual pics.

200KB pictures isn't going to make browsing the photography thread any worse for 56k users - they have to open bigger pictures through the links anyway.

It's not like a slightly bigger image size is going to do harm to 56k users.

I had 56k before, I know what it's like and I realise some people still use it. But it's not going to make life a nightmare by changing image size rules. How is having 1x300KB pic instead of 3x100KB sections to make one pic going to make things harder for 56k users?

It's not like I have a fast ADSL connection. It's 384k with a 3Gig monthly usage limit (both upload and download count).

Maybe I just don't understand you mate, or I'm just failing to follow your logic, or maybe I'm just too tired (beening up all night and day) and I need a coffee despite I've drinked it about a hectoliter by now, but in my eyes you're just plainly wrong.

How for 56k'ers can be easier to open a page full of a bigger pictures than when the pictures are smaller?

How 200k pictures are not going to make browsing any worse for 56k users? 100k vs 200k, that's twice as big, so twice as long to open it, right?

And as Kronzky has said I just can't understand what's all that fuss about it, and as Shadow has said if you need to post a bigger picture, post a link to it.

[shadow 6]

You can stop argumenting for/against the 100KB rule. It will not be changed now. Maybe in the future. Who knows? But not now.

Forum rules regarding signatures have been updated.

No flaming/flamebaiting content is allowed.

Please read

[Maddmatt 1]

Fine I give up. Mods don't seem to care so there is no point

@karantan: If you open the photography topic you will see pictures made up of sections to get around the 100KB limit. It would save people the trouble if they could just post it as one image. Having a simple max total image size per post would be better.

Well next time I post something in the photography thread I may as well split my pics into sections just like some other people . It does seem pointless to split a picture up like that though .

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Fine I give up. Mods don't seem to care so there is no point

@karantan: If you open the photography topic you will see pictures made up of sections to get around the 100KB limit. It would save people the trouble if they could just post it as one image. Having a simple max total image size per post would be better.

Well next time I post something in the photography thread I may as well split my pics into sections just like some other people . It does seem pointless to split a picture up like that though .

So, who's to say that someone is not going split their pics up again into 200kb segments to get even bigger picture out?

5 pic limit per post, 100kb image size = 500KB

5 pic limit per post, 200kb image size = 1MB

So, I _think_ there are 20 posts per page, and you get 20MB per page in the photo thread.

Also, with the current rule, 56k-ers can choose if they want to open up the bigger pic or not.

I'm on a high speed connection too, but since I'm limited in bandwidth per month, I'd rather not waste 20MB per page.

[abs 2]

Edit: Screw it. My points were made before by others, but it seems that this forum is awfully inflexible.

Abs

[Maddmatt 1]

So, who's to say that someone is not going split their pics up again into 200kb segments to get even bigger picture out?

5 pic limit per post, 100kb image size = 500KB

5 pic limit per post, 200kb image size = 1MB

So, I _think_ there are 20 posts per page, and you get 20MB per page in the photo thread.

Also, with the current rule, 56k-ers can choose if they want to open up the bigger pic or not.

I'm on a high speed connection too, but since I'm limited in bandwidth per month, I'd rather not waste 20MB per page.

That's why there could be a limit per post instead of the individual image. Or images made up of sections could not be allowed.

It's not as if every post will reach the size limit, most wont.

Also, I don't see mention of a 5 pic limit per post in the forum rules .

I know this isn't a major issue, but it still would be nice to see the rules changed a bit.

[shadow 6]

Also, I don't see mention of a 5 pic limit per post in the forum rules .

No need to. Its limited when you post

[Supah 0]

I wouldn't mind the image size limit being made larger, on the other hand I can life with the 100kb limit just fine. Making exceptions for certain threads seems a bit daft, it only makes the rules more confusing. Besides who's to decide which thread is exempt or not? Can-o-worms

[Maddmatt 1]

Also, I don't see mention of a 5 pic limit per post in the forum rules .

No need to. Its limited when you post

Well then it must be 6, since I saw a post in the photography thread with 6 images. You mods should know this stuff .

[raedor 8]

I suggest you all to stop this discussion, as you see our Head Moderator Shadow already said that it won't be changed anytime soon.

@Maddmatt: You're correct, the limit is 6.

[karantan 0]

Well, I have a question for you moderators; has been ever considered that those titles (Member, Advanced Member, Whatever ...), group selection, post counter and stars, and a joined date would be removed? As I see them, they're nothing but an unecessary noise/rubbish.

[shadow 6]

Those are basic functionality that comes with the board. We could remove the titles, the post stars and joind date, but we see no harm in keeping them. Groups should definitely be displayed so people know who the moderators/admins are when they need to contact such a person.

[karantan 0]

Of course, there's no harm in keeping them, but there would be also no harm if they would be removed.

And about the groups; I think those groups are not necessary, in my eyes this is just some elitistic nonsense. And as for you moderators; you have a moderator's avatar, which serves its purpose very nicely.

In my opinion it would be nicer, if there would not be all that unecessary 'data junk', which don't have and don't serve to any real and practical purpose, the only 'effect' they can create are some prejudiceses in/with some people and/or a boost of someone's ego. I think their removal would add to the more opened and relaxed athmosphere, and on the end if you want the all place would look much nicely.

[Placebo 29]

Well, I have a question for you moderators; has been ever considered that those titles (Member, Advanced Member, Whatever ...), group selection, post counter and stars, and a joined date would be removed? As I see them, they're nothing but an unecessary noise/rubbish.

I think you're just jealous cos you don't have a 733t post count like me

[W0lle 1050]

I think you're just jealous cos you don't have a 733t post count like me

Placebo

+1WL for not writing in proper english language.

§13) Write in English

In the English part of the board please write in English and in the Czech write in Czech. Try avoiding writing in any other language or (internet) slang since the majority of the members most likely won't understand.

To post at least something on-topic:

I see no problem with that "data-junk", it's definitely not "elitistic nonsense". I can't remember that anyone before brought that to speak.

OK maybe the postcount could be removed as it really doesn't says anything. The usertitles must stay, same with the usergroups.

[karantan 0]

I think you're just jealous cos you don't have a 733t post count like me

Damn, it scares me how you're always right  

EDIT:

@W0lle: No, there's no 'problem' with it, but that's not the point. I think it would be nicer if they would be removed.

With the elitistic nonsense I meant deviding the forum's members on "addonmakers", "modmakers", "CWR team" and such. I'm just surprised there's no any "missionmaker" or "cutscenemaker", or "childrenmaker".

And I just don't see why to remove just a post count and leave the rest. So, what the usertitles and the usergroups are 'saying' to you?