SSMB Administrator
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Chris last won the day on August 18 2015

Chris had the most liked content!

About Chris

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/15/90

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

51420 profile views
  1. I've just changed the avatar filesize limit to 1MB (or 1024KB) for members specifically (and not staff groups yet). Let me know if that makes it more flexible for you.
  2. I'd like to explore this issue in more detail in the coming days. Can you guys explain to me exactly what you're doing? Does the same issue happen when you upload or when you import from URL (from a website like Imgur)? Please provide as much detail as possible - even the images you're using if you can - so that I can knock this issue out. In addition, I'd like to refrain from changing the 2MB avatar upload limit (unless it's directly the cause but that's doubtful). If you're having trouble using still images (non-GIF) due to filesize, please download software such as GIMP and reduce the resolution before uploading so you can add control to the compression.
  3. Happy belated birthday, Chris! Hope life's been treating you well. Alsooooo to make up for my tardiness.


    1. Chris


      Thank you! I hope that you've been well too during these last few years - it's been a while since we've spoken.

    2. Aoi


      Yeah, I have been and it has been a while! We should chat sometime if we're ever both on Skype. My username is now lostatcee since I started going by Cee.

  4. Happy Birthday you busy admin, hope it was pleasant and all that good stuff 

  5. Happy birthday, boss!

  6. happy birthday!

  7. I understand the concerns but this is not being reversed. We've had enough topics regarding the atmosphere or status of the forums which are going to go in one of two directions: 1) I leave the matter alone and any members with issues regarding that decision can leave or 2) I make a genuine attempt to weed out the issues that I have deemed to be the cause. Most members won't even be affected by this. It's an effort to make the forums a better place to be. I hear complaints about these issues consistently and people clamoring for the major offenders to be banned, so why is this such an issue now? If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them via PM when I can.
  8. I'll be reopening this topic for a short while to allow for any questions that you may have for me. This topic was a direct response to several issues that we've been dealing with and was my suggestion - Gala stepped up to the plate and addressed the issue while I had to be away. As stated, the ban involved in this is for extreme circumstances; we can take a joke just as well as you can. This is to be implemented to deal with deliberate member drama or off-site drama that spreads to our public elements (status, posts), not accidents. You will only be affected by this if you're A) trolling extensively or B) going out of your way to ruin the experience for your peers. I understand your concerns but I assure you that it won't end up as you fear.
  9. In an ideal situation, the forum would be just as active as it used to be - but this isn't the case. The more features we add further divides the usage, much like how the status updates have gradually become an area for voicing lengthy opinions that should be in topics. When we added those, we didn't anticipate that they would be as popular as they are; I'm concerned that the PM system having a higher capacity will shift more users to exclusively using that system and not participating outside. I'm not saying that the PM system having an increased capacity will be an issue, but that it'll be one I'm monitoring going forward to ensure that it doesn't impact the forum activity in a negative manner.
  10. This isn't a change that I'm happy to do, but I'll double the number of possible participants that can join in. I'm afraid that this change - much like adding the status updates - will take further attention away of the forum aspect and migrate it to be behind closed doors (whereas the status updates simply shifted interest). If forum activity goes down as a result, I'll be lowering it back to 10 participants per conversation. As of now, it's at 20.
  11. This wasn't a decision that was made on our end - it's the default. Changed.
  12. I was very impressed when he revisited his role for the game at that age. The show means a lot to me and he was just as impressive in how he cared about it - I'm sad to see him go, but he had a great run. RIP.
  13. The below comments are going to be all over the place (migraine) but I hope my thought process is clear. I agree with the points on topic derailment and power exertion (or well, not taking it behind closed doors). I should have been the one to step in and deal with the issues in that topic first hand. This shift in direction is probably [partially] my fault because of the (albeit rare) image only posts I'd do when banning members, but that's another topic entirely. The new member program is an interesting idea hankering back to the introduction topic. Over time these became phased out because of the status updates but could still have a purpose. It's really hard to tell what actually had an effect because of the status update module overwhelming the rest of the forum. Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better for me to take Roarey's direction as members still seem intimidated to ask me anything. This management direction I've taken doesn't seem to be having as much of an impact as I'd hoped. These situations are part of my concern and will be addressed to the best of my ability. I haven't taken anything personally! There are some points I agree with and others I disagree with, but your feedback is noted. I'd be more in favour of the suggestion that was brought up earlier regarding the report system. We would scrap the posts in topics partially (if not entirely) regarding actions and instead talk to those involved directly; if the report we received didn't receive an action, we could discuss the matter with the member who made it. At the very least, that would open the floor for them to talk to a moderator about it. Doesn't ensure that action will be taken, but their voice would be heard. Right now the report systems feels too much like a void. I'm not interested in going more public with this information. At best, it creates an atmosphere like we have now: people would rather not post than have an action against their account. I originally wanted to avoid addressing him by name but I guess it's pretty obvious. I really wouldn't want to. As for the reputation system: It used to be expanded with both likes and dislikes. The dislike function required a lot of specific tuning and was subject to abuse; it was the better option at the time to disable that side of the feature entirely and focus on likes. We're facing a similar situation now and need to encourage a positive attitude but that tuning isn't available. I'm not sure I want to go down that road again but we'll see.