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 - xrunner
106
Features / Re: Splitting a topic, keeping the origin
« on May 21st, 2013, 01:04 AM »
I would tend to agree that it would be useful. Many times trying to do a good split is not always easy if a lot of posts have accumulated. Also the rumblings and so on leading up to the reason for the split are contained in the posts that would be left in the original topic - i.e. you can't always do a perfect split anyway - so I would lean toward this being a useful way to see how the split topic came to be.
107
Off-topic / Re: Excuses for turniing off all Personal Messages
« on May 20th, 2013, 02:09 AM »
Quote from Arantor on May 20th, 2013, 01:51 AM
I've had PM spam, on sm.org. I still get people asking for help because they can't read my signature or somehow think it doesn't apply to them, though it's not as bad as it used to be.
Well, we all here (probably) know people don't read notices. -_-
Quote
I do know that some forums get a lot of PM spam, and that it's actually worse on some platforms than others (phpBB historically had a much higher incidence of PM spam than SMF has, as platforms) but I have no reason as to *why* that should be. Maybe they had a spate of it a while ago and blocked it against future occurrences, which is a valid way to go about things.
My reasoning to them was that spammers won't waste time PMing each member because it's very inefficient. Better to get an ad in a signature or post so it can be there for all to reach.
Quote
More broadly, there is an argument - which is also valid, I'll add - that as the host, they are responsible for content that is on their domain. Businesses are naturally more sensitive to 'liability' and take the view that if they can't see it (like SMF, phpBB frowns on viewing PMs), they could be liable for it if it is illegal, so prevent it. It may be that the spam issue was enough to encourage them to just stop it in all cases.
If that's the issue then all I ask is of them is honesty - not some lame excuse that spammers are PMing all the members. This is a forum where I know they don't understand how to stop spammers. So I believe they over-reacted at one point in time and went nutters with denying permissions.

Case in point - they used to have a "birthday" list at the bottom of the phpBB forum. Well, as time went on guess what you would see in this list? About ~100 spammer membernames who just happened to have a birthday every day. Go figure. I told them about it and they turned it off but I never got any thanks for it. >:(
Quote
(Wedge makes it crazy-easy to do so, btw. There's a button to turn off PMs entirely should folks want to do so, but there are reasons why that's there, and they're not for spam.)
Well that's good to know, but  don't plan on turning it off. :)

Side question about PMs ...

I know how to read PMs because I've looked into it on my test forum database. I do not read PMs on my main forum. But I do know it's really not that hard to do. Do you personally think that a declaration should be in the registration agreement by default that it's possible that personal messages could be read by Admins who have access to Cpanel? I.e., there is no inherent security of member's PMs?
108
Off-topic / Excuses for turniing off all Personal Messages
« on May 20th, 2013, 01:42 AM »
I am a member of a forum that supports the electronic parts, kits, and discussions of a certain company. The forum is phpBB  - not that it matters. They do not allow ANY personal messages. I wanted to PM several members but it frustrated the hell out of me so much that I posted a question about it in their administrative area. The claim was that they turned off the PMs because of "spam" issues. I told them I had never in years been sent spam via a PM, and I run a forum so I would know about this issue.

I proceeded to dump what knowledge I had about spam, which is not too shabby really, but to no avail.

Does anyone here think their excuse for not allowing PMs is a pile of doo-doo? I personally think they are, for some reason, afraid of people communicating with each other in a manner that they cannot see.

109
Test board / Re: xrunner's testing thread (anyone is invited of course)
« on May 19th, 2013, 01:35 AM »
Nested Spoilers w/footnotes & spoilers

(click to show/hide)
A[1]
(click to show/hide)
B[2]
(click to show/hide)
C[3]
 1. First spoiler footnote
(click to show/hide)
1st spoiler footnote spoiler
 2. Second spoiler footnote
(click to show/hide)
2nd spoiler footnote spoiler
 3. Third spoiler footnote
(click to show/hide)
3rd spoiler footnote spoiler


110
Archived fixes / Error Message Displayed When Replying
« on May 18th, 2013, 07:17 PM »
FYI:

Message icon /
Notice: Undefined index: privacy in Themes/default/Post.template.php on line 365
/ Subject:
111
Test board / Re: xrunner's testing thread (anyone is invited of course)
« on May 18th, 2013, 02:46 AM »
Bold

Italics

Underline

Strikeout
Quote
Bold

Italics

Underline

Strikeout
(click to show/hide)
Bold

Italics

Underline

Strikeout

  • Bold
  • Italics
  • Underline
  • Strikeout

Bold Italics Underline Strikeout
112
Off-topic / Re: Oh, I meant to share this a while ago
« on May 18th, 2013, 01:02 AM »
Quote from Arantor on May 17th, 2013, 08:44 PM
Oh, I'm not saying it doesn't have a use. Simply that we (spoogs and I, can't vouch for anyone else) don't have a lot of use for it.
Acknowledged.

Follow-up question if I may. If the member list function/retrieval process worked in a previous version of this vBulletin, why might they have removed the "feature"? It seems like it is a rather benign sort of computing process - getting together a memberlist. Do you think they considered removing it an improvement, or do you think other "improvements" in other areas may have broken it and they didn't have time to fix it? In other words have you any insight into why something like a member list would be removed?

Thanks.
113
Off-topic / Re: Oh, I meant to share this a while ago
« on May 17th, 2013, 08:42 PM »
OK guys. :bah:

I always use the member list to look at things such as sorting it by registration date, number of replies, last logon time,last logon date,  position ... I look at those lists to learn what is going on with my members. Maybe I'm too anal retentive but I use it a lot.
114
Off-topic / Re: Oh, I meant to share this a while ago
« on May 17th, 2013, 08:30 PM »
I'm still not understanding something. A forum has members. The list of members has to be in the database. So how can there not be a member's list - a table in the database? Isn't it by definition a requirement to have a list of members? How can you keep track of who's a member of the forum if you don't have that? What am I not understanding here? I know I must be sounding incredibly stupid but I really don't follow why a member's list would not/could not be provided extremely easily.
115
Off-topic / Re: Oh, I meant to share this a while ago
« on May 17th, 2013, 07:50 PM »
OK, this has been bugging the hell out of me since yesterday. How can there not be a member's list? Isn't that like one of the most basic things a forum has to have - the list of members? Duh. How can it even operate without it?
116
Test board / Re: xrunner's testing thread (anyone is invited of course)
« on May 17th, 2013, 03:24 AM »
Entire quote with footnotes as a footnote.[1]


Super Super

Sub Sub

 1. 
Quote from xrunner on May 9th, 2013, 01:36 AM
Since I can't go behind the curtains I will test some things here, and also because I have too much free time. :)

This is a sentence [1]
 1.  this is footnote #1[1]
 1. this is footnote #2[1]
 1. this is footnote #3[1]
 1. this is a smily :whistle:[1]
 1. the text is shrinking ...
117
Test board / Re: xrunner's testing thread (anyone is invited of course)
« on May 17th, 2013, 01:09 AM »
Quote from live627 on May 17th, 2013, 12:36 AM
coz i'm invited :P

Have a free drinkmention @xrunner
Back at ya @live627

Testing @1q2w3e4r

^^^ testing a non-existent membername.

I notice that in the preview pane the mentions, both to a real member and non-existent member, are not "live" links, but the mention in the quote is "live".
118
Off-topic / Re: Oh, I meant to share this a while ago
« on May 16th, 2013, 09:09 PM »
No members list? Huh? And you have to pay over $200 for it? :lol:
119
Off-topic / Re: Forum Rules
« on May 16th, 2013, 06:34 PM »
Quote from Oracle on May 16th, 2013, 07:31 AM
I'm somewhat perplexed as to why additional rules are sought as the majority are covered during signup via registration agreement?
Certainly the registration agreement is a set of rules. Are the majority covered? That depends on the forum and it's tone and subject matter. Let's take a look at just the first sentence from the default SMF Registration agreement - [1]

"You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law."

There's a lot of reading between the lines you could do with that sentence. What does "defamatory" mean with respect to a forum? How about "hateful"?

For example - "invasive of a person's privacy". What does that really refer to? Their real name? Their birthday? How many cats they own? Where they live? What they said on a completely different forum under a different membername? Anything at all you can manage to dig up about a member you can just dump it all in a post?

I've had pages of discussions about that meaning as regards what is and isn't acceptable to post about members, such as information gathered from other sources about people. That's the problem. That's what the rules are for - to explain between the lines. Yes, yes I know, it could all be jammed into the registration agreement, but if nobody reads it now, then surely nobody would read it if it was even longer.

So, the rules explain more of what is expected after you register. That's how I've always looked at them. Like a Federal Agency. They pass laws that create the agency, and top level laws it has to operate under. But no set of laws can possibly explain all the things the agency has to act on. Those other things are the regulations and guidelines the agency makes under the law that established it.

Registration Agreement = Top level "laws"

Rules = lower lever regulations and guidelines
Quote from Nao on May 16th, 2013, 10:50 AM
I think that most of the time, you just want people to understand that they should be... "not evil", and "not stupid".
The rest is up to the moderator's taste, but that's what 'warnings' are for.
Perhaps that's a way to go. I've never tried it.
Quote
I'm afraid I left 95% of the forums I registered to, and while most of these 95% are for the simplest of reasons (lost interest), so many of them were due to being uncomfortable posting there... Either because I felt the rules were too harsh, or simply because I didn't feel welcomed (or no longer welcomed).
I know exactly what you are taking about. :-/
 1. Yes I'm aware it can be modified
120
Off-topic / Re: Forum Rules
« on May 16th, 2013, 02:08 AM »
Quote from spoogs on May 16th, 2013, 01:46 AM
Yep I usually write rules as i figure to enforce rule there's gotta be rules rather than just hoping for an understanding. I reviewed rules from several sources and made them fit my purpose as best as possible.
I've had to deal with some members over the years who are masters at what I call "lawyering". That is, they will read the rules and proceed to do things that are disruptive - but not specifically against the rules. They love rules because it's somewhat of a challenge to do things between the lines. They can be very, very good at this. Because of this, I sometimes wanted to just do away with my rules and tell members "If you do anything I don't like, I'll let you know".
Quote
I agree that many do not read the rules but I still think the rules should be there. There's an smf mod called "read the rules" or something.of the sort which i use as it shows a link to the rules while a user making a post so even if they hadn't read the rules before, it's there before they submit that post. This was if i need to take action there is no excuse for not knowing the rules.
Yea I've used to use that mod before, but it became clear that people were just clicking through it to get to the forum. If I say to read the rules in the TOS, they have been warned (nobody reads the TOS either do they? :sob:)

I recently had a falling out at another forum (forum name withheld for the sake of peace) because what I did wasn't against any rules, yet it was certainly all in good faith; but I got into trouble anyway. That's where good administering and common sense comes into the picture. As a matter of fact, sometimes what you may consider to be a disruptive member can end up being one of your best helpers if you try to mend fences. One of the Global Moderators at my forum now was banned at one time by myself. :o Yes it's true. We're a team of rivals you might say. :)