This is just silly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Now why is my sig worth giving me 3 points over the course of 2 hours? Is it really on the same level as personally insulting another member? Banquo tells me yesterday that I will get a warning point today if my sig is not changed. Then in the past two hours Clegane gives me two PM's giving me points and now I am temp banned an hour and...42 min into today? Even though I told him after the first message that I am working on making my new sig tonight to change to soon.

I don't even understand the second PM. It is a PM of me asking for help in changing my name, and the reply is "rinse and repeat"?

This really is just silly.

[Husar]

Ok, lemme try to explain.

You got a warning asking you to remove your signature since it was way too big, didn't check it myself but the figure 6MB made the round and people trying to read topics from cellphones(where it may also cost money or eat up monthly bandwidth) or on cafe WLANs had to wait very long for them to load just because of your signature.
I saw you post in several topics yesterday long after you've been warned and told that it breaches forum rules, you could have just made it an empty signature until your new one is ready.
Needless to say I was already a bit worried that it would end like this since you were obviously not reacting to that first warning.

Then you got an infraction point, a single one, reminding you that your signature is too big and has to go, apparently you didn't get the urgency of removing the big pictures and instead thought you'd have all the time in the world to think of a new one first, which wasn't what the administration had in mind because every minute your sig was up, someone on a slow connection had to download around 6MB or even lost a lot of their monthly bandwidth budget on a cellphone data plan when opening a topic you posted in.

As such you were temp banned to prevent your signature from causing any more harm to patrons who don't visit from home or have limited bandwidth available every month.
Because our rules say there is a limit and as such it has to be enforced on everybody and breaches have to be dealt with, especially if one member causes a lot of headache for many others.

Oh and the "rinse and repeat" was about your signature, which still hadn't been changed at that point, apparently you still hadn't understood the urgency after getting a warning and an infraction point for it, so it was probably seen as necessary to temporarily remove your ability to cause further harm as explained above(the Administrative Note in the warning also states that it is about your signature, so it's not that confusing really).

[Ser Clegane]

Husar pretty much summarized it.

You were asked yesterday to remove the sig (via PM warning from BG - no infraction point)

... no reaction ...

I gave you a 1-pointer this morning asking you again to remove the sig.

You responded that you are working on a new sig that would not violate our rules but that it would take a day or so to create it.

I asked you to remove the old sig in the mean time

... no reaction ...

You read my last PM and decided to ignore it and to keep posting with your huge sig.

I gave you another 1-pointer for your lastest post after my PM (which happened to be the one here in the Watchtower) - the warning was indeed directed at the sig and is not related in any way to the actual content of the post. "rinse and repeat" refers indeed to giving another 1-pointer for the very same reason as the first one.

So in total you received 2 (!) warning points for obstinately ignoring repeated requests to remove your sig - these two points triggered an automatic temp ban (and I manually removed your sig).

[a completely inoffensive name]

alright, makes sense now. so when does this temp ban clear?

[Drunk Clown]

Couldn't you (moderators) just have removed the sig yourself in the first place and send a PM explaining it? Seems like that would've been more effective as it could have been (for example) that sir Gutmensch hadn't visit the forums this day. I mean, you acted because it's the best for the orgahs, right?

[Skullheadhq]

Couldn't you (moderators) just have removed the sig yourself in the first place and send a PM explaining it? Seems like that would've been more effective as it could have been (for example) that sir Gutmensch hadn't visit the forums this day. I mean, you acted because it's the best for the orgahs, right?

Oh, hello there ACIN, didn´t notice your second account before

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh, hello there ACIN, didn´t notice your second account before

I always knew you were the smartest one here.

[Skullheadhq]

I always knew you were the smartest one here.

You should have been less obvious.

[drone]

Couldn't you (moderators) just have removed the sig yourself in the first place and send a PM explaining it?

Unless there is a magic button I haven't found yet, moderators cannot change the signatures or other profile fields of members, only the admins can do this.

[Drunk Clown]

In that case, the admins.

[classical_hero]

If you get a warming and you fail to heed the warning, only you are to blame, so this could have been solved by removing the picture and then changing the signature at a later date.

[TinCow]

Seems like that would've been more effective as it could have been (for example) that sir Gutmensch hadn't visit the forums this day.

That situation did not occur. All PMs have read receipts on them. As Ser Clegane clearly noted, ACIN read the PMs and ignored them.

[Drunk Clown]

I am aware of that, and that's why I said: "it could have been". As in "what if".

Your argument was that it causes slow loading of the page. And thus it would be a annoyance for fellow Org members. By asking Gutmensch to remove his signature, you were acting for what's the best for the Org members. But if you would really do that, you would remove the signature immediately, instead of waiting for the user to delete it himself. Because who knows? Maybe he had something to do and not be able to get online.

[TinCow]

I am aware of that, and that's why I said: "it could have been". As in "what if".

Your argument was that it causes slow loading of the page. And thus it would be a annoyance for fellow Org members. By asking Gutmensch to remove his signature, you were acting for what's the best for the Org members. But if you would really do that, you would remove the signature immediately, instead of waiting for the user to delete it himself. Because who knows? Maybe he had something to do and not be able to get online.

You make a fair point, however Moderators do not have the ability to remove signatures and Tech Admins do not have the authority to remove signatures. TAs will only remove a signature if asked by the Moderators. The Moderators probably did not realize this was an option. I will make sure they are aware of it if a similar situation occurs in the future.

[Andres]

I am aware of that, and that's why I said: "it could have been". As in "what if".

Your argument was that it causes slow loading of the page. And thus it would be a annoyance for fellow Org members. By asking Gutmensch to remove his signature, you were acting for what's the best for the Org members. But if you would really do that, you would remove the signature immediately, instead of waiting for the user to delete it himself. Because who knows? Maybe he had something to do and not be able to get online.

You make a valid point, but it doesn't really apply in this case. Indeed, our friend ACIN read the warning, understood the message, yet decided not to remove the sig himself immediately.

That said, Drunk Clowns' suggestion seems indeed a better course of action for future instances: have somebody with sufficient powers remove the sig manually and immediately, give a warning or infraction with an explanation.