Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Arantor
3151
Off-topic / Re: Been away for a while alot has changed
« on June 11th, 2012, 02:40 AM »
Hi and welcome back :)
It'd be interesting to see you download it, seeing that we haven't made a public release yet as per http://wedge.org/pub/6960/when-can-i-download-wedge-where-can-i-download-wedge/
But we have definitely tried to make it all run nicely together and feel integrated.
It'd be interesting to see you download it, seeing that we haven't made a public release yet as per http://wedge.org/pub/6960/when-can-i-download-wedge-where-can-i-download-wedge/
But we have definitely tried to make it all run nicely together and feel integrated.
3152
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on June 10th, 2012, 05:14 PM »(Crap, I'm unable to find in the admin area where I can set up, locally, the need to confirm my password when accessing the admin area... I tried to search for 'admin', but it didn't find anything...)
We certainly should consider accessing the boardseen cache thoroughly when posting. We've been discussing this yesterday somewhere else -- it just doesn't make sense at all, this feature in SMF... And if the Wedge authors don't understand it, maybe it needs some more work.
I agree that the board-is-read stuff should be better cached, but I'm not entirely clear right now exactly best to achieve that.
At what point does a board become entirely read? When there are no topics with unread items in?
Also... Woohoo, bug?
Found this in the post below the one I just replied...
It doesn't have the single quotes. But they're definitely in there internally. It also shows that way in Preview mode...
3153
Features / Re: Need some help on a UI matter
« on June 10th, 2012, 04:23 PM »
Actually, I don't have much of a choice on this one. The ban system in its present form doesn't work (due to IPv6 support) and I have absolutely zero intention of trying to reverse engineer that to make it work. This, then, is how banning users is ultimately going to work (it's how it's going to HAVE to work), and some other stuff that I still need to do is the other stuff required to make banning work properly.
Besides, as I've explained at length elsewhere, banning isn't actually that effective at getting rid of miscreants, and I know from experience that what I have in mind will actually work more effectively in the long run. It's just how to present that to users.
Really, this isn't a 'new' feature I just randomly just pulled out of my ass, this is something I talked about months ago that I wanted to implement and I still haven't figured out how to do a nice interface for it.Quote Actually, I think you might have something there.Quote That's actually sort of how SMF does it currently, but it's quite subtle. The default moderation level is 35%, with post ban at 60%. Other than admin intervention it requires 2 moderators to initiate moderation and 3 to post ban, because the default limit is 20% warning per moderator. And really, that's the sort of problem that needs to be addressed - you want to be able to give some moderators the ability to warn over signatures and avatars and stuff and remove them from public view, without giving them the ability to remove posting rights and stuff like that.
Mind you, a single moderator can issue a 20% warning per person per day, so it would entirely be possible for a single board moderator to post-ban someone over the course of 3 days or so. (4, if we take into account the per-day drop-off of 5% by default)Quote I don't really plan to extend it to everything, I think that's going a bit far - but making it pluggable was of course on my to-do list.Quote You know what? I'm getting the feeling that this would work better than having % ranges anyway...
After all, I've never been overly happy with the percentages anyway.
Besides, as I've explained at length elsewhere, banning isn't actually that effective at getting rid of miscreants, and I know from experience that what I have in mind will actually work more effectively in the long run. It's just how to present that to users.
Really, this isn't a 'new' feature I just randomly just pulled out of my ass, this is something I talked about months ago that I wanted to implement and I still haven't figured out how to do a nice interface for it.
I've been thinking about this, something like points system instead of a 0-100% linear scale might be better here, this is somewhat similar to a RPG's skill system
so a local moderator cannot ban the hell out of an user because that user pissed him off
Mind you, a single moderator can issue a 20% warning per person per day, so it would entirely be possible for a single board moderator to post-ban someone over the course of 3 days or so. (4, if we take into account the per-day drop-off of 5% by default)
PS : It'll be cool to be able to specify infraction for every permission instead of pre-defined sets, and of course, it should be plugable so that a normal mod can extend it to according to it's will.
Now on the admin side, an admin can specify which infraction has how many points and the membergroup limits of points, the moderator/global moderator can see his/her options while issuing an infraction in a simplified list and/or report the user to senior member with a reason (if he/she feels the user should have a level of infraction that is beyond his/her range).
* Arantor goes away to mull it over.
After all, I've never been overly happy with the percentages anyway.
3154
Plugins / Re: Monthly Statistics on Profile
« on June 10th, 2012, 03:52 PM »
There IS a like button, you know :P
3155
Off-topic / Re: Bitcointalk.org $11k bounty for new forum software
« on June 10th, 2012, 03:52 PM »
Well... here's the thing, it's not $11k actual cash. It's $11k's worth of toy money. And for the amount of time it would require, I could easily earn $11k of actually usable money.
Toy money is only as valuable as anyone is willing to pay to convert it to real money.
Toy money is only as valuable as anyone is willing to pay to convert it to real money.
3156
Plugins / Re: Monthly Statistics on Profile
« on June 10th, 2012, 04:20 AM »
Well, the profile area needs a desperate overhaul but neither Nao nor I really know what to do with it. Outside of a few specific things, it's very much the red-headed step-child.
Nice going, though, I like it :)
Nice going, though, I like it :)
3157
Features / Re: Need some help on a UI matter
« on June 10th, 2012, 02:30 AM »
See, here's the thing. I can think of cases where you might warn someone 35% because of a really annoying avatar (say they already have 25% warning and you just want to give them a 10% warning), and at 35% the options might be 'remove avatar', 'remove signature' and 'moderate posts', but you only want to remove their avatar. Would be a bit extreme to start moderation just because of their avatar.
But at the same time, I want to be able to give a better range of options for dealing with miscreants. Wait until you see some of the other more fun options I have in the mix :niark:
But at the same time, I want to be able to give a better range of options for dealing with miscreants. Wait until you see some of the other more fun options I have in the mix :niark:
3158
Features / Re: Need some help on a UI matter
« on June 10th, 2012, 02:19 AM »
It isn't, but I'm also buffed (+1 attitude, -1d6 intelligence) on alcohol so it's entirely possible I'm not explaining myself very well.
3159
Features / Re: Need some help on a UI matter
« on June 10th, 2012, 02:12 AM »
No... I resolved the part where admins get to issue the per-person sanctions. It's the admin area where they overall configure this, where they say what % is for what thing.
3160
Features / Re: Need some help on a UI matter
« on June 10th, 2012, 02:00 AM »
....
You know that's *exactly* why I'm asking, right? I already figured out how the issue-warning stuff would work, it's how the admin gets to configure the options for what is to be applied when!
You know that's *exactly* why I'm asking, right? I already figured out how the issue-warning stuff would work, it's how the admin gets to configure the options for what is to be applied when!
3161
Features / Re: Need some help on a UI matter
« on June 10th, 2012, 01:42 AM »
If I were going to limit it to temp bans etc, I need do absolutely nothing because SMF had all that so we too have all that. The point is: it isn't enough.
Banning doesn't work, slamming the door in someone's face doesn't make them go away, it makes them mad, and most of the time it makes them push back, so we need something more gradual. The whole point is to have a much greater range of options than merely watch/moderate/post-ban/full ban. Users that have annoying signatures or annoying avatars and keep doing it can be prevented from having those things, for example. There's also other measures I have planned that I don't want to reveal (but essentially more options like that)
Now, to do what I'm suggesting would be a pain to work in pure percentages, since it would be insane to have:
* no signature at 10% warning
* no avatar at 15% warning
* other stuff at 20%
* other stuff at 25%
* post moderation at 35%
* other stuff at 40%
* post ban at 60%
* full ban at 80%
Sometimes you'll want to moderate, sometimes you'll just want to remove avatars or signatures - think of it as a method of user-specific permissions.
The underlying structure of that goal isn't really up for debate, it's really about how we present it to the user - and presenting it almost no differently to what SMF has is also not really what I want to do.
Banning doesn't work, slamming the door in someone's face doesn't make them go away, it makes them mad, and most of the time it makes them push back, so we need something more gradual. The whole point is to have a much greater range of options than merely watch/moderate/post-ban/full ban. Users that have annoying signatures or annoying avatars and keep doing it can be prevented from having those things, for example. There's also other measures I have planned that I don't want to reveal (but essentially more options like that)
Now, to do what I'm suggesting would be a pain to work in pure percentages, since it would be insane to have:
* no signature at 10% warning
* no avatar at 15% warning
* other stuff at 20%
* other stuff at 25%
* post moderation at 35%
* other stuff at 40%
* post ban at 60%
* full ban at 80%
Sometimes you'll want to moderate, sometimes you'll just want to remove avatars or signatures - think of it as a method of user-specific permissions.
The underlying structure of that goal isn't really up for debate, it's really about how we present it to the user - and presenting it almost no differently to what SMF has is also not really what I want to do.
3162
Features / Need some help on a UI matter
« on June 10th, 2012, 12:22 AM »
OK, so I've been wrestling with a new feature and it's been annoying me because I can't find a UI I actually like. Let me explain - maybe something will occur to you, maybe you'll hate the idea entirely (in which case I'd love to hear an alternative)
I want to gut the current warning system to something more powerful, and in so doing I want to have it set up so that you can warn people and do things selectively.
So that you can remove a user's avatar, signature, moderate their posts, prevent them from posting, prevent them from logging in, and a few other things. The problem is how to manage all those options, it's bad enough with the three levels of moderation as it stands and this would make it worse.
So in response, I sat down with a couple of colleagues of mine who know far more about good UI than I do and thrashed it out and what we came up with is that you could turn on/off each type of sanction, then set a minimum level of % warning for it to be applied at, and then some control as to who would be able to apply that sanction.
So, for example, the default might be:
* Remove user avatar (off by default)
* Remove user signature (off by default)
* Moderate all users posts (available at 35% warning, any moderator can apply)
* Prevent user from posting (available at 60% warning, any moderator can apply)
* Prevent user from logging in (available at 80% warning, admins only)
Then in the issue warning area, you'd have the slider as currently, but instead of it telling you what action would happen, you'd get tickboxes to apply that sanction at the relevant % warning, so if you had an issue at 0% warning, there would be no options, but give them a 40% warning, and you'd have a tickbox to activate moderation.
If you were an admin and pushed it straight to 100%, you'd get all the options (moderation, post ban, full ban)
The issue warning screen is easy enough but I can't figure out how to make the admin screen not look like a mess. Or, for that matter, how to set it up as being anything other than 'admins' or 'anyone who can issue a warning' as the choices for who can apply certain sanctions.
Oh, and by the way, do note that I have a few ideas I'm not sharing here just yet for other things that can be done to user accounts (so we're not just talking the aforementioned half a dozen options or so, but it's realistically nearer to 10, so it needs to be quite lean), you'll understand why I'm not sharing when it's done, I don't want to influence anyone on a side track as to the options for dealing with troublemakers, the point here is to nail down the user interface side of it.
Would appreciate some thoughts on this.
I want to gut the current warning system to something more powerful, and in so doing I want to have it set up so that you can warn people and do things selectively.
So that you can remove a user's avatar, signature, moderate their posts, prevent them from posting, prevent them from logging in, and a few other things. The problem is how to manage all those options, it's bad enough with the three levels of moderation as it stands and this would make it worse.
So in response, I sat down with a couple of colleagues of mine who know far more about good UI than I do and thrashed it out and what we came up with is that you could turn on/off each type of sanction, then set a minimum level of % warning for it to be applied at, and then some control as to who would be able to apply that sanction.
So, for example, the default might be:
* Remove user avatar (off by default)
* Remove user signature (off by default)
* Moderate all users posts (available at 35% warning, any moderator can apply)
* Prevent user from posting (available at 60% warning, any moderator can apply)
* Prevent user from logging in (available at 80% warning, admins only)
Then in the issue warning area, you'd have the slider as currently, but instead of it telling you what action would happen, you'd get tickboxes to apply that sanction at the relevant % warning, so if you had an issue at 0% warning, there would be no options, but give them a 40% warning, and you'd have a tickbox to activate moderation.
If you were an admin and pushed it straight to 100%, you'd get all the options (moderation, post ban, full ban)
The issue warning screen is easy enough but I can't figure out how to make the admin screen not look like a mess. Or, for that matter, how to set it up as being anything other than 'admins' or 'anyone who can issue a warning' as the choices for who can apply certain sanctions.
Oh, and by the way, do note that I have a few ideas I'm not sharing here just yet for other things that can be done to user accounts (so we're not just talking the aforementioned half a dozen options or so, but it's realistically nearer to 10, so it needs to be quite lean), you'll understand why I'm not sharing when it's done, I don't want to influence anyone on a side track as to the options for dealing with troublemakers, the point here is to nail down the user interface side of it.
Would appreciate some thoughts on this.
3163
Other software / Re: Finally, they've made an announcement
« on June 8th, 2012, 10:36 PM »
I feel like I slacked off, put it that way, even if it was life getting in the way.
3164
Other software / Re: Finally, they've made an announcement
« on June 8th, 2012, 10:05 PM »
I think I did due to everything else going on :(
3165
Other software / Re: Finally, they've made an announcement
« on June 8th, 2012, 09:58 PM »
I've been estimating 2015 for some kind of stable release.