Remove annoying Tapatalk sigs?

Originally Posted by meynaf

Quite some fun to see that in *this* thread

Darn it. See?!?! I disabled this. Ugh...

I still think the value proposition for a tapatalk integration exceeds the minor annoyance of having to see a silly inconsequential signature. Rules are rules, sure. Maybe the rules can adapt to emerging technological trends. Any message forum is going to have a better mobile experience via tapatalk than it will through a web browser.

I guess at the end of the day I am still struggling to understand why this is such a big deal. It feels pretty silly. We're making a mountain out of a molehill (such is the Amiga community, I suppose).

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by esc

Maybe the rules can adapt to emerging technological trends.

I don't see how adapting to an app spamming a forum is a good idea.
That sounds more like giving up to it.

It's annoying because it's an app automatically spamming a board with useless info that gets within text and pollutes clean information and conversation. I don't see how this is not a problem, especially when this app does it resiliently and for example in your case, it's not even letting you turn it off properly.

As I said, I am sure there is a method to snip those automatically without anyone ever noticing, like the plugin linked in the previous page, and I would like that implemented, because it would just benefit all without pain.

[DH]

Originally Posted by esc

I still think the value proposition for a tapatalk integration exceeds the minor annoyance of having to see a silly inconsequential signature. Rules are rules, sure. Maybe the rules can adapt to emerging technological trends. Any message forum is going to have a better mobile experience via tapatalk than it will through a web browser.

I guess at the end of the day I am still struggling to understand why this is such a big deal. It feels pretty silly. We're making a mountain out of a molehill (such is the Amiga community, I suppose).

What I find hard to believe is the ignorance towards the board rules. Direct signatures ARE spam whether you like it or not.

vB has a special place for signatures that can be switched off by individual users if they so wish, they cannot switch of the crap that Tapatalk adds, with perhaps the exception to that vB mod. So unless RCK decides to allow this trollop from Tapatalk, there's simply no argument

EDIT: You can't have one rule for one and another rule for the other, so you expect Tapatalk users to be allowed this signature spam, but if an EAB member directly adds their signature via their post, it's against the rules Nah! Sorry like, that isn't going to happen, mobile or web browser

Ugh, leave it to the Amiga community to continually split hairs over every stupid little thing.

Could we do some sort of traffic analysis to see what percentage of eab browsing and content submission comes from tapatalk? I still feel like this is awful draconian, and frankly, very stupid. This whole conversation is stupid. If that's against some rules feel free to kickban me.

[DH]

Well I agree with one thing, this whole conversation IS very stupid, only because some individuals are intent on fighting rules that are already in place, and for a very good reason.

If you can't see, or understand that, perhaps you need to re-read those rules that you are so intent on fighting against

Remember, I didn't make those rules, I am merely here to try and enforce them in a reasonable way.

EDIT: How the hell can this be draconian? It's a bleeding forum that has to have basic rules and expects the users of the board to comply and adhere to them without prejudice. If you don't like the rules why the hell did you join it? Oh I know, you didn't bother yourself to even read them when you joined

What I'm advocating for is a discussion into amending rules when they may no longer make sense. I find the absolute rejection of having this discussion at all to be very disconcerting.

[DH]

I only see 2 people in this thread that it doesn't bother, one of them is you esc, and you're the only one who seems intent on continuing this discussion instead of leaving it.

Let the boss decide what will happen, don't try and force his hand with amending rules because of mere technological advances, that made me laugh, or rather a system that has decided to auto include signatures without the users initial input.

No need to ban you, you are entitled to an opinion, but I don't see anybody else backing your side. You've said what you've said, wait and see.

Cool. I can dig that I'm the sole voice of dissent here, but I still think a single thread over the span of ~2-3 days is not an appropriate sample size to see how much this would impact the forum.

In fact, in spite of the "you're the only person complaining" response, this entire thread wouldn't exist without the complaints of seeing all these tapatalk sigs, nor would the complaints of mods that have wasted time trying to remove them manually.

I give up. Fortunately there are other amiga related forums out there that implement tapatalk, hopefully the good content moves over to some of those if you guys shut off the integration here. *shrug*

[prowler]

Originally Posted by esc

What I'm advocating for is a discussion into amending rules when they may no longer make sense. I find the absolute rejection of having this discussion at all to be very disconcerting.

The chief reasons why direct signatures are not allowed are twofold:

(1) They are seen by many members as spam, and banning them means that all members are spared the pain of having to see them - in particular, those who have chosen not to see conventional signatures.

(2) They use valuable system resources. You've seen how many times EAB suffers database errors or downtime lately. Banning direct signatures and animated avatars preserves system resources and removes distracting content from the forum threads.

If you wish to discuss this rule further, please make your case to RCK the EAB Administrator by PM. The Moderation Team is merely enforcing the EAB rules as they apply.

Originally Posted by prowler

(1) They are seen by many members as spam, and banning them means that all members are spared the pain of having to see them - even those who have chosen not to see conventional signatures.

(2) They use valuable system resources. You've seen how many times EAB suffers database errors or downtime lately. Banning direct signatures and animated avatars preserves system resources sand removes distracting content from the forum threads.

If you wish to discuss this rule further, please make your case to RCK the EAB Administrator by PM. The Moderation Team is merely enforcing the EAB rules as they apply.

Per 2, thanks for the transparency. That's a lot more meaningful to a long time contributor/part of the community than saying "our rules are our rules and that's it, no discussion!"

If you wish to discuss this rule further, please make your case to RCK the EAB Administrator by PM. The Moderation Team is merely enforcing the EAB rules as they apply.

Per the above, if that's the actual attitude of this community, if a dissenting opinion must be silenced and forced to communicate behind closed doors with mods regarding things that may impact large numbers of users, I err on the side of transparency. I think that's a wholly irresponsible response coming from a moderator. I think it's lazy and inappropriate.

[prowler]

Originally Posted by esc

Per the above, if that's the actual attitude of this community, if a dissenting opinion must be silenced and forced to communicate behind closed doors with mods regarding things that may impact large numbers of users, I err on the side of transparency. I think that's a wholly irresponsible response coming from a moderator. I think it's lazy and inappropriate.

You have not been silenced. Your posts here are still intact.

We can turn this thread into a poll if you would prefer it that way, and then you would have to bow to the consensus if your view of things is not shared by the majority.

Even if your view is shared by the majority, there is no guarantee that the rule will be changed (the question of animated avatars has been raised on several occasions to no avail), but we shall have done our best.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by esc

What I'm advocating for is a discussion into amending rules when they may no longer make sense.

The rule is not stupid.
Tapatalk adding spammy sigs is stupid.

Your posts make it seem like you LIKE having them. If that's your point, well, whatever, nothing I can say to you.

But otherwise, as I repeatedly said, the solution is to snip those shitty sigs automatically so nobody ever bothers with them again.

Regarding PERSONAL signatures, anyone can have them. Just go to your UserCP and configure them.,


Seems to me you have lost track of the conversation. Nobody said "the solution to what this topic refers to is to remove Tapatalk support".
However this conversation and the issues that have been brought up related to Tapatalk have spurred a sub-conversation regarding Tapatalk support that perhaps needs its own thread (and "traffic analysis" as you mention).


This thread, which you call stupid, is just about getting rid of those shit sigs. The rules mentioned are related to those sigs, and they are rules that make absolute sense.

Let's stick to the topic and any further "Tapatalk support" conversation should go on its own thread, if deserved.
Do not turn my thread into a poll or derail it further.

The subject is simple, I will repeat it:

Can we please snip those shit Tapatalk signatures automatically to attain to forum rules regarding direct signatures?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Akira

The rule is not stupid.
Tapatalk adding spammy sigs is stupid.

Your posts make it seem like you LIKE having them. If that's your point, well, whatever, nothing I can say to you.

But otherwise, as I repeatedly said, the solution is to snip those shitty sigs automatically so nobody ever bothers with them again.

Regarding PERSONAL signatures, anyone can have them. Just go to your UserCP and configure them.,


Seems to me you have lost track of the conversation. Nobody said "the solution to what this topic refers to is to remove Tapatalk support".
However this conversation and the issues that have been brought up related to Tapatalk have spurred a sub-conversation regarding Tapatalk support that perhaps needs its own thread (and "traffic analysis" as you mention).


This thread, which you call stupid, is just about getting rid of those shit sigs. The rules mentioned are related to those sigs, and they are rules that make absolute sense.

Let's stick to the topic and any further "Tapatalk support" conversation should go on its own thread, if deserved.
Do not turn my thread into a poll or derail it further.

The subject is simple, I will repeat it:

Can we please snip those shit Tapatalk signatures automatically to attain to forum rules regarding direct signatures?

Thanks.

Programmatically removing the signatures is a great solution if it's possible. I never argued that.

But don't worry. I won't derail your thread any further by trying to discuss this. I've asked to have my account disabled. This is not a community I wish to be a part of moving forward.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by esc

I won't derail your thread any further by trying to discuss this.

I don't understand you. You are agreeing with what I am saying yet somehow you "won't bother" with discussing it? But we just agreed on a solution? What is there to discuss?
Again, I think you are confused and over-reacting. But do what you want to do.

PS: accounts don't get "disabled" here, this isn't social media.

[dalek]

Originally Posted by dalek

Has anyone suggested this yet?

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

If RCK could dump this one .xml file on the server then this discussion is moot.

Users don't need to worry about inadvertently spamming posts and the rest of us don't have to ever see them.

When I first looked at this thread I thought it wouldn't be difficult to add a hook to the post submit to remove the sigs, but lo and behold it's already done....

[Amiga1992]

Yeah we're waiting on RCK's input here. I'm sure it's easy to implement and we can forget about this.

[DamienD]

@esc:

Oh my God; another drama queen

...as many of my GM colleagues have pointed out:

a) you are not being silenced.
b) rules are rules and that stupid app that you decide to use, is making a mess of the forum so it needs to be addressed.

If it wasn't an issue to members then this thread wouldn't exist in the first place...

Hopefully RCK can somehow address this for the people who *still* somehow, haven't managed to switch off the "spam" signatures i.e. you.

To be honest, I'm getting quite bored of your rants now and disrespect to the rules / people trying to assist you.

If you want to leave, please, be my guest.

In fact, I can make it happen instantly; just PM me!!!

I've asked prowler to disable my account, he suggested I hit up RCK (which I've done) but there may be a faster option. I don't really feel that personal insults from mods are something users should have to suffer, so regarding

Oh my God; another drama queen

I gladly say @DamienD - GO FUCK YOURSELF!

And my account will be disabled automatically! Problem solved. Enjoy your shitty forum.

[DamienD]

Originally Posted by esc

I gladly say @DamienD - GO FUCK YOURSELF!

And my account will be disabled automatically! Problem solved. Enjoy your shitty forum.

Hahahahaha

Real mature... talk about throwing your toys out of the pram... how old are you; 5???

...anyway, let's not wait for RCK to disable your account.

You've now been permanently banned!!!

...doubt you'll be missed though even with your massive contribution to the community i.e. 388 posts in 7 years... that's roughly 1 a week