That absolutely no one will read ;)

I think the best result would be to continue as normal, PM members of the error of their ways, include a quote with regards to the rule being broken, and provide a link directly to it too.

Not that that'll stop them, it has with some, but others just carry on, so maybe the rule should include "continuously ignoring EAB's rules could result in a short ban. Please read and follow the boards rules. Thank you"

EDIT: Of course, members who would like to report such matters could do so, which also helps the moderation team to respond to such matters and address the member accordingly.

Hahahahaha :great

So I disabled my signature and posted in another thread earlier today and noticed the tapatalk sig was still posted. Looking at various threads on https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/tapatalksupport/ suggests that the signature feature is in various states of brokenness, sometimes you have to deregister the forums on your application and reregister them, clear your cache, fully disable and reenable the application...

So, if being forced to scroll an extra line or two of text while browsing posts is too troublesome for people to bear, can I ask that we just disable tapatalk completely instead of holding users accountable? And with it, may as well just disable my account, because this type of enforcement is silly and splitting hairs over things that are unimportant, unless someone has a nifty alternative other than using mobile web browsers and the crap rendering that they entail.

* edit - posted on another thread on another forum completely

Sure, the signatures can be annoying, but that's not the worst part. Tapatalk exposes any forum integrated with it to additional security flaws (as if there weren't enough of those already).

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabi.../Tapatalk.html

You probably misunderstood my original query, which has nothing to do with holding users accountable for that shit. The idea is for the system to snip Tapatalk's spam (it's not about scrolling pasta few lines, it's about spam getting in the middle of what I want to read) automatically in case it is posted, not by moderators, and I would also NOT do something as extreme as banning an user because of this, especially in light that it seems Tapatalk is inconsistent and resilient about this, leaving the user with not much choice about having that spam sig or not.

I didn't know Tapatalk also exposes forums to security issues. To be fair, I wouldn't mind getting rid of support for it, but you know how these things are, people nowadays value convenience over anything, and use potentially dangerous things like Facebook just because "it's easier", so a lot of people might be ticked off by turning Tapatalk support off.

So you gotta find a balance to try to accommodate the majority's feelings.

Again, my post is not about punishing users for this, it's about systematically snip Tapatalk's spam in the same way we do so (optionally) with signatures on the forum.

Is your tapatalk app up to date? Is your phone O/S up to date too. I have disabled signatures within my tapatalk and I no longer spam my posts with drivel about my phone. Perhaps there's a setting within the tapatalk Admin Control Panel that will kill all tapatalk signatures for EAB.

Anyway, the EAB rules state end of. Doesn't matter where they've come from they are still direct signatures and One problem that may occur is, if the app is updated, it may switch signatures back on silently, but I'm yet to find that out.

However, in light of this so called tapatalk spam drivel signature problem, we will be more considerate towards the members who use it. However that does not mean members who don't, can add these lines in their posts and claim tapatalk did it, as if needed, we can find out.

I spammed all my post with my name all the time :(

Sorry DH, for the extra work! (i've no idea my salute was a "signature")

It's OK Ross, we're just highlighting this to everyone who applies direct signatures.

It's a shame that not everyone reads the EAB rules, or in some cases may not fully understand them, however, we do have to take some action as it can and does annoy other members.

Time was when this wasn't so much of a problem: errant members would be given a nudge by another, helpful and more experienced member to warn them of the rules. :agree

Now, most of these posts are simply reported for the moderators to deal with. :sad

That also happened partly because people did not want vigilantes going around enforcing forum rules. At least that was the feeling. Also usually when a "regular" user tells something like that to another, user might get offended or ticked, but if it comes from a moderator, it is more respected.

I still tell people stuff regarding the rules when I can, it's like being a cop, even after you quit, there's still a bit left in you :P But what is it best, add a post in a thread that needs merging saying "needs merging", or posted in the wrong forum, or reporting? There's so much one can do, and posting in a thread might not trigger the necessary mod action (like moving or merging threads).

Well, that's 2 members I have politely requested to refrain from using their direct signatures, I still need to remind them, despite covering the info with the quote from the rulebook (perhaps they don't fully understand), that if they want, they can add these sigs properly

a1k is already fighting against this stupid Tapatalk signature...

Has anyone suggested this yet?

https://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=322333

To the OP, yes, I like your approach. I was getting frustrated with all the talk of punishing users for things they didn’t realize or at times wasn’t their fault.

That said I disagree with the premise of disabling Tapatalk, unless we at least have some sort of voting thread. I travel constantly for work and this is how I contribute to/read from message forums. I have to use a mobile platform. So if we kill Tapatalk, I’m sure the forum’s overall membership, content, and culture would suffer.

Quite some fun to see that in *this* thread :laughing

Is it such a big deal using a standard browser on a mobile device these days?

Back in the day when phones had 84x48 pixel LCD displays I could understand the need for separate standards (eg. WAP) for the web, but not now.


PS:

I posted this on my A1200 (details in sig) with PAL resolution (684x266) using iBrowse which works fine for EAB.

There'll always be people who hate it, don't mind it and like it, but until the rules change, if at all, we should all respect the rules RCK drafted many, many years ago ;)

Edit: Anyway, this is really becoming tedious now,. The rules say no direct sigs, no matter how they are added, so there's simply no arguments as of right now.

:rolleyes:crying:crying:crying


Not at all, but I guess we could try to come up with a better mobile skin then. A responsive skin.

I could help out with that if needed, alas I never made a skin for vB, so I don't really know how much stuff I have to do. I have limited time for such a task.

If a proper responsive skin was used, removing Tapatalk should be a no brainer.

We've only had Tapatalk since 14 March 2013 and I doubt EAB would really suffer that much tbh ;)

I still don't get why I can disable my tapatalk sig, others can, but you can't?

That simply puzzles me :confused