ABOUT ATS: (comments on the new info threads)

Hi,

To the moderators,

I followed the information in www.abovetopsecret.com... , but I was not able to find the “At the very top-left of the board menu-bar is a button labeled suggestions”. I thing this www.abovetopsecret.com... is “the board”.

So if you don’t mind I will post here my suggestions.

1 – We could just click and add a friend or foe by mistake because the system do not ask for confirmation, so my suggestion is to add a confirmation window so we could easily check if we are doing the right choice or just confirm if we hadn’t made a wrong click with the mouse.

Something simple to implement but efficient.

2 - The second suggestion is (maybe I am just confuse) to put a link to the suggestion forum (where is that forum?) in the post www.abovetopsecret.com... , this will help everybody, I think.

Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience to put this post here,

brotherthebig.

Originally posted by brotherthebig
2 - The second suggestion is (maybe I am just confuse) to put a link to the suggestion forum (where is that forum?) in the post www.abovetopsecret.com... , this will help everybody, I think.

The Suggestion/Complaints forum is a private Mods Only forum. So regular members can not access it. The link to make a complaint or suggestion is in your Member Center

Hi enjoies05,

Thanks for the info, I fount it in the left side 3rd counting from below.

Suggestion already sent.

Thank you, best regards, brotherthebig.

Does anyone know how to add a signature after you have registered and been accepted? I've tried and see no way, no buttons to add signature in edit profile. Tks,

Go to the Account Settings in your Member Center

By Enjoies05
Go to the Account Settings in your Member Center

You are right Enjoies! Many thanks!

Would greatly prefer some sort of variation on the points for tagging untagged threads.

For some reason, I got into it months and months ago. But when they stopped awarding points, it felt like my efforts were too little appreciated and I stopped.

I understand there was some sort of abuse though I wonder what sort.

There's enough mental horsepower amongst the powers that be to figure out ways to minimize abuse and still reward the effort with points to get the untagged threads tagged.

I would prefer to do that than solitaire. But if no points, I'd rather play solitaire.

I also think that older untagged threads should earn more points as you had it set up back when.

Perhaps sign up those interested in tagging the untagged threads and once vetted as constructive souls, then give them points.

I have an avatar thats 160x330, and it won't work, yet its under 12.24 KB, and according to the main thread the maximum height of an avatar can be up to 400 pixels if the size is under 50KB. Why is this?

Nope, you may have read the Backround guidelines that said that. Backround images can be 160 x 400 and may not exceed 50k

The avatar limit is 160 x 320 and may not exceed 75k.

I think you just got them switched.



[edit on 31/5/2007 by enjoies05]

Originally posted by Kacen
I have an avatar thats 160x330, and it won't work, yet its under 12.24 KB, and according to the main thread the maximum height of an avatar can be up to 400 pixels if the size is under 50KB. Why is this?

u2u it to me and I'll resize it, if you don't have an appropriate program to resize without losing quality.

Originally posted by enjoies05
Nope, you may have read the Backround guidelines that said that. Backround images can be 160 x 400 and may not exceed 50k

The avatar limit is 160 x 320 and may not exceed 75k.

I think you just got them switched.

Au contrair (sp?)

Actually, Kacen is 100% correct. It is supposed to be allowed to use an image up to 400 pixels high (50kb or under). But since the "Avatar & Signatures Guidelines" thread was written, it apparently has changed. It is now coded so that if an avatar is greater than 320 pixels high, it gets rejected automatically.

Snippet from the Avatar & Signature Guidelines thread:

originally posted in the Avatar & Signature Guidelines thread by Simon Gray
Avatars:

GIF and JPEG file formats only with a maximum dimension of 160 pixels wide, by 320 pixels tall. File sizes are not to exceed 75k, and animated GIF's are allowed. (physical size can extend up to 400 pixels tall for images under 50k in file size)

bold and underline mine, for emphasis.

Might be a good time to use the Complain/Suggestion function to alert the staff to this discrepancy. I think they are tired of hearing from me, so I'll leave it up to you. On second thought, I'm posting it there now.


[edit on 5/31/2007 by Mechanic 32]

I regards to the thread I posted"Found on disclose.tv and possible UFO". Was aware this was posted but everyones screams FAKE due to no water movement. What I see is snow on the ground no leaves on the trees except for Pine trees and water is probably due to "ICE". I guess that wasn't mentioned but I could be wrong and will probably make more mistakes in my life.

Originally posted by Kacen
I have an avatar thats 160x330, and it won't work, yet its under 12.24 KB, and according to the main thread the maximum height of an avatar can be up to 400 pixels if the size is under 50KB. Why is this?

What is the file format?

Also, you say it "won't work". In what way?

About the censors....

I dunno, while i understand what Simon was saying about filtering software, I just don't like censors. This site is about free speech, and truth, and denying ignorance, yet we filter certain words because some people MAY POSSIBLY find them objectionable, or because some stupid little git of an IT manager with a stick up his ass about propriety may use filter software to screen for sites that use Bad Words™.

No offence to Simon and the others, because i really do like this place, but it feels like they are a little more worried about unique hits per day, and what other people are doing (IE; filtering) than they are about what this place is about.

Don't get me wrong, i don't think people should be making posts where every other word is an expletive...it's not even the specific words that have been singled out that bothers me...it's the principle of the thing, the fact that ANYTHING is being censored seems kinda off...

What i'm saying is that given ATS' mission, it seems rather backward and ignorant to censor anything

That's just my opinion though, and not an attack on the administration.



oh yeah, PS: Plz don't ban me

Originally posted by SimonGray

Originally posted by Kacen
I have an avatar thats 160x330, and it won't work, yet its under 12.24 KB, and according to the main thread the maximum height of an avatar can be up to 400 pixels if the size is under 50KB. Why is this?

What is the file format?

Also, you say it "won't work". In what way?

The problem isn't about format, at least during my test run here.

It seems that if an image is longer than 320 pixels, it is automatically rejected, regardless if the filesize is less than 50kb or not.

I just ran a test to verify this before posting here.
This is the image I used (plain white .gif):
files.abovetopsecret.com...
A .gif image less than 2kb, 160 pixels wide x 365 pixels high.

But it will not load, although according to the avatar guidelines it should be good to go, since it is much less than 50kb.

What happens after clicking on submit, and after the page refreshes, the avatar url box has been automatically cleared and is empty. As well as no avatar showing up in the members profile.

Hope this clarifies it a little better.



edit to clarify.



[edit on 6/29/2007 by Mechanic 32]

"No advertising of your personal or other websites until you have been a contributing member for at least 60 days."

Can someone please explain to me what "other" websites mean. Can you have a personal business site? I have seen others who do, but just want claification.

Hello,
Why are some moderators being so hardline (selectively) about quote use?

I was fined on my first warning which hardly seems fair. I was genuinely unaware that I was possibly breaching the rules. Whats worse is that while I was admittedly quoting the above post, this is sometimes necessary to continue the flow of conversation. Now what ISN'T fair is that the quote was 2 3/4 lines and depending how you count it, 2-3 short sentences. According to the rules on excessive quoting I was within those guidlines regarding quote length. In fact the rule states that you can be warned(fined) for ANY quote above 4 sentences in length. However I have seen a huge number of other quotes in the same forum area that exceed this. I dont have a problem with anyone doing this, as I stated it is sometimes necessary, I have even seen senior moderators doing it on a previous page of this very thread, but why am I getting hit and so many others not?

Further people are simply getting around this in some long thread arguments by pasting a handful of sentences and rebutting, and then repeatting the process over, sometimes 10 or more times. Is this not still goining to cause page file sizes to increase (By the way I am one of those people on dialup this is supposed to affect)? The real problem I have had with page load times, is the graphical content like avatars and people imbedding pictures, not quotes.

I realise we need rules or the site wont work and as I said in a U2U to the moderator it's a sometimes thankless job, BUT I feel there needs to be a no penalty first warning. Most people are decent enough that if they receive a first warning they will modify what they are doing. And of course all the rules need to be applied and applied equally. There have been instances of other more important rules being broken and nobody seems to be watching or taking action sometimes.

LEE.

I came to this thread because I read a post about "warnings" and it said if you wish to comment on this go here...so I did.

Looking at the date of the reply directly above mine I'm not looking forward to a speedy reply. Plus the poster above me seems to have been hard done by, penalised for quoting about 3 sentences and he has not had a reply


I have just been warned! I have not been told why. The warning on the post in question says

"been warned for gross violations" wtf?

Here's an idea, apart from this being an outrageous overeaction, tell the person why they have been warned!

And if this isn't the right place to complain about warnings recieved, then you should put a link to the right place in the post about warnings which says that you should come here for further discussion.


[edit on 18/8/2007 by Wig]

Originally posted by marg6043
I have to say I find that very funny

That will be something interesting to see, the brandishing sticks and hitting people I mean

I can see it now. SO running around with a stick beatin anyone he sees over the head with it. He'll not have time to do anything at all, other than beating people. Might as well get their lunch money too, . Just kidding guys, I know no one would ever do anything like that, it's just funny to envision.

As for the topic here, if we cannot get our opinions across without swearing, then maybe we should spend more of our time thinking about what we're going to say rather than just spitting it out there. Anyone else feel this way?

Honestly, I carry some small measure of self-confidence with me in knowing that if I want to, I can chat, talk, and even debate subjects all without swearing. I usually just choose not to when in the company of fellow, like-minded people. When I'm with friends, I swear like a sailor, but I have learned to use restraint where it's merited, such as here.

TheBorg

reply to post by Wig


Hey Wig,

should you wish clarification over any action taken by staff on the left hand side of your Member Center you should see a Complain/Suggestion button which you could make use of.

Also you are free to reply to the U2U received detailing the matter.

I hope that helps.



reply to post by thebozeian


Hi thebozeian,

Sorry to hear that you felt targeted in such a manner and I agree that any warning with accompanying point deduction for an initial misunderstanding may seem excessive but as mentioned above if you reply to the staff member in question via the reply to the automated U2U then I'm sure matters could be dealt with. I'm not insinuating you would do so but I'd like to remind all here that in such a reply a polite manner would be both more appreciated and more likely to get results than a "WTFOMG ur in mY account steelin' my pointz! You...."

We aren't automatically aware of if a member might have received such a warning before though and therefore if it is there 'first offense' so to speak or they have been notified previously over the matter and are just ignoring staff requests. Saying that, I know I and I'm sure other staff members would be happy to reimburse any point deduction if it was a simple case of a new member being unaware of certain behaviour here.

This covers not only quote warns but any action by staff. I would hope that all members are aware they are free to reply to the automated U2U if they wish

Incidentally thebozeian in your Member Center you can go into ATS Store and 'Turn on low-bandwidth mode' which should help with any page load problems you might be experiencing.

Apologies in the delay in responding.

Also in reply to your suggestion "...rules being broken and nobody seems to be watching or taking action sometimes. " a large part of what the staff manage to achieve on ATS is down to members using the Complain/Suggestion button mentioned above and alerting us to any problem it is felt needs addressing and this is greatly appreciated.



Please note: When any action is taken by a member of staff an automated U2U is sent. Members are welcome to reply and ask the staff member in question for clarification if desired.



Jak

[edit on 18/8/07 by JAK]