RPG:
#426 posted by metlslime on 2004/10/06 19:27:42
so, i write an algorithm that can tell when someone should be banned, whether a thread is worthy of being news, etc?
Precisely
#427 posted by R.P.G. on 2004/10/06 19:49:27
But I understand that your time is limited due to your pursuit of glasses-wearing Asian babes, so I would settle just for requiring a timelimit of 24 hours before allowing a new user to post threads.
I'm betting that most people who want to make a useful new thread have probably been visiting the forum for a while, and thus would not mind waiting 24 hours to start a thread. They'll be coming back to check on the forum anyway, so waiting a day will not cause them to forget about the topic.
#428 posted by - on 2004/10/06 20:03:32
so, what you're saying is we should become further enthralled in our cause to drive away newbies by enforcing the old boy's club?
Approving Threads
#429 posted by Jago on 2004/10/06 20:13:58
I think it would be a good idea to make "unupproved threads" visible to the general public in some separate, but easily visible link on the menu. After the thread gets a number (say 5) of approvements from forum posters, it gets added to the main thread list.
#430 posted by - on 2004/10/06 21:01:05
you mean, once the poster creates 5 dummie accounts and approves his own thread. or a coder posting his new mod project pimp finds 5 friends to come vote. or 5 of our own anarchist idiots vote yes.
i don't like the idea, but the idea of unapproved threads being visible to all sounds good to me.
Unapproved Threads
#431 posted by pushplay on 2004/10/06 22:29:46
But I'm going to visit all those anyways and I bet most people would. That's just unecessary clicks for me and unecessary work for mods.
#432 posted by - on 2004/10/06 22:39:22
the point being that the unapproved threads wouldn't have posts allowed, and we'd be able to rid the shit threads easily.
Hmm....
#433 posted by metlslime on 2004/10/06 22:45:12
some interesting ideas.
Metlslime...
#434 posted by - on 2004/10/06 22:51:10
get on irc, I need to speak with you privately about something I think you've been missing in this whole issue.
Scampie:
#435 posted by metlslime on 2004/10/07 05:25:22
uh, i guess you'll have to mail me.
Scampie
#436 posted by R.P.G. on 2004/10/07 17:31:40
so, what you're saying is we should become further enthralled in our cause to drive away newbies by enforcing the old boy's club?
Wait. What've you been smoking?
If someone wants to post a meaningful thread, they're already part of the club. There is effectively no waiting period because they've already joined.
Furthermore, I would argue that having a thread-approval system would further increase strife and the supposed old boys club. We get into the position of you (meaning scampie) disapproving a thread, and spouting off harshly at the creator. This creates division. This would be especially true about threads that are in the gray area of worth.
Furthermore, this also puts forth the opportunity for power abuse, which you have already shown us that you (scampie) are capable of and even relish in.
This is why I dislike the concept of approving threads.
#437 posted by - on 2004/10/07 18:44:50
power abuse
which is why I suggested the system of checks and balence of everyone being able to see unapproved threads, and the ability to make any post, which would include rejected threads, into a thread so any strong disagreement could be fixed.
I hate the idea of forcing everyone to reg a free account, and wait any period of time, just to post. We have plenty of regulars who don't even have accounts, or don't like to log into them. The board should remain open, I'd just like to see moderation play a larger part in making things work smoothly.
And Along With Moderation...
#438 posted by - on 2004/10/07 18:47:52
a better, well defined set of 'rules' in the FAQ so that everyone, including mods, knows what stands and what doesn't.
Just To Be Clear,
#439 posted by HeadThump on 2004/10/07 19:05:11
if the cookies are working and showing my screen name and new post enumeration, I'm logged in right?
HeadThump
#440 posted by Kell on 2004/10/07 19:37:10
if it at the top of the page, just under the logo at the end, it says Log Out then you're probably logged in.
Thanks, I'm Good To Go Then
#441 posted by HeadThump on 2004/10/07 19:51:08
Hmm
#442 posted by DaZ on 2004/10/08 18:46:26
maybe have no approval of new threads, but give power to remove threads to the mods, maybe if a thread has not been deleted after 24 hours if cannot be deleted. This would let mods & the users decide a threads fate relatively quickly.
#443 posted by - on 2004/10/08 21:00:16
deletion is bad, and if people start talking on the thread, it's not easy to move it without losing the posts.
Is It Possible To...
#444 posted by Jago on 2004/10/22 11:05:48
...get an "edit post" button/link?
No...
#445 posted by metlslime on 2004/10/22 18:15:30
the best you can hope for is a "preview post" button/link.
Metlslime
#446 posted by pushplay on 2004/10/22 20:41:37
Maybe you could just have a js popup warning people when they didn't close their q tag and probably suck at teh InTerNet.
Testing:
#447 posted by necros on 2004/11/18 15:31:25
http://blitz.circa1984.com/Blitz%20-%20Soul%20of%20a%20Parasite%20(In%20Memory%20of%20Vlad).mp3
http://blitz.circa1984.com/Blitz%20-%20Soul%20of%20a%20Parasite%20In%20Memory%20of%20Vlad).mp3
jkheopiuwerupoiu2487dfoifjpoi45870987bv(kjhelkjwhncfkjhwclerukh)
jkheopiuweruposfasflkj;sdlkjfs;ldk%f;lfddsksjdf;lk%iu2487dfo%fjpoi4587098%7bv(kjhelkjwhncfk%hwclerukh)
jkheopiuweruposfasflkj;sdlkjfs;ldk%20f;lfddsksjdf;lk%20iu2487dfo%20fjpoi4587098%207bv(kjhelkjwhncfk%20hwclerukh)
Test2
#448 posted by necros on 2004/11/18 15:32:06
Hm... What Makes That Link Work Then?
#449 posted by necros on 2004/11/18 15:32:25
?
Doesn't Work For Me...
#450 posted by metlslime on 2004/11/18 19:32:41
I get a DNS error.
|