Leechers on Signature/Avatar request threads

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Kaze

If this were real life you could be making nukes or explosives for terrorist countries without even knowing it.

You might not like what I will say but, don't you think than you are exagerating a little bit. The issue with the leechers is real but would instauring heavies mesures or over-estimating the problem really solve anything ? Somehow I don't think so.

[Kaze]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

You might not like what I will say but, don't you think than you are exagerating a little bit. The issue with the leechers is real but would instauring heavies mesures or over-estimating the problem really solve anything ? Somehow I don't think so.

I know, I was exaggerating on purpose.
It's just a perspective.

What I suggested was just ignoring them, give them the cold shoulder.
Is this not a decent measure?

[JRendell]

Originally Posted by Kaze

Is this not a decent measure?

Yeah it is, it's what I plan on doing anyway. If they then decide to repost or bump their request I'm hoping to use the 'official backup' that relentless spoke of.

Do you think we could get that edited into the first page of the signature and avatar request threads please? That way we can quote it.

[Mr. Wang]

I'm concerned over the effectiveness of posting this on the forum rules. Yes, I have no doubt in my mind that relentlessflames draft is fairly well-worded, and it should alert requesters and sig-makers alike... I simply wonder how much it'll deter the hit-and-run requesters, due to the fact that we already state in the first page that no signature requests for other forums are allowed anyway. So... while it might take some time for us to perhaps enforce or remind everyone of this rule, do you think that this will simply be ignored as well? I mean, if people could actually read the first page, we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, we also have people who simply don't care anyway, so I'm saying it might seem moot point to do this... I could be wrong though, like I said, it'll take some time for us to help spread the word of this and try to make sure we know just who is requesting for whatever reason.

[Kaze]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wang

I'm concerned over the effectiveness of posting this on the forum rules. Yes, I have no doubt in my mind that relentlessflames draft is fairly well-worded, and it should alert requesters and sig-makers alike... I simply wonder how much it'll deter the hit-and-run requesters, due to the fact that we already state in the first page that no signature requests for other forums are allowed anyway. So... while it might take some time for us to perhaps enforce or remind everyone of this rule, do you think that this will simply be ignored as well? I mean, if people could actually read the first page, we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, we also have people who simply don't care anyway, so I'm saying it might seem moot point to do this... I could be wrong though, like I said, it'll take some time for us to help spread the word of this and try to make sure we know just who is requesting for whatever reason.

Even if you posted the rules on first page, most people just click on "Last page" anyway

An effective way to get the new rules out to graphic designers would be the guild.

A single roof for all active graphic designers, it would make sure news can be quickly spread throughout all members.
You could even put up a black-list in the group section of requesters you need to stay away from.

[JRendell]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wang

I'm concerned over the effectiveness.....

The more we spread the information around and requesters see that designers are taking note, and acting upon, the 'hit and run' culprits; then I expect the number of them will gradually reduce.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Kaze

An effective way to get the new rules out to graphic designers would be the guild.

Well, you already got the usual drama of a guild. All that's left is to start pointing fingers and ravel in bad gossip over little details.

[Kaze]

Originally Posted by felix

Well, you already got the usual drama of a guild. All that's left is to start pointing fingers and ravel in bad gossip over little details.

There would only be drama if it were our own people doing the drama and pointing the fingers.

Right now it's people from the outside, Outside our community that's causing the drama.

I don't see any finger pointing at eachother here, do you?

[felix]

Oh, I wasn't talking about pointing fingers at each other. I only said you would be pointing fingers at people.

Why are all of you so worked up over it anyway? It seems to me like your intentions are simply to find some legit method to publicly ostracize someone in particular. If it was just a problem of "other sigmakers making signatures for the guilty parties with out knowing", then would it not make more sense to suggest means to inform the people making signatures? A few hints in the first post, on what to look out for would go a long way; and nobody is preventing you from posting in the thread either. I don't see what the hell is the point of even bothering with all this finger pointing at the invisible enemey.

But regardless, you suggest all these crazy mob methods, and now have arrived at the conclusion that applying Lynch Law is the best and only course of action. What's more sad (and amusing) is how moderators like relentlessflame suggested this nonsense to you to begin with! You'd think them of all people would be concerned with "hate groups" forming. For all your good intentions, a group like this, and in particular one that would go beyond just being informative, to a all out guild is a very convenient weapon to harass/intimidate other members with (geee, I wonder if we still have rules against that).

It's inevitable you'll wave your little "one of you, many of us" flag around and miss direct your anger at the wrong person if you go on like this.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by felix

It's inevitable you'll wave your little "one of you, many of us" flag around and miss direct your anger at the wrong person if you go on like this.

Given the past behavior of those ''one of you'' ( disrespect of the rules to appropriation of the merit of the work of other... )the anger of the ''many of us'' is understandable but also maybe exagerated in its expression.

I doubt than a association of any kind would be of much help, at least much less than some little adjustement in the behavior of the sig-makers ( like ignoring the shaddy requests) .

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by felix

But regardless, you suggest all these crazy mob methods, and now have arrived at the conclusion that applying Lynch Law is the best and only course of action. What's more sad (and amusing) is how moderators like relentlessflame suggested this nonsense to you to begin with! You'd think them of all people would be concerned with "hate groups" forming. For all your good intentions, a group like this, and in particular one that would go beyond just being informative, to a all out guild is a very convenient weapon to harass/intimidate other members with (geee, I wonder if we still have rules against that).

Gee felix -- thanks ever so much for your rude over-stated opinion.

Suffice it to say, I have not once nor have I ever condoned "crazy mob methods" or "hate groups" or "Lynch Law" or any of the nonsense you are proposing. In fact, I thought I made it quite clear from the very start (and repeatedly throughout this thread) that a) volunteers can always do whatever they'd like, and b) no requester should be ostracized.

Self-forming groups are useful if you wish to deliver an organized coordinated message to a group of peers. We already have social group functions on this board, and frankly I am rather surprised that there isn't already ready a social group for sig/avatar makers (maybe there is). I would much rather see this sort of coordination occur within a social group than here in the Feedback forum (as this is something that should be worked out among the group; it's really none of anyone else's business what volunteers choose to do). But I have said specifically that there would be no authority conferred to such groups (whether implicitly or explicitly), so there will be no power to abuse. Further, mods will deal harshly with anyone who takes this matter too far and presumes authority when, clearly, none is being conferred. It is only an opportunity for a group of independent volunteers to agree to some principles and encourage others to do the same. If you see people abusing that, I invite you or anyone else to report the poster and we will put an end to their time on the forums entirely.

Anyway, I barely understand why I am wasting my time responding to your screed, as I'm quite sure that most of the rest of the thread understood quite clearly the parameters of what was being proposed and what would be permitted. You are going off the deep end to imagine a nightmarish scenario that will not be permitted to occur.

[JRendell]

Originally Posted by felix

If it was just a problem of "other sigmakers making signatures for the guilty parties with out knowing", then would it not make more sense to suggest means to inform the people making signatures?

Huh? Isn't this exactly what we've been discussing? What relentless created and put forward would not only be read by the requesters, but the sigmakers too. The guild that has been mentioned would also facilitate a means to inform the sigmakers.

Originally Posted by felix

A few hints in the first post, on what to look out for would go a long way; and nobody is preventing you from posting in the thread either. I don't see what the hell is the point of even bothering with all this finger pointing at the invisible enemey.

As people have already said, nobody looks in the first post of the request threads. If people took heed of the rules in those posts, then we wouldn't have this issue.

[Skyfall]

The process of sig making is volunteer work on part of the person making the signature, and thus there isn't any reason for the site's staff to get involved in the "selection criteria" of who is worthy enough to have a signature made for him/her. It isn't our (or anyone's) place to tell specific artists for whom they shouldn't be making them, or even "what to look out for", as that would be an arbitrary criteria based solely on personal preference of each artist in question. If one feels strongly about the subject, they can always "investigate" the person making the request (which takes approximately 2 mouse clicks), but that isn't, and will never be, a "forum's rule". The process of sig making is as far detached from AS management side as it gets, and as such it isn't our place to police the process.

We can make suggestions, post a message (like the one proposed by relentless) that tries to bring an issue to attention, in case some people might be unaware of it, but it can not be a forum's rule, and certainly not something that can be monitored, never mind enforced by the forum's staff. We can try to inform, suggest and express an opinion over it, but if someone wants to make a signature regardless of it, it isn't anyone's place to tell them otherwise.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by JRendell

The more we spread the information around and requesters see that designers are taking note, and acting upon, the 'hit and run' culprits; then I expect the number of them will gradually reduce.

No, the requester will just get smarter about how they leech. The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how many rules you throw at this problem there will always be people who don't give a shit and will try to abuse the good nature of others.

Sig/Avi requests are strictly volunteer work. It is the responsibility of the creator to ensure they don't feel like they are wasting their time filling the requests. Personally, back when I was filling requests, I took note of the join date and post history of the people requesting. The question I always asked myself was "is this going to be used on the forums or somewhere else?" I've been burned a few times, and that's when I learned to look before I leaped. When I started noticing most requests were from people with one post, I stopped bothering.

To be perfectly honest Sky's opinion matches my own exactly. This isn't a problem the moderators should be getting involved in, as it requires discretion on the part of the creators if they want to fill the request or not. It isn't our place to tell someone how to volunteer their time.

If creators desire to stick together and form some kind of "group policy" among themselves regarding the particulars of filling requests, that's fine. It's a good use of the Social Group system. Beyond that, there's some already existing policy in the first post of each request thread. I urge both creators and request makers to learn to read before asking/filling requests.

I haven't seen anything in this thread that will change my mind on the subject and honestly this sort of thing should be resolved among the people involved. No one is forcing you to fill requests, and if you're bothered by what you think is abuses of your good will stop filling them.

I highly doubt there is much more to add to this, so I'm closing the thread. If there is a well written, logical, and reasonable argument for WHY the moderating staff should be involved in what is otherwise a personal decision, send me a PM and I'll pass it along to the staff for consideration.