Member comments on ban logs.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Technically, no. The rule says 


A signature is not a 'post'.

Boru

Not the I want to, but could I, if so inclined, put into my signature "[soandandso staff-member] is a cunt" in Spanish, or Laotian?

 
(Sorry I missed this)

No, you could not. Rule 8, bullet point 4.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not the I want to, but could I, if so inclined, put into my signature "[soandandso staff-member] is a cunt" in Spanish, or Laotian?

 
(Sorry I missed this)

No, you could not. Rule 8, bullet point 4.

Boru

lol, I forgot all about that post.

[Silver]

2016 was a long time ago.

[Jackalope]

If someone joins the AF and has a long Russian text in the signature, isn't that a prerequisite for the automatic ban, considering that the language of the forum is English and everything should be written in the Basic Latin Unicode block?

Technically, no. The rule says 

Posts should be written in English and be comprised mainly of characters from the Basic Latin Unicode block.

A signature is not a 'post'.

Boru

I take an alternate view.

No, a signature is not 'a' post, but it is part of every post made by a user, same with all of the other user-provided content that appears in a post (to include user name, 'Religious views', etc), and therefore is subject to rules that apply specifically to posts. That's just my opinion and I don't know if it's in the majority or not, but that's how I'd vote on the matter.

[Silver]

I don't see signatures on the mobile version of the site.

[The Valkyrie]

Not the I want to, but could I, if so inclined, put into my signature "[soandandso staff-member] is a cunt" in Spanish, or Laotian?

 
(Sorry I missed this)

No, you could not. Rule 8, bullet point 4.

Boru

No, and, anyway, it's not true.

I'm a bitch.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Technically, no. The rule says 


A signature is not a 'post'.

Boru

I take an alternate view.

No, a signature is not 'a' post, but it is part of every post made by a user, same with all of the other user-provided content that appears in a post (to include user name, 'Religious views', etc), and therefore is subject to rules that apply specifically to posts.  That's just my opinion and I don't know if it's in the majority or not, but that's how I'd vote on the matter.

Fair point.  👍

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

 
(Sorry I missed this)

No, you could not. Rule 8, bullet point 4.

Boru

No, and, anyway, it's not true.

I'm a bitch.

You were not on my mind when I posed that question.

[Fake Messiah]

Why don't you ask the real question...as is there is new entity with blah, blah, blah in the sig, should they be banned.  Use the report function if you see it.  We do NOT catch everything and the things we do catch aren't immediate.

Stop with the passive-aggressive bullshit.

I used the report function for members who were selling stuff in their sig, and while they got banned I got the warning for reporting them.

So much for helping out.

[arewethereyet]

Why don't you ask the real question...as is there is new entity with blah, blah, blah in the sig, should they be banned.  Use the report function if you see it.  We do NOT catch everything and the things we do catch aren't immediate.

Stop with the passive-aggressive bullshit.

I used the report function for members who were selling stuff in their sig, and while they got banned I got the warning for reporting them.

So much for helping out.

New members that show up with the intention of selling/trolling/otherwise breaking the rules can appear when staff is doing things like living life or sleeping.

Someone who showed up ten plus years ago and made a profile and then never posted really aren't a current issue to be tended to.  In fact, they really aren't an issue at all.