Well... I was really curious about one thing; why is this forum so... well... don't get me wrong but the admins close many topics that don't need be closed, on one forum I only posted the names "Emule" and "ODC" and the admins edited it saying those were instructions to find Warez clients (lol I didn't even know those programs had something to do with Warez), they censore words like (-) witch aren't harmful, you must alwais use some tiny little static avatars at 48 X 48 pixels instead of allowing an avatar with at most 200 X 200, when you edit a post you must alwais specify a reason for editing and if I put a 300 pixel high animated gif file the admins delete it even if it does no harm and it does not slow down the loading of the page or maks my sig to long.
I mean... the other forums are not so... terminator-like! Just wondering...

Derby: Filter bypass removal. Bypassing the filter is prohibited.

I rarely give reasons to why I edit. It's optional so others know why if you down't use the obvious.
Example

Well I think i lost my link to it.
EDIT: Nevermind, It's hosted at www.random5.com/jazzjackrabbit3fullversion.zip

Ahahaha, random5. ++n00b

The rules fit the views of the creators of the forum, who happen to be somewhat stricter than some other people in the world. It just happens that way. Fortunately, if you want an alternative, there are plenty of forums around these days, even if Shadow closes threads about them.

Originally Posted by n00b

Well I think i lost my link to it.
EDIT: Nevermind, It's hosted at www.random5.com/jazzjackrabbit3fullversion.zip

Doesn'T work

Derby: Filter bypass removal.

Originally Posted by Mircea

they censore words like (-) witch aren't harmful

I must agree that it's not the most harmful word and I wouldn't mind if someone said it, but is it really that bad that you can't say that word? Use "cursed" instead and another problem is solved.

Originally Posted by Mircea

you must alwais use some tiny little static avatars at 48 X 48 pixels instead of allowing an avatar with at most 200 X 200

Giant avatars are annoying as heck. What is the problem of small ones?

Originally Posted by Mircea

when you edit a post you must alwais specify a reason for editing

What n00b said.

Originally Posted by Mircea

if I put a 300 pixel high animated gif file the admins delete it even if it does no harm and it does not slow down the loading of the page or maks my sig to long.

If it does not slow down loading for you because you have a fast internet connection that does not mean it's the same for users with slow internet.

Originally Posted by Mircea

I mean... the other forums are not so... terminator-like! Just wondering...

I've never found it terminator-like over here. Besides, you clicked on 'I agree.' when you registered.

Anything else?

Derby: Content removal. Avoid instructing others on how to obtain the previously mentioned client.

If you don't like this forum you can always leave, Mircea.

Imagine...

Derby: Content removal. Avoid instructing others on how to illegally acquire content.

lol, you see me using a sig and avatar like that?
Well... no, I like it here. I was just thinking that it could have been cooler, that's all.

Quite possibly you may be allowed to have larger avatars at the Spaz Community forums, since they have a laid back set of rules. It's sad that the forum died out so early.

But no doubt somebody would be that annoying, and a sig like that couldn't be removed without everyone who wants to be a rebel whining how that is double standards and other people are allowed to have long sigs.

Mircea, you don't have to enter a reason for editing a post! You can just leave the field empty.

you must alwais use some tiny little static avatars at 48 X 48 pixels instead of allowing an avatar with at most 200 X 200

I'd rather have 96x96 avatars than these tiny 48x48 ones. You can't always cram enough detail into such a small size.

That would defeat the purpose of signature pics.

Come on, 96 x 96 isn't even all that big. And they wouldn't really go into a sig very well. Banners are better for sigs than avatars are.

96x96 is ok I guess, but wasn't he talking about 200x200?

I'm about to make a Derby Dictionary. That way you can see all the various edits he does, and you'll notice that he either memorizes what he says or copies and pastes them out of some document. The filter seems to be fine, dick as in Dick Tracy was finally removed from the filter, my topic actually had a purpose. Now things like (-) will remain to be filtered, that other D word. I can't use these words because there is no sound judgment, its just edit it all out instead of allowing it in certain cases.

I would personally prefer 100x100 or 50x50 avatars to 48x48 or 96x96 (mainly because those are the sizes used on other sites - this is the only site I go to which uses 48x48). Though I don't actually see a need to enlarge the avatars here - they're a good size for the forum layout, and seem to work well (for reference, I use JCF blue).

As far as images in signatures go, they're all very well but some of us still use dialup. Just because you have a 10mb/s LAN connection to the internet doesn't mean we all do. I know people who still use 48kb/s dialup - while at university, I had to put up with dialup.

Originally Posted by Tubz

I'm about to make a Derby Dictionary. That way you can see all the various edits he does, and you'll notice that he either memorizes what he says or copies and pastes them out of some document. The filter seems to be fine, dick as in Dick Tracy was finally removed from the filter, my topic actually had a purpose. Now things like (-) will remain to be filtered, that other D word. I can't use these words because there is no sound judgment, its just edit it all out instead of allowing it in certain cases.

Do you ever read a topic?

Ahem, there are 2 discussions going on in this topic. I was talking about one of them.