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. 

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. 

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. 

the point being that the unapproved threads wouldn't have posts allowed, and we'd be able to rid the shit threads easily. 

some interesting ideas. 

get on irc, I need to speak with you privately about something I think you've been missing in this whole issue. 

uh, i guess you'll have to mail me. 

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. 

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. 

a better, well defined set of 'rules' in the FAQ so that everyone, including mods, knows what stands and what doesn't. 

if the cookies are working and showing my screen name and new post enumeration, I'm logged in right? 

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. 

 

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. 

deletion is bad, and if people start talking on the thread, it's not easy to move it without losing the posts. 

...get an "edit post" button/link? 

the best you can hope for is a "preview post" button/link. 

Maybe you could just have a js popup warning people when they didn't close their q tag and probably suck at teh InTerNet. 

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) 

http://www.kshfaliwuygqoiu%202308987jfr9ysfd%20khdfwkjerfhlwekjrhn%20kihrefkhelrkhl%20.zzz 

? 

I get a DNS error. 

hmm, i'm not sure exactly.

I did make a change about 2 days ago to allow hyphens as word breaks. So-a-long-string-like-this-no-longer-gets-truncated-by-the-board. But that URL only has one hyphen, so it should still get truncated. Maybe my new regular expression doesn't actually do what i thought it did :P

http://blitz.circa1984.com/Blitz%20%20Soul%20of%20a%20Parasite%20(In%20Memory%20of%20Vlad).mp3 

Test-this+is+a+long+string+of+letters+with+only+one+hyphen+in+it+so+it+should+still+get+truncated. 

Metlslime-I-dont-think-you-should-have-mentioned-that-long-strings-like-this-don't-get-truncated-by-the-board-I-have-a-feeling-someone-may-abuse -it-or-exploit-it