Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum


Retired/Inactive Mod
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Relatively Unknown

About Steve

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

About My Character

  • RuneScape Status
  • RuneScape Version
    I Don't Play
  • RuneScape God
    Don't Care
  • Combat Type

Recent Profile Visitors

1,091 profile views
  1. Steve

    Hmm, Long Time No See. Very Long Time.

    Well Steve, thats cause you and I think maybe Dissentor? was his name were being very immature about the whole scamming thing. Oh that kid was so obsessed with me he made a blog all about me and my life story You didn't get chosen to be in the Distinguished Mod group, so you changed your name to Greenfire and asked to be retired. You were demoted from Retired Moderator for being a general nuisance. You lied to someone who thought you were a friend so that you could have an item in an online game. And I'm the immature one? EDIT: Also,
  2. Steve

    Hmm, Long Time No See. Very Long Time.

    I did think I would shock a lotta people Well you were only gone for like 10,000 years. Thats true, but I also was banned because one of your friends "steve" didnt like me. Glad to see I'm still a part of these forums But you called me a fatty and it hurt my feelings!!!
  3. Steve


    Although, since we're generally more lenient about the rules in blogs, this will probably be allowed to slide by.
  4. Steve


    And you were staff before? O_O Debating the rules is allowed. I am actually fully aware of what the rules are, considering the fact that I was one of the major driving forces in the most recent rule update (which included an update to the rule on debating the rules). We make a distinction between debating the rules and complaining about the rules. Debating the rules would include giving constructive criticism to improve the rules, and is encouraged - we want the rules to be good for everyone. But simply complaining about the rules, as I would argue you are doing now, isn't allowed because it simply isn't productive.
  5. Steve


    If the blog entry itself is spam, then it should be removed too, no? I mean, it's very clear that this isn't going to be changed, so now you're just complaining about the rules, which actually is explicitly against the rules. :lol:
  6. Steve

    Problem Rules

    Which is why I am saying to discuss whether a rule should be added after this thing that isn't against the rules should happen. Doing that (and excluding the sentence we have in the rules right now) would require us to retroactively punish people for rules which are created after the fact, and I think you would agree that doing so wouldn't be appropriate for us to do. So instead we have this sentence, which, although rarely used, will allow us to punish the first time the rule is broken, and then we will almost certainly discuss whether the infraction is a serious enough issue for a new rule to be added (or a previous rule to be edited to include the infraction). If I'm not mistaken, here's an example of when the first quote was used: We have had a couple of issues over the previous years with bug abuse. Since there was no rule on bug abuse until relatively recently, one could have argued that the users couldn't have been punished for the bug abuse (the first quote was reworded with the most recent rule update to clarify moderators' power). So it was discussed, and the Bug Abuse rule was added. Had that clause existed already, we could have punished the users and THEN added the rule, but instead I believe those users got away with nothing more than a "Don't do it again." So if it isn't clear already, these rules simply aren't going to be changed. So unless you have anything more to add beyond declaring a conspiracy, there doesn't seem to be much else to say. EDIT: @below: That's hilarious!
  7. Steve

    Problem Rules

    It is simply impractical to have the rules cover every possible scenario that may arise, and the staff would be unable to punish people if such a clause wasn't included in the rules. I don't think that either clause will be used to justify punishment that isn't obviously unacceptable, so there isn't anything to worry about. And the second clause exists more for your benefit than anything else, because it gives you (the blog owner) much more control over your blog. As it says, the staff is generally much more lenient in blogs than on the forums so that you can put some content in your blog that probably wouldn't be allowed on the rest of the forums. Fruityfed also put it quite nicely.
  8. I can understand that it would be harder work, but their are signatures with 2,3,4 photo's, I know my old one has about 6 mini-pictures, I'm sure right clicking on one extra picture is not very hard. While It may be a bit of an inconvenience, the inconvenience of spending hours making signature, to find it's a few kb too big is frustrating too. I'm not sure how the system currently works, if normal members check, or if moderators go through the user list. Maybe we could find a simple way of getting round this, like those using less on avatar and more on signature putting a simple asterisk in their signature, but I'd rather we come to a solution than just leave this like it is. Having spend a few years using PhotoShop, and having had my signature removed multiple times in the past for it being oversized, I've learned that it isn't THAT difficult to get a signature to under 60kB (in PhotoShop, anyways). What I usually do is save it as PNG, and if that ends up being too big then I'll save it as JPG, usually at around 96 quality (I don't know what the 96 represents. There is no visible difference between saving a signature at 100 quality on JPG, 96 quality on JPG, or saving it as a PNG. I'd offer to downsize your signature's file size myself, but PhotoShop crashes most of the time when I try to open it so I'm not sure if I would be able to. I'm sorry if you understood me differently when I said "excuses to punish people". What I meant was the only possible excuses are so outrageous that this rule must be just overlooked by accident. It was merely an a example to say that I can not understand how this rule is in place. In other words, I would never suggest the staff are power hungry maniacs, because that would be just silly. Although, I do agree (reading back) I worded it very bad so I'll edit that, sorry for the confusion. I also agree I got a bit lost in this thread, at first I was annoyed/angry , but I've changed my position throughout the thread to one that is more constructive. And I used the words very little logic, because the rule seems to contain very little logic, if 2 people are doing the same thing, and one gets punished and the other doesn't, it's clear to see what gone wrong, but people failed to grasp that, which is why I used these words. This rule was not overlooked by accident; I'm pretty sure that this suggestion has come up in the past. And it's come up for good reason: at first glance, you have a very convincing argument. It doesn't seem logical that someone with a 5kB avatar and 70kB signature could be punished, but someone with a 20kB avatar and 60kB signature wouldn't. But then when you look deeper into the situation, there is very good logic for the rule being set up the way it is: moderators don't have an infinite amount of time to dedicate to this forum, so to make them check another image's filesize is just a waste of their time - time that could be used doing other moderation of the forums. Changing the rule from its current state would possibly let you have a slightly larger signature (which is unnecessary since you can already bring it down to under 60kB relatively easily as it is), but would create extra work for the staff. Leaving the rule as it is leaves less work for moderators, but annoys a couple of forum members. The choice seems somewhat obvious. I'm sure the extra 10-15kb can be used for bigger or higher definition pictures, if the 10-15kg doesn't make any difference then in that logic we could all have 1kb signatures and it would all be the same. Or am I missing something? Without right clicking to check the file size, can you tell which of these is 57kB and which is 70kB? I can't. (This signature was made by Arrogance.) I went back to see when this was previously discussed, and found this topic. I didn't read through it so I don't know what the outcome of the discussion was (beyond the fact that the rule never was changed).
  9. Pinky, please read the thread. The connection speed would still be within the rule, so the maximum you can use between signature and avatar can be used now within the rules, however I would like to merge the rules so that if the avatar is much bellow the max, the signature size can be increased. In theory your using the same amount of bandwith as the person who is using the 2 max signatures and avatars, so I can't see what's wrong with this. While you make a valid point regarding the total file size, there is a very simple reason that we aren't going to change the rule to a total between signature and avatar: inconvenience for the staff. It is already enough of a pain to check signatures as they are, and adding in avatars to that would just make it even more of an inconvenience. If a board mod existed that would automatically limit you to X kB combined between signature and avatar then I could see the rule being modified in the future, but until then it simply isn't going to change. And, quite frankly, to say that "This has very little logic ... and if anything, an excuse to punish people for no reason" is completely outrageous. It is incredibly obnoxious to suggest that the staff is just looking for excuses to punish people without reason. Images in a spoiler still load when the page loads (regardless of whether you can visually see the image or not), so putting a 100kB image in a spoiler will not help the issue of file size. The easiest solution is to throw it all into a code box.
  10. Steve

    Rule Revision

    Uhh . . . shouldn't it be "You may not encourage the breaking of any RuneScape rules, or ask for or give help with the breaking of RuneScape rules. Oops! It's already in the rules under Misleading Content: "On a similar note, all links must be properly labeled, and may not try to mislead the user into clicking them." Recently, there have been some issues with misleading links through TinyURL, so this is really just a reminder that you need to make sure that your links are pretty clearly labeled as to what they are. And there really isn't much need to use TinyURL on Sal's anyways, since you aren't going to hit the character limit.
  11. Steve


    All of the new versions suck, and have for a few years now. I've found that version 5.9 (©2006) is still more than adequate for my IMing needs.
  12. Steve


    That's pretty much how it's been for me, though not quite as long. I was told 1.5-2 years and it's been 2 years (I got them the end of August 2 years ago). My orthodontist has been implying that they'll be coming off soon for 6 months now.. Every time I go in, he always says he's just making small adjustments to the spaces between my teeth (I'm going to be getting 2 implants I believe, so the spaces for them need to be just right). I'm just hoping I'll be able to get them off before the end of the year. And as glad as I am that I got them, they're such a pain in the . Every time I eat anything, food gets stuck in my braces and my tongue gets sore from trying to pick all of it out. I just can't wait for the damn things to come off (hopefully soon ^_^ ).
  13. Steve


    I don't know about the particular laws where you live, but out here you can only get in trouble if you're doing at least 11 mph over the limit. It's a felony if you go 20 over on surface streets and 90 on the freeways. You can get in trouble for going 5 or 10 over the limit, but in general you won't get pulled over unless you're doing 10+ over the speed limit. That's how it is around here, and I find it very hard to believe that you can't get in trouble for going 8 or 9 over the speed limit where you live.
  14. Steve

    Funny Video

    That one is alright, but they've got many better music videos. In an Apatow World is one of my favorites.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.