but the again my browser has a built in "size of text cannot go under this" limit
What browser is this? I might be interested in such a feature.
I use Opera, personally: Prefrences > Advanced > Fonts (Minimum font size), currently 6.
Fabian wrote:
Hi Xkeeper do you want to be my small font buddy? I felt it was more appropriate to ask here than in a PM, most people won't read this anyway.
die in a fire
Edit:
Naturally, I must thank Bisqwit for enabling me to be even more of an annoying asshole without having to do anything extra. Thanks, Bisqwit!
Hey wait ... Bisqwit, did you fix this? :)
It shows "mumblemumblemumblemumble (too small text to read)" everywhere people used a really small text! :)
Testing...
Bisqwit
the behavior was not malignant, it was for purposes of humor, and the addition of the "mumble mumble mumble" doesn't really discourage it, it only adds annoyance to readers.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Bisqwit
the behavior was not malignant, it was for purposes of humor, and the addition of the "mumble mumble mumble" doesn't really discourage it, it only adds annoyance to readers.
I find it fun.
Although he should've made it "GRUMBLE GRUMBLE...". At least then you could get free meat.
This just in, Bisqwit has changed the behavior of the size tag so that he can have an excuse to ban xkeeper for using it.
#nesvideos wrote:
[2007-09-27 23:14:37] <Bisqwit> Xkeeper: I've simply magnified the effect so that it becomes easier to ban of. I cannot ban you for using 50% size font; that just wouldn't make much sense to everyone. However, when it becomes obvious that your goal is to annoy people, you can be easily banned without opposition.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
For the record, my intention was for it to replace the text entirely, but unfortunately, it would have been technically were difficult to implement such a feature.
Regardless, I find it very alarming that Xkeeper some people use that purposefully now to show that message.
This just in, Bisqwit has changed the behavior of the size tag so that he can have an excuse to ban xkeeper for using it.
#nesvideos wrote:
[2007-09-27 23:14:37] <Bisqwit> Xkeeper: I've simply magnified the effect so that it becomes easier to ban of. I cannot ban you for using 50% size font; that just wouldn't make much sense to everyone. However, when it becomes obvious that your goal is to annoy people, you can be easily banned without opposition.
This just in, Bisqwit has changed the behavior of the size tag so that he can have an excuse to ban xkeeper for using it.
#nesvideos wrote:
[2007-09-27 23:14:37] <Bisqwit> Xkeeper: I've simply magnified the effect so that it becomes easier to ban of. I cannot ban you for using 50% size font; that just wouldn't make much sense to everyone. However, when it becomes obvious that your goal is to annoy people, you can be easily banned without opposition.
By the way, this post would have had a neat graphical effect and been much less annoying if bisqwit hadn't changed the behavior of the size tag.
Certainly. But would he have posted it then? No, he posted it because there was that text-producing effect.
But only because you explicitly changed it in order to punish him.
Edit: That also doesn't change the fact that your "discouragement" simply makes abuse more annoying, creating a problem where there was none.
And rather than admit he has made a mistake he has used this as an excuse to ban a long-time user of the forums.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
There is definitely a lot of passion on this board that I feel would be better directed towards more worthwhile goals than the behavior of the tag.
My problem is not with the behavior of the tag. It is with the behavior of Bisqwit, who recently seems to believe that it is better to exacerbate problems and then ban the people who cause them, than it is to attempt to defuse them peacefully.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Personally I think it's way better to say "Xkeeper stop with the annoying shit or I'll ban you for 24 hours" instead of saying "Xkeeper I just modified stuff so now if you keep doing this extra annoying shit I'll ban you for 24 hours", but really it's kinda the same thing and since it's Xkeeper I'm not about to complain.
Personally I think it's way better to say "Xkeeper stop with the annoying shit or I'll ban you for 24 hours" instead of saying "Xkeeper I just modified stuff so now if you keep doing this extra annoying shit I'll ban you for 24 hours", but really it's kinda the same thing and since it's Xkeeper I'm not about to complain.
You're right that that would be a more straightforward way.
In comparison, my way accomplished these:
― Don't need to warn each person individually
― Don't need to warn at all; the person gets the hint without intervention.
With the cost of:
― Reasonable use of the abnormal sizes was also disabled. Marginal case, if you ask me.
Personally I think it's way better to say "Xkeeper stop with the annoying shit or I'll ban you for 24 hours" instead of saying "Xkeeper I just modified stuff so now if you keep doing this extra annoying shit I'll ban you for 24 hours", but really it's kinda the same thing and since it's Xkeeper I'm not about to complain.
You're right that that would be a more straightforward way.
In comparison, my way accomplished these:
― Don't need to warn each person individually
― Don't need to warn at all; the person gets the hint without intervention.
With the cost of:
― Reasonable use of the abnormal sizes was also disabled. Marginal case, if you ask me.
Before reading this post, I wrote the following.
[10:23:34] <Fabian_> what I really think is kinda unnecessary is Bisqwit's sometimes overly non-confrontational behavior
[10:23:35] <Fabian_> like
[10:23:48] <Fabian_> he needs to change the rules so as to make it appear he's not the bad guy before banning
[10:23:52] <Fabian_> instead of just telling the idiots
[10:23:55] <Fabian_> hey idiots, stop being idiots
[10:24:15] <Fabian_> but yeah as long as it gets done I guess
Just different styles I guess. If it were up to me I'd definitely just go ahead and tell whoever it was "hey you're being kinda annoying please cut it out, that stuff is not acceptable". You don't want to be seen as the strict, bad guy, and I think it's very ok for an admin to be that guy when necessary.
That's me, I guess.
In FPS games, I also prefer non-confrontational weapons such as snarks or tripmines rather than traditional guns.
It is probably characteristic for intellectual persons, to devise things that do stuff than to do stuff.
Edit: I do not mean to imply that anyone is stupid. It was merely self-reflection.
That's me, I guess.
In FPS games, I also prefer non-confrontational weapons such as snarks or tripmines rather than traditional guns.
It is probably characteristic for intellectual persons, to devise things that do stuff than to do stuff.
Edit: I do not mean to imply that anyone is stupid. It was merely self-reflection.
Another theory which I think might fit even better is you don't want to do stuff plenty of people will disagree with later. You'd prefer it if Xkeeper dug a deeper hole for himself before banning (meaning, being even more annoying than usual), because then, the chances people will think it's an unjustified ban will go down by a lot.
Kinda ties in nicely with what I said about you earlier about you not wanting to clearly state your intentions and stuff like that, in case you were "wrong". Not necessarily a bad thing, but the thing is, as long as you clearly say "dudes, stop doing X", it's not like anyone can object when they get banned for doing X later on. You're in charge, and as long as you let people know what the rules are, that's kinda the end of that discussion.
There is a solution to this, which can allow things to be much more straightforward, but does not really require bisqwit to cease being nonconfrontational.
Bisqwit could allow someone who he mostly agrees with and is willing to be confrontational to have the power to deal with elements that are detrimental to the community.
PS: I am not volunteering, I seem to have a higher tolerance for mischief and or stupid behavior than someone of such a position ought..
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Bisqwit could allow someone who he mostly agrees with and is willing to be confrontational to have the power to deal with elements that are detrimental to the community.
True. But where are all the volunteers?
Though none of the current moderators were chosen by volunteering, either. Except, not-sure-but-think-so, Omega.
Vatchern did volunteer at a time, but it didn't work out without problem.
Also, moderators cannot currently ban users, but a change is being implemented.
I don't want to be a moderator but I could definitely help with telling people to stop being idiots, and if they don't, tell you who to ban and why Bisqwit.
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Bisqwit wrote:
upthorn wrote:
Bisqwit could allow someone who he mostly agrees with and is willing to be confrontational to have the power to deal with elements that are detrimental to the community.
True. But where are all the volunteers?
Im here!
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
I think that if text formatting abuse is automatically replaced with something else, that something else should a) be short, and b) make it more or less clear that it's not what the original poster wrote.
