Snorri1234 [Dealt With]

by **a.sub** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:20 am

mpjh wrote:Maybe wicked is back. Remember the very interesting thing she did to live chat?

what interesting thing?

by **mpjh** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:21 am

She gave everyone mod powers and they all started banning each other. It lasted about 3 minutes, but it was hilarious.

by **a.sub** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:22 am

damn, howd she get around the system?! or was this when she was a mod too?

by **StiffMittens** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:22 am

owenshooter wrote:...very few clans/usergroups use this feature, and snorri just decided to abuse it...-0

In a sense then, Snorri has (allegedly) done this site a service by revealing a flaw in the site's functionality. Perhaps this feature should have an "opt-in" filter included so that if the mod of a clan designates a default avatar for clan members, those members should receive some form of alert giving them the opportunity to either accept or reject the change of avatar.

by **mpjh** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:23 am

a.sub wrote:damn, howd she get around the system?! or was this when she was a mod too?

It happened only a week or two ago, long after she was perma banned.

by **a.sub** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:24 am

StiffMittens wrote:
owenshooter wrote:...very few clans/usergroups use this feature, and snorri just decided to abuse it...-0

In a sense then, Snorri has (allegedly) done this site a service by revealing a flaw in the site's functionality. Perhaps this feature should have an "opt-in" filter included so that if the mod of a clan designates a default avatar for clan members, those members should receive some form of alert giving them the opportunity to either accept or reject the change of avatar.

under this statement, i should be able to kill someone, get a lawyer to get me out of it, then say i was doing the world a favor by showing it a flaw, give me my nobel peace prize now thx

by **Artimis** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:25 am

Is it just me or does anyone else think this is a massive waste of mod time and resources?

Woodruff wrote:The fact that the individual in question clearly is not even remotely repentant for his actions in actually DAMAGING the avatars of other users (through their permanent loss) tells me that he in fact should be banned. A warning is not sufficient for someone who is supposed to part of the administration of the site (else how could he have had the power to do such a thing?).

Calling for a ban just because a clan leader decides to pull a prank on his clan mates says a lot more about the author of such a post than it does about the accused. It's up to the mods how they decide to punish someone, besides, the punishment should be proportionate to the offence in order to be just.

by **mpjh** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:28 am

Hey, we still don't know if he did it. Like I said the mod powers got hacked a couple of weeks back in a real serious manner, and this may just be a continuation of that assault on the site.

by **StiffMittens** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:39 am

a.sub wrote:
StiffMittens wrote:
owenshooter wrote:...very few clans/usergroups use this feature, and snorri just decided to abuse it...-0

In a sense then, Snorri has (allegedly) done this site a service by revealing a flaw in the site's functionality. Perhaps this feature should have an "opt-in" filter included so that if the mod of a clan designates a default avatar for clan members, those members should receive some form of alert giving them the opportunity to either accept or reject the change of avatar.

under this statement, i should be able to kill someone, get a lawyer to get me out of it, then say i was doing the world a favor by showing it a flaw, give me my nobel peace prize now thx

False equivalency - that is an absurd comparison. Besides, I was not so much suggesting praise for Snorri as suggesting a way to fix the problem in the future.

by **owenshooter** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:02 am

StiffMittens wrote:
owenshooter wrote:...very few clans/usergroups use this feature, and snorri just decided to abuse it...-0

In a sense then, Snorri has (allegedly) done this site a service by revealing a flaw in the site's functionality. Perhaps this feature should have an "opt-in" filter included so that if the mod of a clan designates a default avatar for clan members, those members should receive some form of alert giving them the opportunity to either accept or reject the change of avatar.

yeah, be careful who you put in power and the mods and admins aren't so bad!!-0

by **Woodruff** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:37 am

Artimis wrote:Is it just me or does anyone else think this is a massive waste of mod time and resources?

Woodruff wrote:The fact that the individual in question clearly is not even remotely repentant for his actions in actually DAMAGING the avatars of other users (through their permanent loss) tells me that he in fact should be banned. A warning is not sufficient for someone who is supposed to part of the administration of the site (else how could he have had the power to do such a thing?).

Calling for a ban just because a clan leader decides to pull a prank on his clan mates says a lot more about the author of such a post than it does about the accused. It's up to the mods how they decide to punish someone, besides, the punishment should be proportionate to the offence in order to be just.

Far be it from you to...you know...read the rest of the thread before making such a proclamation about me, but thanks anyway!

by **Woodruff** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:45 am

mpjh wrote:If owenshooter is correct about mod power in clans, then Snorri could only do this to members of a clan in which he is a mod. If this is happening in any other case, Snorri isn't doing it. In fact, he may not be doing it at all, that is still to be determined.

You're certainly right that Snorri may not be doing it (though his alleged claims are otherwise). The individual I was referencing was actually in a different thread (I thought it was this one) about this same subject:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=78675

It was the.killing.44 who made the statement he is not in any of Snorri's clans.

by **mpjh** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:56 am

I am not expert, but I doubt it is Snorri if that is happening. I'd look for hacking by someone like wicked.

by **Timminz** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:36 am

StiffMittens wrote:I just think all this bluster about crucifying Snorri over a mildly annoying prank is pretty silly. It is, after all, just an avatar. If your avatar was so important to you then why didn't you back it up somewhere? Links break from time to time, for all sorts of reasons, so if you really want to preserve your content keep a local copy.

There is a difference between linking something, and uploading it to my profile from a url.

and to Mj's pH. snorri has admitted to doing this. Please stop saying, "we don't even know if it was him."

If mods/admin would like to see his admission, please refer to a thread titled, "Who the Heck." within the music discussion group forum.

by **mpjh** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:49 am

knowing snorri, I'd take that admission with a grain of salt -- probably a shaker

by **Vace Cooper** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:55 am

Im going to have to agree with stiffmittens... The user group leader has the abiliy to change the avitars, he didnt break any rule's, any clan leader can do it at any time. Im not going to change anyones avitar, but I could. Why is this even an option anyway? I could see a ban if everyone avitar was changed to something offensive, but it was a frog.

by **owenshooter** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:11 am

Vace Cooper wrote:Im going to have to agree with stiffmittens... The user group leader has the abiliy to change the avitars, he didnt break any rule's, any clan leader can do it at any time. Im not going to change anyones avitar, but I could. Why is this even an option anyway? I could see a ban if everyone avitar was changed to something offensive, but it was a frog.

and you do realize you wouldn't be a co-leader of the BpB anymore, right?...-0

by **jbrettlip** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:12 am

Woodruff wrote:The fact that the individual in question clearly is not even remotely repentant for his actions in actually DAMAGING the avatars of other users (through their permanent loss) tells me that he in fact should be banned. A warning is not sufficient for someone who is supposed to part of the administration of the site (else how could he have had the power to do such a thing?).

He is not part of the site admin just a leader of a few social usergroups.

by **timmytuttut88** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:51 am

Save Snorri! Who actually cares what their avatar is anyway?

by **Timminz** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:12 pm

timmytuttut88 wrote:Save Snorri! Who actually cares what their avatar is anyway?

Save this one! Free that one!

Why am I not surprised to see you here? Whenever someone is breaking the rules, or causing headaches for other users intentionally, tummytitt is never far behind, shouting, "So what?"

Your shtick is old.

by **StiffMittens** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:39 pm

Timminz wrote:There is a difference between linking something, and uploading it to my profile from a url.

The link I was referring to was the link between one's avatar on the rendered web page and the location of the actual image resource (e.g. <img src="./download/file.php?avatar=63823_1235470917.jpeg" width="82" height="82" alt="User avatar" />). That link can behave unexpectedly for a variety of reasons (the php script gets fubar'd, the server hosting the resource goes down, the resource gets deleted or renamed, some annoying prankster points the link elsewhere, etc.). The point is that things sometimes fail so if there is some image that is really important to you, you should do everything you can to safeguard it (like backing it up locally where you can keep a closer watch over it).

by **Timminz** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:27 pm

StiffMittens wrote:The point is that things sometimes fail

And if this had been a case of something failing, it would be (from my end) understandable. The point is, it was not. It was an intentional change, made for the sole purpose of screwing with people in order to get a rise, and/or a laugh. It succeeded in getting a rise, and I'm sure a few laughs too. I fully understand that it was a small (in the grand scheme) inconvenience, BUT if no punishment is issued, they will be sending a very clear message that this type of disruptive behaviour is acceptable here. I doubt that that's what's going to happen in this case.

by **hiddendragon** on Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:56 pm

Snorri is not a bad person but his prank is very annoying. I feel banning him might be extreme but maybe he should receive a strong warning and maybe a 1 week forums expulsion.