|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: dBoard 4.0 Release | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Ahh, it do be majik. Being a corporate PC I am barred from adding programs. But that's OK. I know the IT gurus.
Thanx, Percy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Percy: Does this board have a poll function? If so, how does one utilize it?
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Sorry, no poll function. It's on the todo list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
I've just released a few minor enhancements for Private Messaging:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
When you click on the "Send Private Message" at a message, the member ID is no longer automatically entered into the "To" field and the message ID is no longer automatically entered into the "Subject" field. You need to do such manually.
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Adminnemooseus writes: ...the member ID is no longer automatically entered into the "To" field and the message ID is no longer automatically entered into the "Subject" field. Why the change? I've only sent a couple dozen PMs, but when I do so while reading messages, I always want them to go to the member who posted the message. Further, such PMs are invariably about something in the message. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I forget that nobody looks at message subtitles.
It's a "bug enhancement" - Something is not working as desired. The message content translates to: Hey Percy, your last "PM enhancement" has some problems. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
This is an easy fix, I'll probably get to it tonight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
This should be fixed, but I only had time for superficial testing. Please let me know if you encounter any further problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Possibly another bug for you!
The following text doesn't work properly. The 'less than' symbol + any character seems to break the formatting. (Maybe you can check for a closing '>' before treating it as html?) This:Test Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Admin writes:
So as not to clutter the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures thread, I'll post a reply here... I am, as we speak, automating summation mode. A thread in summation mode will only allow a participant one additional message, and it must be a General Reply, not a reply to a specific message. I'm also implementing access restrictions for threads. Right now member permissions can be controlled only at the forum level. The new capability will allow participation in individual threads to be controlled in one of two ways: Participant List: Only members on the participant list can post. Non-participant List: Members on the non-participant list cannot post. Any thread will be able to have a participant list or a non-participant list, but not both. Moderators will always be able to post or reply to any thread or message, unless the thread is closed. I might be teaching you to suck eggs, but I suggest that the best way to implement this is to have just one list and an 'include/exclude' flag that applies to every person listed. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Panda writes: I might be teaching you to suck eggs, but I suggest that the best way to implement this is to have just one list and an 'include/exclude' flag that applies to every person listed. Initially it seems like this is the best approach, but then you have to ask how do you handle those not on the list. Attempting to answer this question leads to the conclusion that unless the list consists of all members (too unwieldy) that it must be a member subset that is either inclusive or exclusive. This also leads to the conclusion that the member group concept is required. For example, creationists could be one group, evolutionists another. In this way you could control thread access by placing members and groups in the list. Threads just for evolutionists or just for creationists could be easily created. Members could join many groups, but there would be the need for classifying groups as mutually exclusive. For example, one wouldn't want someone to be able to be in both the creationist and evolutionist groups, or in the theist and atheist groups. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Percy writes:
I think you are agreeing with my suggestion, but I am not sure - so just in case: Initially it seems like this is the best approach, but then you have to ask how do you handle those not on the list. Attempting to answer this question leads to the conclusion that unless the list consists of all members (too unwieldy) that it must be a member subset that is either inclusive or exclusive.The difference between inclusive and exclusive is simply size. (i.e. If the exclusive list is larger than the inclusive list then you make the list inclusive). If you wish to allow everyone, you change the list to 'exclusive' and leave it empty. But... Percy writes:
...if you are going to include groups, then you will need two lists so that you can include GroupA but exclude MemberB (who is a member of GroupA).
This also leads to the conclusion that the member group concept is required. Percy writes:
Normally, when someone suggests giving that much flexibility to users I would expect stupid or abusive behaviour. Members could join many groups, but there would be the need for classifying groups as mutually exclusive.e.g. Quickly joining a creationist group so that they can post abuse in a 'creationist only' thread or not joining any groups and then not understanding why they can't post in many threads. I expect a lot a tweaking being needed on a system like that. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Panda writes: I think you are agreeing with my suggestion, but I am not sure - so just in case:The difference between inclusive and exclusive is simply size. (i.e. If the exclusive list is larger than the inclusive list then you make the list inclusive). If you wish to allow everyone, you change the list to 'exclusive' and leave it empty. Yes, you've got it. What you said before didn't sound like this, sounded like you wanted a complete member list with an include/exclude setting for each member.
...if you are going to include groups, then you will need two lists so that you can include GroupA but exclude MemberB (who is a member of GroupA). Yes, this is true.
Normally, when someone suggests giving that much flexibility to users I would expect stupid or abusive behaviour. e.g. Quickly joining a creationist group so that they can post abuse in a 'creationist only' thread or not joining any groups and then not understanding why they can't post in many threads. Good point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Hi Percy.. Hey, I've a suggestion to throw your way...while I was browsing some of the posts in some of the topics, it suddenly struck me that a bookmark feature would be handy...sorta like putting those particular posts into a folder to be reread later. I dunno whether anyone else agrees on the practicality or usefulness of such a feature and thought I'd toss it in the bin.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024