"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
They don't need to be denied sigs so much as they need to be denied [SIMG]. If the entire banned group gets no sig, then banned rippers won't be able to have their sigs edited with their address and reason for banning.
Unless, of course, a new "Banned — Ripper" group were to be created, with mod-editable sigs.... *winkwink*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
I don't really know if it's worth the trouble to bother with a new group, isn't it just easier to remove the members' avatars/sigs manually?
Why, when so many more people are banned for non-ripper reasons than for ripper ones? The way suggested above will take time every time a ripper is banned. The way you suggest will take time every time a non-ripper is banned. I think the choice is clear, for efficiency's sake.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Why, when so many more people are banned for non-ripper reasons than for ripper ones? The way suggested above will take time every time a ripper is banned. The way you suggest will take time every time a non-ripper is banned. I think the choice is clear, for efficiency's sake.
Actually, the suggested way would take the same amount of time no matter who you were banning.
(Banning in vBulletin presents you with four options: Username to be banned, Duration of Banning, what reason the user should see for being banned, and Usergroup banned user should be moved to)
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
I was under the impression that it would take the same amount of time to move a member to the ripper usergroup than it would to edit their avatar/sig.
Yes, but if you manually remove everyone who isn't a ripper's sig then you have to edit the sig of everyone who you ban. If you do the group way the only sigs you need to edit are those of rippers. Really, unless almost all bans are ripper bans, the more efficient one by miles and miles is the addition of a Ripperban usergroup. If almost all bans are Rippers, well, then it's only more efficient by a matter of feet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
I was under the impression that it would take the same amount of time to move a member to the ripper usergroup than it would to edit their avatar/sig.
Only if they wanted to a do a round-about and sloppy job... o.O
The shortest way possible to do this would be to (under your suggestion, mind):
- Open up the AdminCP
- Go to that user's profile editor
- Disable and delete their signature
- Change their primary usergroup to Banned
- Save Settings
- Go to the Ban User page
- Set them as permanently banned
The Banned -- ripper way:
- Open up AdminCP
- Go to Ban User page
- Fill out stuff, selecting usergroup as "Banned -- Ripper"
- Save settings
Yes, but if you manually remove everyone who isn't a ripper's sig then you have to edit the sig of everyone who you ban. If you do the group way the only sigs you need to edit are those of rippers. Really, unless almost all bans are ripper bans, the more efficient one by miles and miles is the addition of a Ripperban usergroup. If almost all bans are Rippers, well, then it's only more efficient by a matter of feet.
Creating a Banned -- Ripper usergroup would allow them to essentially do the disabling of the signature automatically by just selecting Banned -- Ripper from the drop-down list for usergroup featured in my screenshot a few posts up.
Creating a Banned -- Ripper usergroup would allow them to essentially do the disabling of the signature automatically by just selecting Banned -- Ripper from the drop-down list for usergroup featured in my screenshot a few posts up.
Nonono that's not what is supposed to happen at all. Banned rippers are supposed to still have a sig, so we can see their address and info. Banned nonrippers are NOT supposed to have a sig. This is the way we've pretty much been talking about. So to be clear:
Banned Ripper = Sig
Banned Not Ripper = No Sig
Do you understand?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Nonono that's not what is supposed to happen at all. Banned rippers are supposed to still have a sig, so we can see their address and info. Banned nonrippers are NOT supposed to have a sig. This is the way we've pretty much been talking about. So to be clear:
Banned Ripper = Sig
Banned Not Ripper = No Sig
Do you understand?
Still easily set. It's a usergroup permission thing.
spanglegluppet dot com
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
I don't know if thats just a feature of VBulletin or the way we have it set, but its how it currently works.
What can we say... Even the system itself doesn't want to touch it...
The Banned usergroup is currently probably disallowed avatars. The same could be set for signatures by checking a box.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
If so, I think it should be.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
They don't need to be denied sigs so much as they need to be denied [SIMG]. If the entire banned group gets no sig, then banned rippers won't be able to have their sigs edited with their address and reason for banning.
Unless, of course, a new "Banned — Ripper" group were to be created, with mod-editable sigs.... *winkwink*
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
Good idea there, sir.
We will look into that.
Twitter
spanglegluppet dot com
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
Why, when so many more people are banned for non-ripper reasons than for ripper ones? The way suggested above will take time every time a ripper is banned. The way you suggest will take time every time a non-ripper is banned. I think the choice is clear, for efficiency's sake.
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Actually, the suggested way would take the same amount of time no matter who you were banning.
(Banning in vBulletin presents you with four options: Username to be banned, Duration of Banning, what reason the user should see for being banned, and Usergroup banned user should be moved to)
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
Okay, so we agree that a Banned Ripper-only usergroup is the best way? Because if I understand your post, that's what you're saying.
Also, long time, no see.
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Yes.
And, yes.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
spanglegluppet dot com
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
Yes, but if you manually remove everyone who isn't a ripper's sig then you have to edit the sig of everyone who you ban. If you do the group way the only sigs you need to edit are those of rippers. Really, unless almost all bans are ripper bans, the more efficient one by miles and miles is the addition of a Ripperban usergroup. If almost all bans are Rippers, well, then it's only more efficient by a matter of feet.
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Only if they wanted to a do a round-about and sloppy job... o.O
The shortest way possible to do this would be to (under your suggestion, mind):
- Open up the AdminCP
- Go to that user's profile editor
- Disable and delete their signature
- Change their primary usergroup to Banned
- Save Settings
- Go to the Ban User page
- Set them as permanently banned
The Banned -- ripper way:
- Open up AdminCP
- Go to Ban User page
- Fill out stuff, selecting usergroup as "Banned -- Ripper"
- Save settings
Get my drift?
Creating a Banned -- Ripper usergroup would allow them to essentially do the disabling of the signature automatically by just selecting Banned -- Ripper from the drop-down list for usergroup featured in my screenshot a few posts up.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
Nonono that's not what is supposed to happen at all. Banned rippers are supposed to still have a sig, so we can see their address and info. Banned nonrippers are NOT supposed to have a sig. This is the way we've pretty much been talking about. So to be clear:
Banned Ripper = Sig
Banned Not Ripper = No Sig
Do you understand?
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Still easily set. It's a usergroup permission thing.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux