« SMF bug 4851 (long posts being quoted can cause issues in Fi…
Infraction bugs
SMF bug 4952 (compressed files not always being inflated pro… »

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #15, on May 7th, 2013, 06:42 PM »
Well... yes and no. But you'll notice from the code that I changed terminology part way through (all the code references 'sanctions' but the user wording references 'punishments')

It's a hard one to call but yes, I think you're ultimately right. I'm quite amenable to the wording being changed. At this stage I'm still recovering from the last month enough to not be too worried about picky bits ;)

OK, here's the developmental mindset behind it. In SMF terms, you'd issue a warning. The warning was simply an increase (or, helpfully, a decrease) to the current % of warning on their account. It was an overall fluid state for their account, and cumulative the sum of moderators having their say on a user's account. The thing is, you can have 3 moderators issuing modest (20%) warnings for separate matters and leave the user post banned as a consequence.

In Wedge, however, it doesn't work like that. The idea is that you make the punishment fit the crime and that you have punishments tied to a given warning. The warning carries points and/or punishments (and the points can lead to punishments of their own for general unpleasant behaviours)

So if you have a user who has an inappropriate signature, issue something for that signature and remove it - and if it forms part of a collection of a larger penalty, so be it.
When we unite against a common enemy that attacks our ethos, it nurtures group solidarity. Trolls are sensational, yes, but we keep everyone honest. | Game Memorial

spoogs

  • Posts: 417
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #16, on May 7th, 2013, 08:01 PM »
Im my mind I've always translated issuing an infraction as issuing a "notice of infraction" which tells he user what they did wrong and what action if any have been taken.

A warning I've always thought to be non-action response meaning: User A seems to be trolling a bit.. I'd issue an infraction in the form of a warning that carries no points or punishments.. just a quick note to say trolling is against the rules blah blah. This warning stays in the users infraction log so  another moderator can see this user has already been warned about trolling so future action may include point or other necessary actions.

Where was i going with this again, heck I cant even remember what prompted me to reply here.... :hmm:
Stick a fork in it SMF

xrunner

  • Posts: 192
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #17, on May 7th, 2013, 09:12 PM »
I currently have a member at my forum on post moderation. Sometimes we put certain types of members on either post moderation or we restrict them to an "Isolation Tank" which by permissions is the only board they can see when logged in, rather them ban them, even though a ban would be justified. I won't go into the psychology here, but certain of our "customers" would consider a ban as a Gold medal to brag about to people at other forums. I don't want to give them that Gold medal, so we just let them burn out on post moderation or fight it out until they get bored in the Isolation Tank. It's sortof like a question of sending a convict to life in prison or to death row. Sometimes life locked up is a worse punishment. :)
My Forum - Atheist Think Tank

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #18, on May 7th, 2013, 11:07 PM »
Quote from Arantor on May 7th, 2013, 06:42 PM
Well... yes and no. But you'll notice from the code that I changed terminology part way through (all the code references 'sanctions' but the user wording references 'punishments')
Punishment seems a bit 'extreme' to me..?
Quote
It's a hard one to call but yes, I think you're ultimately right.
I was only asking if it was proper English, as I'm learning something new every day anyway... ;)
Quote
I'm quite amenable to the wording being changed. At this stage I'm still recovering from the last month enough to not be too worried about picky bits ;)
Take your time. I'll commit my French translation first, and then you can fine-tune the English one later if you want.
Quote
In Wedge, however, it doesn't work like that. The idea is that you make the punishment fit the crime and that you have punishments tied to a given warning. The warning carries points and/or punishments (and the points can lead to punishments of their own for general unpleasant behaviours)
Sounds fun... ;)
Quote
So if you have a user who has an inappropriate signature, issue something for that signature and remove it - and if it forms part of a collection of a larger penalty, so be it.
Indeed.
My only fear is that admins would find it too *complete*, and thus complex...
Of course, Wedge isn't exactly targeted to newbies!

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #19, on May 7th, 2013, 11:56 PM »
Quote
Punishment seems a bit 'extreme' to me..?
Then find me a word that means 'you've been naughty and you lose some privileges' that isn't so 'extreme' ;)
Quote
My only fear is that admins would find it too *complete*, and thus complex...
Of course, Wedge isn't exactly targeted to newbies!
I'd argue it actually seems more natural since there are analogues to this one in real life (e.g. points on a driving licence and/or bans for a period of time)

spoogs

  • Posts: 417
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #21, on May 8th, 2013, 01:09 AM »
I know this is still WIP but just a suggestion on the verbiage when viewing the infraction section in our own profiles.

"From here you can see every infraction issued for this member"
**Here you can see all infractions you have received**

"This person has not received any infractions before now."
**You have not received any infractions**

As it is now it reads as though a moderator/administrator is viewing a user's profile.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #22, on May 8th, 2013, 07:50 PM »
@Arantor, apart from 'Infractions' needing to be renamed to 'Sanctions', I think you also fluctuated between "Pre-set infractions" and "Adhoc infractions", maybe you should rename Adhoc to Pre-set because it's easier to understand, or maybe I didn't get these were two different things...? :unsure:

+1 @spoogs

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #23, on May 8th, 2013, 07:54 PM »
No, they are two separate things and designed that way.

Pre-Set Infractions are ones the admin defines outright. Ad-Hoc Infractions are whether users can customise/send very specific ones.

If you want a user to only be able to issue minor warnings, you create them as pre-set infractions and don't give them any options for ad-hoc infractions.

(pre-set means predefined, ad-hoc means set on the go)


In other news I am slightly concerned that I made screenshots of almost all of this stuff and it wasn't mentioned at the time when they contained the same wording.
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #24, on May 9th, 2013, 04:48 AM »
OK, I found a bug, I wanted to pull up the UI for something here, but something very strange happened.

Specifically, a warning for the post above mine here (at least, there was something random I wanted to check out), now there's an error regarding issue_warning_self, I'll fix that in a minute.

But here's the weird part. The above post generates the URL:

profile/?u=1;area=infractions;warn;for=post:288772

Not profile/Nao as would normally be generated, which makes it pull up *my* profile for some reason which upsets the infractions code by rightly telling me that I can't issue a warning to myself (or it would if I didn't flub the error message definition)

I'm guessing it's related to the fact I have a hokey parameter in the URL but I'm willing to amend the formatting if that's any help.

@Nao, I'm really not comfortable touching pretty URLs code, so I'd like you to take a look at it but if that means altering the format to post.id rather than post:id, that's fine.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #25, on May 10th, 2013, 05:00 PM »
Quote from Arantor on May 8th, 2013, 07:54 PM
In other news I am slightly concerned that I made screenshots of almost all of this stuff and it wasn't mentioned at the time when they contained the same wording.
I only caught up with your screenshot topic yesterday (!), so I couldn't have caught it.
I'd recommend you do an overall review of the words 'infraction' and 'punishment' in your language files, and modify them to 'sanction' as needed.
Posted: May 10th, 2013, 04:58 PM
Quote from Arantor on May 9th, 2013, 04:48 AM
But here's the weird part. The above post generates the URL:

profile/?u=1;area=infractions;warn;for=post:288772
Which is using a reserved character... :-/
Colons are used to represent the port, and I think that because of that, the ISO standards determined that they shouldn't be used in the query string either, although technically it's accepted by all browsers.
Quote
Not profile/Nao as would normally be generated, which makes it pull up *my* profile for some reason
Even with the u=1 in it..?!
Quote
@Nao, I'm really not comfortable touching pretty URLs code, so I'd like you to take a look at it but if that means altering the format to post.id rather than post:id, that's fine.
I'll take a look, right now.

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #26, on May 10th, 2013, 05:10 PM »
Quote
I'd recommend you do an overall review of the words 'infraction' and 'punishment' in your language files, and modify them to 'sanction' as needed.
See, in English, sanction is a stronger word than punishment; I changed it to punishment for that reason.
Quote
Colons are used to represent the port, and I think that because of that, the ISO standards determined that they shouldn't be used in the query string either, although technically it's accepted by all browsers.
In which case I'll just fix it to use , instead of : no biggie.
Quote
Even with the u=1 in it..?!
Yup, even with the u=1 in it. Try to warn me for one of my posts, you should see that it gives you a URL with my user id in it but throws an error to you for trying to warn yourself.

Off hand I'd say that because of the /profile/ URL it's routing to the profiles action but it's then expecting a name rather than a u= and failing to catch it.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #27, on May 10th, 2013, 05:36 PM »
Ah, yes, now I remember...
Profile URLs are prettified by looking for ;u=[0-9]+ in them. Which, at this point, does NOT happen, because it's ;u=%2%, i.e. the special variable...

If you'll look at the user box menu, the IP tracking link is the same -- doesn't get prettified at all.
I don't think it's a big deal for admins and mods to have non-prettified URLs, but I'll have to fix the bug that occurs when you click the link, I guess...!
Posted: May 10th, 2013, 05:21 PM
Quote from Arantor on May 10th, 2013, 05:10 PM
See, in English, sanction is a stronger word than punishment; I changed it to punishment for that reason.
Oh, I see... Well, it's the opposite in French, I'd say... (?)
Quote
In which case I'll just fix it to use , instead of : no biggie.
Nope, it's okay to use it, I simply thought I might have 'forbidden' it for ISO reasons, which I didn't. I don't really mind either way...
Fixed here, BTW! It was a logic error in QueryString.php, ah ah... Will commit later.
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #28, on May 12th, 2013, 03:47 PM »
Tried disemvowelling (sp?) posts from a test account locally.
One post just said "No idea."
As a result, the post was "N d."
Not very readable, actually...

I'd instead suggest scrambling all words, except for the first and last, as it was the subject of an amusing meme a few years ago, and I think it still keeps the whole thing readable...

Also, a bigger bug I'd say: if I go through /profile/test-account/, and click Show posts, there they are... All of his posts, untouched.
Posted: May 12th, 2013, 03:32 PM

(I just noticed that 'disemvowel' was a play on 'disembowel', ah ah... Well, you can't blame me for my English :P But I did notice that it was strange to have an 'm' in it, considering the rule that it should only be before a 'b' or another 'm'... At least in French.)
Posted: May 12th, 2013, 03:35 PM

So... This is my personal take on it: (in Subs-BBC)

Code: [Select]
$part = htmlspecialchars(preg_replace_callback('~(?<=\b[a-z])([a-z]{2,})(?=[a-z]\b)~i', 'wedge_callback_str_shuffle', $part), ENT_QUOTES, 'UTF-8');

Followed, at the end, by:

Code: [Select]
function wedge_callback_str_shuffle($match)
{
return str_shuffle($match[0]);
}

Feel free to re-use the code unmodified, or modified, or to just forget about my suggestion... ;)

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Infraction bugs
« Reply #29, on May 12th, 2013, 03:52 PM »
Quote
Tried disemvowelling (sp?) posts from a test account locally.
One post just said "No idea."
As a result, the post was "N d."
Not very readable, actually...
That's essentially an edge case.
Quote
Also, a bigger bug I'd say: if I go through /profile/test-account/, and click Show posts, there they are... All of his posts, untouched.
Oh, yes, that needs to be handled.
Quote
(I just noticed that 'disemvowel' was a play on 'disembowel', ah ah...
I didn't coin the term, but it's cute.
Quote
So... This is my personal take on it: (in Subs-BBC)
Why can't we have both? If that looks like what I think it looks like[1] then hell yes. Let's do both!
 1. ...which is shuffling everything except the first and last letters...
« SMF bug 4851 (long posts being quoted can cause issues in Fi…
SMF bug 4952 (compressed files not always being inflated pro… »