#2210 posted by muk on 2017/06/17 18:44:04
BRO I READ 1984 AND THIS IS HOW IT STARTS.
GO AWAY THOUGHT POLICE
/s
Idea
#2211 posted by khreathor on 2017/06/17 18:52:14
We can always apply this limit to mugwump only.
...and maybe to spam bots later :D
#2212 posted by Mugwump on 2017/06/17 20:09:17
I was about to not even dignify such utter bullshit but there is something to address here. Of course Mukor is absolutely right but it goes beyond that: this is a forum, a place to exchange and discuss ideas. The fact that a handful of sad excuses for human beings persistently turn everything I say into dragging moronic OT feuds is not my responsibility and I certainly won't take the fall for it. Is this clear enough?
What I've said since I'm back may not be to the liking of some but it is relevant, for the most part. That's what I meant when I said I'd be less chatty (well, besides effectively being less present on week days): more on topic, less digressive than I used to be.
And please, cut me some slack, will you? I'm excited to be back after so long despite the toxic people, it's the weekend so I have time and there's a lot for me to catch up. Don't worry, my logorrhoea will tone down. Case closed.
#2213 posted by muk on 2017/06/17 21:24:55
Small amount of brownie points awarded to mugwump for the use of logorrhoea
Haha
#2214 posted by Mugwump on 2017/06/17 21:40:10
Yes, I do have some vocabulary that exceeds monosyllables. To be fair, I had to check the english spelling before posting, though...
Errrrr What Does #2209 Refer To??
#2215 posted by Shambler on 2017/06/19 12:25:32
I think a MINIMUM posting limit would be better. It's good to have action and a vibe going on on this forum, hype for Quake, it's user content, it's contemporary games and modern games from the perspective of all of us who appreciate the Quake "perspective" on gaming.
#2216 posted by Rick on 2017/06/19 16:16:42
I don't think a minimum posting limit would work.
#2217 posted by Rick on 2017/06/19 16:17:19
I don't know if I could could up with enough to say.
#2218 posted by Rick on 2017/06/19 16:18:17
If there was a minimum posting limit that is.
#2219 posted by Rick on 2017/06/19 16:19:08
Action and vibe is good and more perspectives are good.
#2220 posted by Rick on 2017/06/19 16:25:10
So is hype for Quake. I didn't mean to leave that out.
Ban Rick.
#2221 posted by Shambler on 2017/06/19 19:46:46
Problem solved.
How About
#2222 posted by PRITCHARD on 2017/06/20 09:36:46
Instead of banning Rick, we ban dumb ideas?
Interestingly though, if Shambler had spread their 5618 posts relatively evenly over the past 14-and-a-bit years they've spent on the site, they would survive the minimum post ban! Assuming that the ban was "Post once per day or else!".
So would I, actually...
#2223 posted by anonymous user on 2017/06/21 14:42:48
Been away from my main computer for about a month or two, and when I wanted to see what I had missed at func I found myself logged out, and when I wanted to log back in I got this warning in Firefox (and my OS is up to date, including Firefox):
This connection is not secure. Logins entered here could be compromised
So far I've got this warning only here. And I'm scared to log back in now. Should I be?
No Worries
#2224 posted by sevin on 2017/06/21 19:13:54
I get that warning every time I try to login with 1Password.
#2225 posted by metlslime on 2017/06/22 05:50:12
It's a new warning in Firefox, but nothing has actually changed -- func doesn't use https so passwords are not sent encrypted over the Internet. This has been true since the beginning. However, the password is only sent once and then func uses a cookie to keep you logged in. The contents of the cookie are hashed. Long story short, this is not a super secure website so don't use the same password here as your bank account etc.
#2226 posted by Mugwump on 2017/06/22 06:11:25
func doesn't use https
Any specific reason why not?
HTTPS Is More Work
#2227 posted by PRITCHARD on 2017/06/23 03:57:14
It used to cost money to get a HTTPS certificate, although services like Let's Encrypt seem to have done away with that hurdle. Still, it's another thing about the site that has to be maintained and set up...
#2228 posted by anonymous user on 2017/06/23 07:02:31
there's a bug with creating new user accounts since the server upgrade. (gives an error and fails.) I'm investigating it now.
^^^^ That Was Me
#2229 posted by metlslime on 2017/06/23 07:02:54
#2230 posted by metlslime on 2017/06/24 00:26:51
"register account" should work now. The problem was the new version of mysql didn't allow dates of 0000-00-00, which func was using as a default for some fields. Changed it to 1000-01-01 which works again.
Can't Login Still
#2231 posted by DelusionalBear on 2017/06/24 00:54:25
what about already registered accounts? I'm registered as DelusionalBear, can't login still, gives me an error: "ERROR: Login failure. Check your spelling and try again."
DelusionalBear
#2232 posted by metlslime on 2017/06/24 01:04:29
There is no user by that name. perhaps you registered during the time that registration process was broken? Anyway, try registering again.
Metl Is Ur Email Working??
#2234 posted by Shambler on 2017/06/27 23:17:18
Forwarded you an email which is beyond my capabilities.
|