nope!

that's.... mii
 

Uhm... I was just checking my site stats and saw that you are hotlinking a PICTURE OF ME AND MY Wii...

I doubt this is any screen name of my boyfriend's... so I'm a little ticked off that #1... you're hotlinking... and #2 claiming that my photo is your's.

Delete your post, or give me a good reason why you did this.

Hahahaha, this is legendary. Go Pom~

Also, if you want to host a site, at least know how to disable hotlinking.

If you're going to try and insult someone, at least make the insult true.

... insulting a professional web designer, THAT is legendary. :biggrin:

Yeah sweet cheeks. Fortunately we do not care what's your status whether you're a president or an ambassador. You're down here with us. Enjoy your stay.

About the Wii. Also got the money but considering whether to buy one because nothing good from the launch titles has interested me so far.

Hahahaha woops sorry. Everyone here knows thats not me, and i just found your pic randomly on this LJ image thing on that day, so i used it. Wasn't passing myself off as you don't worry :\/!

Ok, thanks. I'm a little raw right now because I have so many domains, and so many mp3s and pics, recently people have been hotlinking like crazy. I wouldn't even have bothered but it was sucking up tons of bandwidth for just one pic. Probably because this is a popular forum and a topical thread.

I didn't want to have to use blocking methods because I'm all over the place and hotlink my own shit everywhere, but I guess now I have too. Would you believe porn sites hotlink non-porn images of Japanese singers I store on my site? So irritating.

It's also messing my stats up, with false leads. back in 1999 I never had to worry about hotlinking... now everyone and their dog has an internet identity and thinks they can freeload without paying the toll.

Anyway, thanks for not being a dick. Peace. :love:

Nice. Maybe I should make it a case where if the original owner comes in here complaining about hotlinkers that the hotlinkers get banned for a day. I dislike hotlinkers too. There are plenty of free image hosts so there really is no excuse.

As much as I want to continue an off-topic discussion, Whining goes here.

Regarding how many blocks a save game takes up, it's hard to tell, but if you have a 1+GB SD card, why bother to worry? If you fill your console with save slots (not including practically every Virtual Console game), come let me know so I can reward you for insanity.

Red Steel: It is what it is--a shooter using the Wii controls. You're used to the controls, have fun with a shooter; you're not used to the controls, get ready to whine and fuss.

Actually this kind of subject I wouldn't mind going here:

http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/board-support/

Actually, just replace the image with furry. Problem solved.

Yeah, how about no.

I went and edited Pom's post so it would no longer be a bandwidth menace to the Internet.

Also, I'm moving this to board support because although it might be a rare occurance I do think hotlinking should be a bannable offence. You fuckers need to stop being lazy.

Can't say i approve of this http://content.imagesocket.com/image...colbert03e.gif

Sorry @ web grl.

ur gonna get banned son~ >=|

Smaller sites yeah, but nobody can stop me hotlinking from those fat cats at IGN! I'm destroying them slowly, ssh, it's a secret. A fat cat secret. =)

Do you know where in the heirarchy of stupid bitching about image hotlinking is, Acer?

It's a step up from bitching about the spelling of Aeris vs Aerith, for one. (It's BEEN TEN YEARS)

It's below dismissing evolution as poor science by a group of people who have never had science outside of a high school level.

It's also below pro-lifers defending their choice to never adopt or foster other people's children.

It's above internet wars over who decided to be a purple-furred husky first.

But, it's below teenagers complaining of their ennui and suggesting that they might as well kill themselves.

I'd say it's right around the level of internet geeks taking pictures of themselves sans shirt.

http://www.stewarts.us/pics/events/P...th%20beard.jpg

This is the stratum you lie in, Acer. Observe yourself and weep.

lurker I'm going to ban you for being mean to Acer.

oh wait you're an admin

shit

Yeesh, I made a poll and thread for your opinions before I went and starting acting on the suggestion but you didn't have to be such an asshole. Really now, what's going on, lurker?

Yeah, that was mean. I should've censored it. That's too much gut for one jpeg, hotlinked or not.

Sorry Acer, my bad.

Stop it. You're ruining my chance to push an agenda. >=U

But your agenda, as I have said, is akin to fatbeards.

I propose we get rid of those too. Can we not find common ground? =o

I defend my right to link directly to fatbeards other than my own! It's not like they're using any of that bandwidth anyway, no one visits their sites.

GOOD, GOOD, THE FAT CAT LINKING IS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE. LIKE A TETRIS.

Yea, I guess professional web designers have no clue how to set up a filter when it comes to hotlinking. You know, allow sites to hotlink, while the rest gets denied?

Then again, I'm not a professional web designer, what do I know?

Can a professional webdesigner design a profesional webdesign, that's soooo professional, it'd make him realize it may be too professional of a webdesign and suddenly reflect that webdesigns are meant to not be so professional? Maybe that's how so many images remained free for hotlinking?

Guuuuys, this thread is for my agenda of making hotlinking a bannable offense. Let's talk about that. >=|

To be honest I don't see that much hotlinking (really, hardly any at all) that fails. Say, instead of the intended image you see "IMAGE ON TRIPOD LOL".

I get some of my images hotlinked alot but it creates endless fun when I swap out that image with something disgusting. Or put a watermark or logo in it's place. Free advertising. Though these would be reasons for not allowing it on the boards I guess.

Yes. Yiffy pokemon image time.

Really, I'd only put a ban in place for repeat tripod loool image offenders and when webhost owners come in complaining about hotlinkers. If the hotlinked image still works and noone is complaining then everything is Ecto Cooler.

I just install the firefox imageshack plugin. You can just right click on images and use "Upload to imageshack" which makes everything incredibly easy. It's probably the most useful tool I've downloaded next to gmail notifier.

Sometimes I notice there's nights here when "hotlinking for this domain has been disabled" is displaying in a few sigs. It's back to normal the next day, but it's almost as if IS blocks stuff temporarily. I dunno what's up with that.

Yeah, I don't know why it does that either. That's why I've been mostly uploading stuff to imagesocket these days.

My point was - most webmasters don't really care about hotlinking. If they do - they should just disable it. It's an easy procedure, really.

So no - don't ban people just because they hotlink.

Hell, spent some time banning people for trolling, that's something GFF needs.

I voted yes, but only contingent on the bans being temporary. I don't like the idea of a temp ban for something that isn't detrimental to the forum. Hotlinking isn't cool, because it amounts to bandwidth theft, but it really only affects the person hosting the image.

You want to punish posters because little girls with huge egos know how to check their traffic logs? What?

You're really giving the Aeris / Aerith fagdance a run for its money, here. This is not a good thing.

It would only be for a day at first and then more for repeat offenders. I probably should have mentioned that.

If it's a huge problem then maybe. I dunno. I guess they should just put filters on but I'd still listen to the request of removing hotlinked images if asked. In my opinion, you shouldn't be hotlinking to small personal sites unless they specifically state that they allow you to or they're already hosting their images on a free image host.

Oh come on I think I can do better than that. What's the next experience level on your e-fagdom scale? Let's go the distance.

Solution: Set up a GFF image host. However:

1) It would only allow GFF members to upload images and
2) The images would only load if the referer was Gamingforce.

Any thing in an [img] tag that isn't from this particular image site, or one of the other free ones like imagesocket or imageshack, would also not get displayed.

Too extreme? Of course. But if hotlinking ever really becomes a problem, it's what we should do. IMO.

That would chew through so much bandwidth like nobody's business.

I think this thread pretty much proves that since she's complaining about her image on the site. If she wasnt a one-timer, someone should ask her how much traffic that one image has consumed.

Are you asking a variant of the question "Is it possible for Jesus to make a burrito so hot that not even He could eat it?"

Because that's what I think you're asking.

Also, lols for dumb "professional web designers" who don't even know how to setup (incredibly simple) .htaccess filters to selectively allow hotlinking of files.

I hope it was clear that I intended to say that I don't like a permanent ban for something that isn't detrimental to the boards. A temp ban is fine, and although I felt the need to mention it, I had every confidence that you meant a temp ban. It just needed explicit clarification.

.htaccess? Don't these hosts come with CPanel or something that makes it a matter of seconds to set it up?

A little hard to do that when you don't have (access to) it.

Yeah, a permanant ban for that would be too much. It would be a 1 day ban and then for repeat offenders a 2-5 day ban. Something like that. I mean I hate hotlinkers and all but I'm not that much of a whiny pussy to up it to a week or a month or something. That's reserved for major forum infractions and Internet terrorists. http://content.imagesocket.com/images/emot_911d32.gif

You could still apply permanent bans. Just permanently ban the repetitive offenders. Hotlinking may not be 'detrimental' to the boards, but a repetitive annoyance is.

Well I think if they're that much of an asshole and don't get the picture they're more than likely to register a dupe account to ban evade and get permabanned anyway. But that just seems to be the latest trend these days so I dunno.

I admit I've hotlinked a few times, but now that I have a Firefox extension/Add-On to right-click and upload to Imageshack, there's no excuse for future hotlinking now :)

I would suggest:
1. A Warning reminding them of what they hotlinked and that it is against the rules, and any future hotlinking would result in a temp ban.
2. If they do it again, send a PM showing them the hotlinking in question, and letting them know that they are now temp-banned (Alternatively, it could be sent via email, or make a custom block-page with the explanation).
3. If it continued, deny them vbCode access & a week-long ban.
4. ????
5. Profit!

You can't ban people for hotlinking, that's just fucking petty. Who can ever be arsed to save an image to your own host just for the purpose of a quick joke?

http://content.imagesocket.com/image...irbysig0c1.gif
http://content.imagesocket.com/image...irbysig0c1.gif
http://content.imagesocket.com/image...irbysig0c1.gif
http://content.imagesocket.com/image...irbysig0c1.gif
http://content.imagesocket.com/image...irbysig0c1.gif
http://content.imagesocket.com/image...irbysig0c1.gif
http://content.imagesocket.com/image...irbysig0c1.gif

I couldn't agree more with Shin.

http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/cu...vatar11_28.gifhttp://www.gamingforce.com/forums/cu...vatar11_28.gifhttp://www.gamingforce.com/forums/cu...vatar11_28.gifhttp://www.gamingforce.com/forums/cu...vatar11_28.gifhttp://www.gamingforce.com/forums/cu...vatar11_28.gifhttp://www.gamingforce.com/forums/cu...vatar11_28.gif

http://content.imagesocket.com/image...defense4c7.gif http://content.imagesocket.com/images/ani_mattaf70.gif http://content.imagesocket.com/images/ani_kurae7af.gif
http://content.imagesocket.com/images/ani_kurae7af.gif http://content.imagesocket.com/image...defense4c7.gif http://content.imagesocket.com/images/ani_mattaf70.gif
http://content.imagesocket.com/images/ani_mattaf70.gif http://content.imagesocket.com/images/ani_kurae7af.gif http://content.imagesocket.com/image...defense4c7.gif

The problem with hotlinking is it doesn't show an image on certain user's browsers for WHATEVER WACKY REASON THERE COULD BE WITH THAT PERSON'S COMPUTER SYSTEM BROWSER. And when you combine that state of being with moderator/administrator powers, you'd best have that doom song handy from Invader Zim.

So, today, within the remainder of year 2006, and some additional time beyond, hotlinking can be a bannable offense if you piss off the mod/admin who can't see your image. Multiple times.

I also think it's rather ridiculous, but let's just pretend, "What if hotlinking did become a permanent/temporary bannable offense?"

So what I don't understand is how mods are going to know what is hotlink and what is not. The way I see it, they would either ban anyone not linking images from "approved" sites (GFF, Imageshack), but then that would slap those in the face that host from their own private servers. Unless there was a script that would add the URL entered as the homepage in the users' profile, it would be a bit of extra work to make a judgment call on each and every image.

So if you are going to ban hot linking, you might as well just ban people from adding images to posts using the [img][/img] tag, that way, nobody would get mad at being singled out for having a one-off image host.

In all honesty though, I think that unless it is having a negative effect on bandwidth, or webmasters are complaining it shouldn't be a priority.

Then why not just make it a requirement to place a URL to the image path below every image posted? Granted it probably wouldn't matter either way because that can't see it, but at least they could try viewing the image directly.

So you want to ban people to prevent broken images, is that what you're saying?

At the cost of sounding like a cliche, aren't there better reasons to ban people for?