# No more spoilers in signatures.



## masterofthebass (Nov 1, 2010)

(cross post from actual announcement in case people don't see it)

I've had enough with this. Everyone has 7 days from today to remove the spoilers from their signatures, or face a ban.

Thank you. Have a nice day.


----------



## TheMachanga (Nov 1, 2010)

Any particulate reason?


----------



## ChrisBird (Nov 1, 2010)

Because they spoil stuff, duh.

In all seriousness though, I kind of agree.


----------



## Faz (Nov 1, 2010)

[14:15] <+DeneBeardsley> What's the point of the spoilers thing?
[14:15] <+Venim> DeneBeardsley: i ####ing hate them
[14:15] <+Venim> so i'm getting rid of them
[14:16] <+DeneBeardsley> lolol gotta love the dictatorship


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Nov 1, 2010)

Lovely. So any reason at all? So masterofthebass is banning something just because he doesn't like it.
Don't you love the reasoning? -_-
It's not like everyone in the forum inspects everyone else's signature everytime they post. 
So what next?


----------



## BigGreen (Nov 1, 2010)

how long will the ban be for?


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 1, 2010)

It detracts from the quality of the forum.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Nov 1, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> It detracts from the quality of the forum.


 
How so?


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 1, 2010)

Because it's stupid.


----------



## Zeat (Nov 1, 2010)

ook.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 1, 2010)

Thank god.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Nov 1, 2010)

WAIIIIIIIIIIIIT are you people honestly asking why they did this?

And furthermore does it matter?

It doesnt actually affect anyone, other than they get rid of [ spoiler] and [/spoiler]
done...


----------



## mark3 (Nov 1, 2010)

I haven't heard any legitimate reason for this rule yet. How does it detract from the forum? How does it cause more harm than any other sig?

In the end it doesn't really affect me, but I know that a majority of people here wouldn't like the forum to be run in a dictatorial way. Why not just have a vote on it? It would probably end in the same outcome and it would make members feel more involved and part of the forum. Just my two cents...


----------



## Zarxrax (Nov 1, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> WAIIIIIIIIIIIIT are you people honestly asking why they did this?
> 
> And furthermore does it matter?
> 
> ...


 
OOOhhh, hes talking about spoiler tags. I was wondering wtf he was talking about. I thought maybe he was all pissed because someone spoiled harry potter for him or something


----------



## TK 421 (Nov 1, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> (cross post from actual announcement in case people don't see it)
> 
> *I've had enough with this*. Everyone has *7 days from today* to remove the spoilers from their signatures, or *face a ban*.
> 
> Thank you. Have a nice day.


 
That's harsh

isn't there a system to send a PM to every single member here?


----------



## Kian (Nov 1, 2010)

If people don't want to read spoilers they don't have to click on it. How is this an issue?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 1, 2010)

mark3 said:


> I haven't heard any legitimate reason for this rule yet. How does it detract from the forum? How does it cause more harm than any other sig?
> 
> In the end it doesn't really affect me, but I know that a majority of people here wouldn't like the forum to be run in a dictatorial way. Why not just have a vote on it? It would probably end in the same outcome and it would make members feel more involved and part of the forum. Just my two cents...



We implemented a 2 line signature rule a while ago because people would make signatures that were obnoxiously long, filled with every PB ever and a bunch of pictures. This took away from the actual content. Using spoilers in signatures is similar to this. It makes signatures larger and more noticeable and takes away from the actual content of the threads.

For the dictatorship thing: we run it like a dictatorship as opposed to a "have everyone vote on everything" kind of thing to, as well as other reasons, avoid ignorance. People often jump to conclusions without thinking about what they're actually deciding.

Also, the banning is probably a bit strict. I'll probably just change people's sigs after the 7 days if I see any. Dan should do the same.


----------



## TK 421 (Nov 1, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> We implemented a 2 line signature rule a while ago because people would make signatures that were obnoxiously long, filled with every PB ever and a bunch of pictures. This took away from the actual content. Using spoilers in signatures is similar to this. It makes signatures larger and more noticeable and takes away from the actual content of the threads.
> 
> For the dictatorship thing: we run it like a dictatorship as opposed to a "have everyone vote on everything" kind of thing to, as well as other reasons, avoid ignorance. People often jump to conclusions without thinking about what they're actually deciding.
> 
> Also, the banning is probably a bit strict. I'll probably just *change people's sigs* after the 7 days if I see any. Dan should do the same.


 
AGREE 100%

oh and, the 2 line thing make it 3 please...
i understand that people want to put many things in their signature, but if too many it is annoying and getting off-topic right?

-correct me if i'm wrong-


----------



## Dene (Nov 1, 2010)

And what do you need three lines for that is so important?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 1, 2010)

TK 421 said:


> oh and, the 2 line thing make it 3 please...
> i understand that people want to put many things in their signature, but if too many it is annoying and getting off-topic right?


 
I don't understand your reasoning behind making it 3 instead of 2. Probably a language issue going on here. Could you explain why you would like it to be 3 instead of 2? I don't see a real need to have one more line.


----------



## xXzaKerXx (Nov 1, 2010)

Maybe it's because of that spoiler in a spoiler in a spoiler in a spoiler thing. That can be annoying. But besides that, they really aren't that bad.


----------



## Carrot (Nov 1, 2010)

How should I then include peanutbutter in my signature? =(


----------



## JeffDelucia (Nov 1, 2010)

Of all the things to fix on this forum...


----------



## Enter (Nov 1, 2010)

Nooooooooooo xD


----------



## ariasamie (Nov 1, 2010)

ok we all have 6 days and 19 hours left.
lets put spoilers in our signatures until then.  jk


----------



## mark3 (Nov 1, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> We implemented a 2 line signature rule a while ago because people would make signatures that were obnoxiously long, filled with every PB ever and a bunch of pictures. This took away from the actual content. Using spoilers in signatures is similar to this. It makes signatures larger and more noticeable and takes away from the actual content of the threads.
> 
> For the dictatorship thing: we run it like a dictatorship as opposed to a "have everyone vote on everything" kind of thing to, as well as other reasons, avoid ignorance. People often jump to conclusions without thinking about what they're actually deciding.
> 
> Also, the banning is probably a bit strict. I'll probably just change people's sigs after the 7 days if I see any. Dan should do the same.


 
Again, not that the actual rule matters to me at all, but why does it matter if someone puts more information in a spoiler? Maybe it is important for someone to have their PB's in their sig and they want to use the spoiler tag to clean it up. I don't see how thats harmful to the quality of the forum. And not to sound blunt, but it seems as simple as not clicking on the spoiler tag...

And I agree with your point about most people being too wrapped up in their ignorance to have the whole forum function as a democracy well, but an issue as simple as this seems pretty straightforward. If it is really bothersome and detracting from the community people wont want to keep it, if it is one Admin being picky and deciding to swing his power around as he usually does, its a whole different ballgame.


----------



## TK 421 (Nov 1, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> I don't understand your reasoning behind making it 3 instead of 2. Probably a language issue going on here. Could you explain why you would like it to be 3 instead of 2? I don't see a real need to have one more line.



so that i can put more information there, just that simple


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Nov 1, 2010)

For those who are complaining that this is a dictatorship issue, you should know that the speedcubing community itself is not based on democracy. I mean, look at the Haiyan ban. It's unfortunate but as far as expedience goes, dictatorship is the way to go for the cubing community. Sure we have input into regulations but it's ultimately left up to the "WCA", whoever that entails. If you don't like this, either start a Rubik's Revolution, get out, or put up with it.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 1, 2010)

k Phillip, am make, AUSTRALIAN CUBE ASSOCIATION. I AM TAKING IT UP WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO GET THE WCA BANNED IN AUSTRALIA. AND ALL ACA COMPS, THERE WILL BE 3 ROUNDS OF PYRAMINX.


----------



## jiggy (Nov 1, 2010)

Is it not possible to make it so that spoiler tags just don't work in sigs? I know that this is probably effort, but it could help to prevent misunderstandings with users who have missed this thread/are away at present/are new to the forum (etc.).


----------



## Slash (Nov 1, 2010)

jiggy said:


> Is it not possible to make it so that spoiler tags just don't work in sigs?


 totally agreed.

Personally, I don't have a problem with spoilers in sigs, but it's true that there's no need to have them. I mean, I don't know why would I use this thing in my sig at all...

But on the other hand, Dan, you should've given us some kind of reason besides "I've got enough" cause now it looks like "I'm da man here and if I don't like anything I delete it and ban the person who wrote it". It's not so nice isn't it?


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Nov 1, 2010)

Enter said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Can a limit on the amount of spoilers allowed in a post be enforced aswell? So we can avoid retarded posts like this.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 1, 2010)

JeffDelucia said:


> Of all the things to fix on this forum...


 
Of all the things to rage about, people decide to rage about this. I had no idea this would cause so much of an uproar for such a silly thing.

(Also, not to hijack this thread, but what other things are you referring to that need to be fixed?)


----------



## TK 421 (Nov 1, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> I just had to


 
completely logical explanation

but why not? spoilers can be fun, or really... really... retarded


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Nov 1, 2010)

fazrulz said:


>


This right here. As soon as I saw the OP, this is what I imagined went on. 
"I don't like it? _Remove it or I ban you_!!"


----------



## masterofthebass (Nov 1, 2010)

thats funny, because its exactly what happened! Now when you guys get to be administrators, then you can decide your own rules.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2010)

OMG DAN HWO COULD YOU DO THIS!??!!?


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Nov 1, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> thats funny, because its exactly what happened! Now when you guys get to be administrators, then you can decide your own rules.



inorite?!

My rule would be, "Nobody is allowed to post video's of cubing which are faster than my averages... _or I ban you!_"


----------



## cincyaviation (Nov 2, 2010)

I don't get the basis of the decision, and i completely agree with what Kian said, but i really could care less if there are spoilers in sigs or not.


----------



## Cubezz (Nov 2, 2010)

Kian said:


> If people don't want to read spoilers they don't have to click on it. How is this an issue?


Agreed. And I know what my sig is going to be now, I'll change it later lol...
And Faz that is insanely funny lol


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 2, 2010)

You should just ban people using spoilers for things that aren't spoilers.

Annoys the **** out of me.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Nov 2, 2010)

I think spoilers could actually help the signatures a bit. For the people who do want all their PBs and such they could just post them in spoilers. I don't think this can be done now, and I have no idea how hard it would be to implement, but...

I do agree with the dictatorship system though, just throwing out ideas.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 2, 2010)

I don't care either way but find it highly amusing that it is an issue.
I find it really easy to not click spoilers if I don't want to.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Nov 2, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> We implemented a 2 line signature rule a while ago because people would make signatures that were obnoxiously long, filled with every PB ever and a bunch of pictures. This took away from the actual content. Using spoilers in signatures is similar to this. It makes signatures larger and more noticeable and takes away from the actual content of the threads.
> 
> For the dictatorship thing: we run it like a dictatorship as opposed to a "have everyone vote on everything" kind of thing to, as well as other reasons, avoid ignorance. People often jump to conclusions without thinking about what they're actually deciding.
> 
> Also, the banning is probably a bit strict. I'll probably just change people's sigs after the 7 days if I see any. Dan should do the same.


 Instead of two lines, how about a character limit? 


JeffDelucia said:


> Of all the things to fix on this forum...


 I know right?


PhillipEspinoza said:


> For those who are complaining that this is a dictatorship issue, you should know that the speedcubing community itself is not based on democracy. I mean, look at the Haiyan ban. It's unfortunate but as far as expedience goes, dictatorship is the way to go for the cubing community. Sure we have input into regulations but it's ultimately left up to the "WCA", whoever that entails. If you don't like this, either start a *Rubik's Revolution*, get out, or put up with it.


I SEE WHAT U DID THAR


Looking at the posts nao, I kinda gree nao. Signatures are for public display. Spoilers are meant to keep secret until you have the honrable strength and courage to click "Show". If it's a secret at all, don't need it in yo signature.

So hide yo kids, hide yo wife, and hide yo husband cause they'll banning anyone with spoilers in their siggy.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 2, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Instead of two lines, how about a character limit?



Character limit = lots of newlines = larger signature.




~Phoenix Death~ said:


> JeffDelucia said:
> 
> 
> > Of all the things to fix on this forum...
> ...


 
Why are people not being specific with this? I know things need to be done to the forum, but it helps to know what others think needs to be done as well. Being all, "imma be cool and clever and not actually say what I think needs to be done", isn't going to help.


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 2, 2010)

This made need to take out the video that went with my sig. (Actually it would fit without the spoiler but someone might have a heart attack if they see an entire video in a signature.And ban me.)
And just out of curiosity (watch me get banned for this question). What exactly qualifies Dan to be an Admin.?


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Nov 2, 2010)

ZamHalen said:


> This made need to take out the video that went with my sig. (Actually it would fit without the spoiler but someone might have a heart attack if they see an entire video in a signature.And ban me.)
> And just out of curiosity (watch me get banned for this question). What exactly qualifies Dan to be an Admin.?


 
He's a beast...


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 2, 2010)

endless_akatsuki said:


> He's a beast...


So faz, Erik, and Rowe deserve it?


----------



## dillonbladez (Nov 2, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> So hide yo kids, hide yo wife, and hide yo husband cause they'll banning anyone with spoilers in their siggy.


 
haha

On Topic:
I could care less, I don't really use spoilers, but I completely agree with just removing spoilers from signatures. Spoilers help with gigantic pics and such, and really, not clicking on the spoiler is pretty easy. I would've preferred some sort of democratic system, but now I realize that a dictatorship would work much better.


----------



## masterofthebass (Nov 2, 2010)

ZamHalen said:


> What exactly qualifies Dan to be an Admin.?


 


endless_akatsuki said:


> He's a beast...


 


ZamHalen said:


> So faz, Erik, and Rowe deserve it?



Lets see... I've only been on the forum for over 3.5 years, I've known PJK for over 3 years, I know what I'm talking about, spend a good amount of my time on the forum, and PJK respects me well enough to entrust me with admin privileges. What other reason does there need to be?

--EDIT--
and for all of you complaining, how many of you were here when I was part of the original push for spoilers and went and found the code for it?


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 2, 2010)

why thom have no sig


----------



## ZamHalen (Nov 2, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> Lets see... I've only been on the forum for over 3.5 years, I've known PJK for over 3 years, I know what I'm talking about, spend a good amount of my time on the forum, and PJK respects me well enough to entrust me with admin privileges. What other reason does there need to be?


 Good point. Keep administrating. Can I put the video in without spoilers? JK


----------



## masterofthebass (Nov 2, 2010)

go ahead and put a link to a video in your signature, but a youtube video loading with every post you make is not a good thing for other people viewing the forum. Consider it a courtesy to all of us.


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 2, 2010)

If this had been a rule from the start then nobody would have cared. Stop looking for reasons to complain and feel wronged. PJK started this site for the community and poured a lot of his time and money into making it great. The forum belongs to him, and he has trusted us (admins and mods) to act in his place when he is unable to take care of things himself. He trusts us to run this forum in a way he finds agreeable, and you should too. This is just another rule, and it's not even a big one. If you really object so strongly, then I suggest you find another forum.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 2, 2010)

Sorry to go off topic, whats the difference between a admin and a mod?


----------



## Edward (Nov 2, 2010)

bluecloe45 said:


> Sorry to go off topic, whats the difference between a admin and a mod?


 
Admin has more privileges. For example, I'm pretty sure admins can ban mods.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 2, 2010)

Edward said:


> Admin has more privileges. For example, I'm pretty sure admins can ban mods.


 
oh, but can mods change the site, or is that just the admins?


----------



## joey (Nov 2, 2010)

Only admins. Mods just change posts.


----------



## oprah62 (Nov 2, 2010)

Now that there's a rule, it kinda makes me wanna have one


----------



## Toad (Nov 2, 2010)

<3 dankoen


----------



## radmin (Nov 2, 2010)

It's annoying that rather than fix the site they ban people.
The site itself should not allow it to happen in the first place.

I'm fine with the rule, just not the ban.


----------



## Ashmnafa (Nov 2, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Because it's stupid.


 
So are many members on this forum, let's ban them too.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 2, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Instead of two lines, how about a character limit?


I think we had only a character limit before. Lucas and I pointed out how silly this was by making incredibly tall signatures. Now we have a line limit *and* a character limit.

Personally I don't think it would hurt to allow 3 lines (with the same limits otherwise). But I also don't see any advantage to it.


@ spoilers in sigs: IMO - and just as a suggestion - no tags except links (URL tag) and perhaps a few formatting tags should be allowed in signatures, for the same reason we have only two lines: it distracts from the posts. Other tags should either simply not work at all when in sigs, or be detected when you try to change your sig (like the character and line limits). It would probably be fairer and easier (especially for future people who miss this announcement) to just make it impossible to have a spoiler in a sig, compared to banning people who do.


----------



## ArcticxWolf (Nov 2, 2010)

Dene said:


> And what do you need three lines for that is so important?



What do you need two lines for anyway? Why not just remove signatures altogether by that logic? o__O


----------



## KYLOL (Nov 2, 2010)

Signatures are how I differentiate educated/informational people from goons/goblins. We need sigs, *BRO*


----------



## Cubezz (Nov 2, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> Lets see... I've only been on the forum for over 3.5 years, I've known PJK for over 3 years, I know what I'm talking about, spend a good amount of my time on the forum, and PJK respects me well enough to entrust me with admin privileges. What other reason does there need to be?



And because you are a beast. JUST SAYING.

I think Phoenix Death said this, but I would like it also if there was a max amount of spoilers in a spoiler.
Is there a thread that asks what people think should change of the site? I think one should be made if it isn't already.


----------



## davidgreece (Nov 2, 2010)

how about being able to change the spoiler button to say something else. Ex. i want to show a bunch of algorithms the button will say algorithms or something like that. The spoiler button makes the posts smaller especially if you are typing a long list of things.


----------



## dabmasta (Nov 2, 2010)

This forum was fun when I started out, now I only come back occasionally to see what's new. Stupid flame wars are stupid, and over criticism is pretty big too. This new rule is honestly pretty stupid. I don't see how it would harm anyone.


----------



## mcciff2112 (Nov 2, 2010)

Never understood the need for a signature in any forum. They're just off-topic and distracting. Your signature should be your name (That's why it's called a signature), there should be no need to worry about how many lines or characters you need.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Nov 2, 2010)

dabmasta said:


> Stupid flame wars are stupid, and over criticism is pretty big too.


 
Redundancy is redundant and the irony behind this statement is ironic (on multiple numerous levels).


----------



## Dene (Nov 2, 2010)

ArcticxWolf said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > And what do you need three lines for that is so important?
> ...


 
I never said I wanted two lines. I never suggested anything that I wanted. Ask the other guy why his arbitrary number is more important than the one that PJK has chosen and then maybe you will get an answer to your question, and I will get an answer to mine. Two birds with one stone... my, we are doing well for ourselves aren't we?


----------



## Dene (Nov 2, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> If this had been a rule from the start then nobody would have cared. Stop looking for reasons to complain and feel wronged. PJK started this site for the community and poured a lot of his time and money into making it great. The forum belongs to him, and he has trusted us (admins and mods) to act in his place when he is unable to take care of things himself. He trusts us to run this forum in a way he finds agreeable, and you should too. This is just another rule, and it's not even a big one. If you really object so strongly, then I suggest you find another forum.


 
NOOOO THE OPPRESSION. NOW I WILL GO AND MAKE A NEW SITE WITH NO RULES AND IT WILL BE CALLED CUBERSUNCENSORED AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT GAY SEX IN THE US.


----------



## TK 421 (Nov 2, 2010)

Uh, so dan cohen just made this because of faz's comic?

Dude you should talk to PJK about this. Not just make this thread and hide it from PJK

Would it be possible for admin to ban admin?


----------



## SixSidedCube (Nov 2, 2010)

No, I think Faz made the comic because of Dan's thread, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Faz (Nov 2, 2010)

TK 421 said:


> Would it be possible for admin to ban admin?



Why would this ever need to happen? 

But yeah, I do agree that signatures should automatically stop spoiler tags, instead of just being banned. What about the new members, are they expected to read through all the announcements?


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 2, 2010)

Ideally this will be added to the forum rules at some point. And new members are expected to read all the stickies.


----------



## SixSidedCube (Nov 2, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> Why would this ever need to happen?
> 
> But yeah, I do agree that signatures should automatically stop spoiler tags, instead of just being banned. What about the new members, are they expected to read through all the announcements?


 
Yeah, that's a point too!


----------



## jms_gears1 (Nov 2, 2010)

is there any point in continuing this thread?
All thats going on here, aside from qq's post, is people crying saying its unfair, and people saying shut up.
This thread should be closed to new replys.

Just my two cents.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 2, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Ideally this will be added to the forum rules at some point. And new members are expected to read all the stickies.



But they don't. Especially if 1) they've already belonged to a forum or 2) the haven't.


----------



## TheRubiksGod (Nov 2, 2010)

A Note To Read From TheRubiksGod

Hello people of the forums, i have just dropped by to tell you what i think of this particular issue. First of all let me first say that i completely disagree with this thread. That being said i will now continue with supporting my idea. but before i continue this thread i would like to say something off topic
*
-WTF is it with almost every profile picture a pokemon?!?!? Yu-Gi-Oh was the best when i was a kid?!?!?!- *

On topic- This thread is completely biased, just because some people hate spoilers does not give them permission to ban the use of them, even if they are a mod. As i have read here many appreciate the use of spoilers. But your argument is that it destroys the quality of this website. 

*A.*
first of all the overall website is pretty much damaged in quality, Answers are short, stupid threads, stupid answers, Banning for no reason, continuous fights between people, wild accusations, and such... why spoilers have been banned make no sense to me, 

(I know someone is going to post a particular link to a particular thread that a particular person posted)

*B.*
A mod cannot/should not ban a person because they have a spoiler in their signiture. HOWEVER if that person has something some one would consider rude or innapropiate or is in no relationship to this site a ban or a warning should be considered. Just banning a person because he made a spoiler is unexceptable.

*C.*
A lot of signatures on this thread are like spoilers. Should people become banned because of signatures? Is this right? Think about it

Many of the mods or whatever are comparing this site to a way that some countrys are run. i have just laughed my 3 off. 
*THIS SITE IS A COMMUNITY*

Therefore a cummunity is ran by everyone, the mods make it so that people dont break the laws, If the moderators do not like one spoiler or multiple spoilers they cant just "BAN" the use of them completely they would be abusing the people who use spoilers appropriately.

This is what would do if i were a moderator

*STARTING _/_/2010 ALL SPOILERS WHICH HAVE NO RELATION TO SPEEDSOVING.COM WILL BE ISSUED A WARNING, IF THAT SUPPOSED SPOILER IS NOT REMOVED A BAN WILL BE ISSUED *

thank you for taking the time to read my post, I hope that you take this post into consideration in your decision to ban the use of spoilers in an accounts signature's


----------



## jiggy (Nov 2, 2010)

^ Som_et_imes _it_'s easy to g_e_t car_ri_ed away wit*h* Formatti_n*g*_. ^​


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 2, 2010)

Putting this in my sig while I still can.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 2, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Putting this in my sig while I still can.



Please don't. If I hadn't seen that already, I'd be extremely pissed now. Spoiling books or movies etc like that is one of the dickiest things one can do. It's not funny.


----------



## ariasamie (Nov 2, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Please don't. If I hadn't seen that already, I'd be extremely pissed now. Spoiling books or movies etc like that is one of the dickiest things one can do. It's not funny.


 
this is what happens at the end of Lost series:


Spoiler



jk i'm not that *****!


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 2, 2010)

Jeez, you know the intention was humour and not dickery. Tried to pick something I though everyone would've known by now.

And you've gotta admit, the idea was funny


----------



## Toad (Nov 2, 2010)

I do love to see the correlation between recent join dates and stupid posts with silly arguments in this thread...


----------



## Stefan (Nov 2, 2010)

Yes, I know that was the intention. But no, I actually don't find spoiling funny in any way. It's the reason I pretty much don't talk to one of my flatmates anymore who I had been friends with earlier.


----------



## KYLOL (Nov 2, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> (cross post from actual announcement in case people don't see it)
> 
> I've had enough with this. Everyone has 7 days from today to remove the spoilers from their signatures, or face a ban.
> 
> Thank you. Have a nice day.


 
I see an announcement here. If he said "Hey guys, let's have a 10+ page discussion about the _possibility_ of removing spoilers" then you guys would be on to something.


----------



## ariasamie (Nov 2, 2010)

If we would click on all the spoilers of this forum, we wouldn't waste as much time as we did on this thread.


----------



## Erik (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm definitely pro con-spoilers in signatures 



Spoiler



that means that I support Dan


----------



## Toad (Nov 2, 2010)

Erik said:


> I'm definitely pro con-spoilers in signatures
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
A perfect example of what a spoiler should be used for IMO.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 2, 2010)

Using a spoiler to hold content that actually spoils something? Absurd !!

TheRubiksGod's post made me laugh. I didn't actually read most of it though.

What ever happened to the good ol' white text?


----------



## James Ludlow (Nov 2, 2010)

cube-o-holic said:


> I don't care either way but find it highly amusing that it is an issue.
> I find it really easy to not click spoilers if I don't want to.


 


DavidWoner said:


> If this had been a rule from the start then nobody would have cared.



Perhaps a slightly more diplomatic approach to annoincing would have gone down a bit better though.


----------



## TheRubiksGod (Nov 2, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Using a spoiler to hold content that actually spoils something? Absurd !!
> 
> TheRubiksGod's post made me laugh. I didn't actually read most of it though.
> 
> What ever happened to the good ol' white text?



I pity you for not reading my post, i worked forever on that post 


You tricked me on the white text there, i would never ever post white text because i don't roll that way lol. I think the spoilers are the best though 

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE AGREE WITH MY POST I WORKED SO HARD ON IT!?!?!?!?


----------



## flan (Nov 2, 2010)

TheRubiksGod said:


> i would never ever post white text because i don't roll that way lol.


 
Tut tut tut.

 YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Carrot (Nov 2, 2010)

TheRubiksGod said:


> WHY DOESN'T ANYONE AGREE WITH MY POST I WORKED SO HARD ON IT!?!?!?!?


 
Hard work =/= good work... sorry..

Flan: gtfo with that signature!! xD You just pointed out why they should be removed! =D


----------



## jms_gears1 (Nov 2, 2010)

TheRubiksGod said:


> lolrantfromthatoneguy.


 
You should stop before you get 'wrongfully' banned.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Nov 2, 2010)

flan said:


> Tut tut tut.
> 
> YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 WHAT, DUMBLEDORE DIES AND HES GAY NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


----------



## ArcticxWolf (Nov 2, 2010)

Dene said:


> I never said I wanted two lines. I never suggested anything that I wanted. Ask the other guy why his arbitrary number is more important than the one that PJK has chosen and then maybe you will get an answer to your question, and I will get an answer to mine. Two birds with one stone... my, we are doing well for ourselves aren't we?


 
I never said you did. It was a rhetorical question, which means I'm not looking for an answer. I am saying that by your logic, we might as well remove signatures altogether.


----------



## brunson (Nov 2, 2010)

ZamHalen said:


> What exactly qualifies Dan to be an Admin.?


We sent him to a class.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Nov 2, 2010)

TheRubiksGod said:


> WTF is it with almost every profile picture a pokemon?!?!? Yu-Gi-Oh was the best when i was a kid?!?!?!-



I stopped reading your post after that.


----------



## Dene (Nov 2, 2010)

ArcticxWolf said:


> I never said you did. *It was a rhetorical question, which means I'm not looking for an answer*. I am saying that by your logic, we might as well remove signatures altogether.


 
Lololo well done for learning a new word, but it turns out you don't need to go to the effort of defining it for me, thanks.

And what logic did I have? All I did was ask him a question. You seem to be inferring a hell of a lot when I wasn't inferring anything.


----------



## r_517 (Nov 2, 2010)

TheRubiksGod said:


> *THIS SITE IS A COMMUNITY*


 
maybe you should say WE NEED DEMOCRACY


----------



## qqwref (Nov 2, 2010)

Dene said:


> You seem to be inferring a hell of a lot when I wasn't inferring anything.


You weren't implying anything either, unless you believe in the concept of a conversational imperative.


----------



## Cubezz (Nov 2, 2010)

TheRubiksGod said:


> *
> -WTF is it with almost every profile picture a pokemon?!?!? Yu-Gi-Oh was the best when i was a kid?!?!?!- *
> 
> 
> ...


 
Stupid and unrelated.
If you are going to bash people, try not to get bashed yourself from the same reason.
You didn't give any reason why communities get ran by everyone. The admins and mods spend alot of time and effort when they can be doing something more fun on this site for the people on this site. THEY get credit for that.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 2, 2010)

MY EYES ARE BLEEDING


----------



## ArcticxWolf (Nov 2, 2010)

Dene said:


> Lololo well done for learning a new word, but it turns out you don't need to go to the effort of defining it for me, thanks.
> 
> And what logic did I have? All I did was ask him a question. You seem to be inferring a hell of a lot when I wasn't inferring anything.


 
petty remarks like "well done for learning a new word" are just childish. 

You were mentioning how 3 lines was arbitrary and wanted him to explain the importance of that extra line. However, I was saying that 2 lines is also an arbitrary number, and I think that, should you continue along the same train of thought, it would make sense to remove signatures altogether, as I personally don't see the benefit of an extra two lines. Sure, I use the feature because it is given, but I wouldn't be bothered if signatures were taken away completely. Also, your own signature seems to contradict your statement because clearly, the chat was originally 3 lines long, but you had to condense it into two lines because of the rule. Wouldn't 3 lines or no lines make your signature look so much more neat and organized? I think so.

basically, I'm saying that there is a point to having 3 lines instead of 2 in a signature.


----------



## Edward (Nov 2, 2010)

TheRubiksGod said:


> This is what would do if i were a moderator
> 
> *STARTING _/_/2010 ALL SPOILERS WHICH HAVE NO RELATION TO SPEEDSOVING.COM WILL BE ISSUED A WARNING, IF THAT SUPPOSED SPOILER IS NOT REMOVED A BAN WILL BE ISSUED *
> 
> thank you for taking the time to read my post, I hope that you take this post into consideration in your decision to ban the use of spoilers in an accounts signature's


I'm listening...

That's too much work for the moderaters (go through every sig with spoilers, check the spoilers, evaluate them). It sounds like sort of a good idea, but you have to remember that after this is said, it must be put into action, making it not a very good idea."

blah blah blah you have grammar errors and such, you know the gist.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 3, 2010)

stupidest damn thread I have seen in quite awhile.
(talking about all the ridiculous arguing, not the actual idea of removing spoilers from sigs, which I personally don't really care about one way or another)

some mod please just close this thread now


----------



## dillonbladez (Nov 3, 2010)

[email protected]


----------



## Daniel Wu (Nov 3, 2010)

This really isn't that big of a deal. Remember when there were no spoilers? 




Kirjava said:


> MY EYES ARE BLEEDING


I literally lol'd.


----------



## masterofthebass (Nov 3, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> some mod please just close this thread now


 
The only reason why I haven't already is because people I want people to notice the new rule.


----------



## shelley (Nov 3, 2010)

Ashmnafa said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > Because it's stupid.
> ...


 
You don't know how many times I've wanted to do that.

I haven't been very active lately and this is the first time I'm seeing this announcement, and I have to say I agree. For anyone who's still looking for a good reason why spoilers shouldn't be allowed in signatures:

1. It's too open to abuse (e.g. nested spoilers) and can be used to skirt the 2 line limit on signatures.
2. This is not the purpose of spoilers. Spoiler tags are used to a) hide actual spoilers that people might not want to read or b) hide large images or sections of text. If you _really_ want to use "Snape kills Dumbledore" as your signature then fine, put it in white text or something, but I have yet to see a spoiler signature that is actually a spoiler or otherwise merits spoiler tags. They're always just spoiler tags for the sake of having spoiler tags and that's just stupid and annoying.


----------



## Ashmnafa (Nov 3, 2010)

shelley said:


> You don't know how many times I've wanted to do that.


 
doitdoitdoit



I sense myself being banned soon.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Nov 3, 2010)

TheRubiksGod said:


> A Note To Read From TheRubiksGod


 Do not start off making yourself look like an official dropping by.


shelley said:


> You don't know how many times I've wanted to do that.
> 
> I haven't been very active lately and this is the first time I'm seeing this announcement, and I have to say I agree. For anyone who's still looking for a good reason why spoilers shouldn't be allowed in signatures:
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for spoiling it.

Just disable spoilers in signatures. Unnessessary. Too many s's. Stfu.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Nov 3, 2010)

So would this spoiler, in a post, not a sig, be OK?



The "spoiler" will contain a spoiler. Do not click "spoiler" if you do not want to be spoiled.



Spoiler



Will Smith kills himself in the end of "I Am Legend."


----------



## TK 421 (Nov 3, 2010)

Dan did this because of something very related to faz's comic (see prev. pages)
And he admitted that

We should not use a dictatorship like this

Spoilers in sig should be allowed. as long as

-no video
-no spam
-no excessive content

This is still OK



Spoiler



The actual movie spoiler that was put here by the OP was removed by brunson. 

TK 421, that's kind of a jerk thing to do because you're inviting people to open this spoiler tag as an example, not hiding a spoiler that was put in context in the post and would be expected by someone that hasn't seen "I am Legend". 

Not that spoiling that movie wouldn't actually save two hours of someone's life that they wouldn't ever get back, but I guess some people liked it. Clearly people that had never read the book. Still, that's just my opinion.




OK




Spoiler



PB 3x3: 12.00 sec...




Funny



Spoiler



Meh.




Stupid



Spoiler



<Video>




RETARDED




Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler



*SPAM!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## hic0057 (Nov 3, 2010)

Signature: any unique, distinguishing aspect, feature, or mark.

I agree with masterofthebass with getting rid of spoiler in signatures. Being an Adminsitrator is like being an umpire, they makes decisions of what they think is best.


----------



## ariasamie (Nov 3, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> MY EYES ARE BLEEDING


 
try CTRL+A


----------



## Carrot (Nov 3, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> try CTRL+A


 
thanks... Now I can see again =D


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 3, 2010)

TK 421 said:


> Funny
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Um, funny and ok? This is one of the reasons spoilers have been banned in signatures. Very annoying and pointless.


----------



## Dene (Nov 3, 2010)

ArcticxWolf said:


> petty remarks like "well done for learning a new word" are just childish.


Hi, my name is Dene.




ArcticxWolf said:


> You were mentioning how 3 lines was arbitrary and wanted him to explain the importance of that extra line. However, I was saying that 2 lines is also an arbitrary number, and I think that, should you continue along the same train of thought, it would make sense to remove signatures altogether, as I personally don't see the benefit of an extra two lines. Sure, I use the feature because it is given, but I wouldn't be bothered if signatures were taken away completely. Also, your own signature seems to contradict your statement because clearly, the chat was originally 3 lines long, but you had to condense it into two lines because of the rule. Wouldn't 3 lines or no lines make your signature look so much more neat and organized? I think so.
> 
> basically, I'm saying that there is a point to having 3 lines instead of 2 in a signature.


 
Good for you, but I wasn't "mentioning" anything. I was simply asking him why it was he wants 3 lines. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see how you struggle to grasp that concept.


----------



## masterofthebass (Nov 3, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Um, funny and ok? This is one of the reasons spoilers have been banned in signatures. Very annoying and pointless.


 
thank you.... you finally said something that I can agree with


----------



## cubefan4848 (Nov 3, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Um, funny and ok? This is one of the reasons spoilers have been banned in signatures. Very annoying and pointless.


 
Yeah. This is so true


----------



## theace (Nov 3, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Um, funny and ok? This is one of the reasons spoilers have been banned in signatures. Very annoying and pointless.


 
Mine, ain't it?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 4, 2010)

ElectricDoodie wrote:
_So would this spoiler, in a post, not a sig, be OK?
The "spoiler" will contain a spoiler. Do not click "spoiler" if you do not want to be spoiled.
SPOILER_

Looks like you have an real, potentially harmful spoiler there. Even I would say they're ok as long as there's a proper warning like yours. Not like TK 421 who went ahead and wrote a serious movie spoiler with no warning, even after it had been pointed out how dickish that is. If I were a mod, that ******* would be IP-banned now. Same as jms_gears1 with his even unhidden spoiler.

Although even with a warning, a spoiler like his would be bad. He just wrote something like "At the end of movie X, Y happens". Except he actually wrote explicit X and Y. What's the point of that other than being an ass? It's reasonable to *discuss* a movie in spoiler tags, but purely spoiling something is not.


----------



## brunson (Nov 4, 2010)

Man, it's like living with a five year old. I know this to be true because I live with a five year old. And when I tell her she can't do something it makes her want to do it all the more and then argue about why she should be able to do it. But you know what? She's FIVE. I can't believe the whinging about this subject.

Also, those of you that keep throwing around the term "dictatorship" should understand that this is not a government, it's a privately owned and operated social forum. There's a big difference between a military junta taking over a country by coup then imposing authoritarian control on its citizens by force of might and a site on the internet that was created to discuss solving a puzzle. The main distinction being that you are not forced to participate here.

Would you guys please grow up? Maybe we should discuss cubing or something.


----------



## CharlesOBlack (Nov 4, 2010)

Take this post with some salt and pepper on it.

Why the big deal? They're just spoilers that don't contain anything. If it gets you so damn pissed off, then just... don't click it. It's that damn simple.
If I really wanted to ignore this rule, then I could just post the same damn thing at the end of every post, such as:



Spoiler



cubing is fun



I don't see why the spoilers should be banned; Having a stupid spoiler sig, imo, is better than saying that stupid thing on every post without [ spoiler]'ing it. Besides, sigs can be stupid without spoilers; no offense, Brunson, but I honestly think your sig is pretty stupid. If you wanna discuss it, just send me a PM and I'll explain it to you.

>Distracting from post content
So do avatars. >.>
read the print version, it doesn't contain sigs, or avatars, or anything else. Just the post content. And it's not that hard, either; just click on Thread Tools > Printable Version.
And if it still distracts you that damn much - make the forum like 4chan, except without pics, where there's pretty much ONLY the post content.

>3 lines instead of 2
2 is too little for anything, really. besides, since this number was given by a rng, why don't we just pick a value - democratically, even if it's just between the mods/admins - that allows you to post thing you want without "distracting from the original content"? Personally, 5 lines would still be fine by me.

posts taste much better with salt and pepper eh


----------



## hawkmp4 (Nov 4, 2010)

Or you could stop complaining and accept that the administration has made a decision and your personal opinion has no bearing on whether they change it or not.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 4, 2010)

CharlesOBlack said:


> >3 lines instead of 2
> 2 is too little for anything, really. besides, since this number was given by a rng, why don't we just pick a value - democratically, even if it's just between the mods/admins - that allows you to post thing you want without "distracting from the original content"? Personally, 5 lines would still be fine by me.
> 
> posts taste much better with salt and pepper eh


 
2 is too little for anything but 3 is plenty? If we had mods and admins vote on this we would have like, no signatures, or very small ones. Most of the mods have posted in this thread and have agreed with cohen. 5 lines of sig would make the average sig longer than the average post, thats not helpful for the forum. Why are sigs that important anyway?


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 4, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> 2 is too little for anything but 3 is plenty? If we had mods and admins vote on this we would have like, no signatures, or very small ones. Most of the mods have posted in this thread and have agreed with cohen. 5 lines of sig would make the average sig longer than the average post, thats not helpful for the forum. Why are sigs that important anyway?


 
I think a solution would be to spoil all signatures. This way you could make them 5 lines and no one would care because they're hidden. But I can also see why this isn't allowed. People would (from some examples lately) post idiotic stuff like "Snape Kills Dumbledore" and "Meh" and "LOL", so I can see the reason behind Dan banning them. Since I don't have spoilers in my signature, I don't particularly care whether they are banned or not, but they could be potentially useful if idiots didn't abuse them.


----------



## CharlesOBlack (Nov 4, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> 2 is too little for anything but 3 is plenty? If we had mods and admins vote on this we would have like, no signatures, or very small ones. Most of the mods have posted in this thread and have agreed with cohen. 5 lines of sig would make the average sig longer than the average post, thats not helpful for the forum. Why are sigs that important anyway?


 
3 is more.

Sigs are important because they represent the little bit of freedom we get to say whatever the **** we want without being spammers.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 4, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> I think a solution would be to spoil all signatures



I've been thinking that as well.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 4, 2010)

So many points I have thought of had already been made (though I wish I would have just taken the time to type them instead of read through 14 pages).




cincyaviation said:


> I don't get the basis of the decision, and i completely agree with what Kian said, but i really could care less if there are spoilers in sigs or not.



These words were taken right out of my mouth.



PatrickJameson said:


> Why are people not being specific with this? I know things need to be done to the forum, but it helps to know what others think needs to be done as well. Being all, "imma be cool and clever and not actually say what I think needs to be done", isn't going to help.



One thing that's been getting on my nerves lately (and there are definitely rules about this in the rules.php page) is the amount of new people coming and posting asking for help. There are also useless thread postings that people end up spamming in, etc. I feel like this whole spoiler thing is very minor compared to the amount of useless posts in threads. I report a lot of them but I seem to be reporting a lot of the same people. I guess it just seems like nothing is done with these reports (but since I can't see the administrative side it's only perception, I realize it may not be reality).



masterofthebass said:


> and for all of you complaining, how many of you were here when I was part of the original push for spoilers and went and found the code for it?



You get a cookie for using Google. I'm not sure how far back this was, but it shouldn't be too hard to look at the code for even the simple tags and write similar snippets for them and put them in the same file. 



DavidWoner said:


> Ideally this will be added to the forum rules at some point. And new members are expected to read all the stickies.


 Not all of the new members follow these rules and wee see it on an (almost) daily basis that new members use their first (few) post(s) to ask for help.



shelley said:


> I haven't been very active lately and this is the first time I'm seeing this announcement, and I have to say I agree. For anyone who's still looking for a good reason why spoilers shouldn't be allowed in signatures:
> 
> 1. *It's too open to abuse (e.g. nested spoilers)* and can be used to skirt the 2 line limit on signatures.
> 2. This is not the purpose of spoilers. Spoiler tags are used to a) hide actual spoilers that people might not want to read or b) hide large images or sections of text. If you _really_ want to use "Snape kills Dumbledore" as your signature then fine, put it in white text or something, but I have yet to see a spoiler signature that is actually a spoiler or otherwise merits spoiler tags. They're always just spoiler tags for the sake of having spoiler tags and that's just stupid and annoying.



A lot of things here are too open to abuse but we allow that. That feels more subjective rather than objective. You've also somewhat contradicted yourself here:



shelley said:


> It's too open to abuse (e.g. nested spoilers) and can be used to skirt the 2 line limit on signatures. This is not the purpose of spoilers. Spoiler tags are used to hide (large) sections of text.



There was some obvious editing done there to show an interpretation. So using a spoiler to hide text that would take up more than two lines a good, or bad thing? Especially when the spoiler itself only takes up 2 lines (until clicked on, but at that point it was the perogative of the user who clicks).




Stefan said:


> Looks like you have *an real*


 It's not often we can grammar nazi you, Stefan!



CharlesOBlack said:


> Why the big deal? They're just spoilers that don't contain anything. If it gets you so damn pissed off, then just... don't click it. It's that damn simple.
> If I really wanted to ignore this rule, then I could just post the same damn thing at the end of every post, such as:
> 
> 
> ...



Another post that took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to post the same idea about circumventing the no spoilers in signatures rule. 

I think the main point that the people who are for spoilers in signatures is trying to make is that it's up to the person reading the signatures to click the spoiler button. If they get mad because it isn't what they wanted to see, it's not the user's (user that made the signature) fault for this. If you guys plan to act like this with signatures and spoilers, why aren't you banning the members that register just to post asking for help who obviously didn't use the search function, read through the previous similar threads, etc? Dan, the image in your sig distracts me! Remove it or ban yourself! I personally find signatures on forums quite useless, especially now since we have a profile that has a larger area to fill out (rather than the old forum we had) that we can add stuff there. I do not understand though how there is a difference between putting valid content (ie not nesting spoilers) inside a spoiler tag and providing a link instead.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 4, 2010)

brunson said:


> Man, it's like living with a five year old. I know this to be true because I live with a five year old. And when I tell her she can't do something it makes her want to do it all the more and then argue about why she should be able to do it. But you know what? She's FIVE.


Sorry but I have to point out how terrible this argument is. You are basically saying "this is something a 5-year-old does, so you should not do it." Some 5-year-olds also want to do things they know they enjoy, prefer certain types of foods over others, are friendly with some people and unfriendly with others, want to learn, etc. Are all these behaviors inappropriate or childish because a 5-year-old does them? More importantly, would you say that when any mature person is confronted with a mandate not to do something, they would agree without discussing it?

Anyway, I see some legitimate discussion going on, so it is silly to criticize people for wanting to discuss this announcement. The talk in this thread may lead to a policy on how spoilers may be used in all circumstances, for instance.



brunson said:


> The main distinction being that you are not forced to participate here.


While that's technically correct, this argument is pretty much meaningless because speedsolving.com is a community (the main English-language speedcubing community, I'd say). 



brunson said:


> Would you guys please grow up? Maybe we should discuss cubing or something.


Ah, you seem to be confused about the way the forum is organized. This subforum ("Announcements") is meant for posting and discussing announcements about the forum. If you want to discuss cubing, you should probably go to one of the cubing-related subforums, like "Speedcubing Discussion".


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 4, 2010)

I think *136 posts* is enough for this *extremely trivial issue*. It's done, there's nothing else to discuss and the rule will stay. Signatures will be changed if any of the mods see them.

(Just think about the insanity in the fact that this is *136 posts* long for a moment)


----------

