Gray on 6/9/2005 at 08:39
But that only defines who can read (and/or reply to) them, yes? It has nothing to do with thread starter moderation, only target selection.
tungsten on 6/9/2005 at 08:40
It would make a funny April 1st joke, though (obviously only for threads started then).
Could it be that you are asking for this "sane island in the CommChat" that I mentioned before, like a subforum where mods would have the job of keeping us loonies strictly on topic? Too much work, but an interesting idea.
Banning from threads? You mean when you start a thread you list a bunch of members that automatically have this whole thread in their ignore-list?
Skronk on 6/9/2005 at 08:44
Quote Posted by Gray
But that only defines who can read (and/or reply to) them, yes? It has nothing to do with thread starter moderation, only target selection.
I should have finished that thought. :o
I was suggesting that there could be paid accounts here that allow you to start a self-moderated thread. That might seem even dumber than your idea, but since they are paying for the priviledge, paid users would probably be disinclined to bugger about with idiotic thread moderation, and even if they did, wasting their money, other users would quickly get wise and simply stop replying to threads started by those users.
Gray on 6/9/2005 at 08:51
Twice you suggested I edited your posts. By the same logic, I should also be able to ban you from MY thread. Begone! :POOF:
Of course I'm not serious, just playing by your logic.
Gray on 6/9/2005 at 10:07
Ok, this thread now has my full permission to go nuts (if not Dave's).
What is the deal with pink? I say we ban it from the entire colour chart. No man has ever looked good in pink, and hardly any woman either.
Eshaktaar on 6/9/2005 at 11:20
Yeah, and what's the deal with airline food?
Kolya on 6/9/2005 at 11:23
About answering/editing:
There's a nice little feat in another forumsoft that warns you when you answer to a thread and once you lame fart manage to hit submit someone else has already answered the thread. I'm missing that here.
Also the courtesy time is too long on ttlg. I mean the time where you can edit a post without an edit-notice coming up.
These two properties have led me to sometimes answer posts and then hit the submit button when I'm actually only half finished, knowing I can reserve the next post-slot for me and still add all the content I like.
Certainly not a nice method but everyone does what he can and it could be easily turned off by mods if they don't like it.
Kolya
Gray on 6/9/2005 at 11:31
Actually, I think the edit times are really quite appropriate.
Then again I tend to use them quite frequently, because I rarely type the things as I think them the first time.
All pink must die.
Kolya on 6/9/2005 at 11:37
Quote Posted by Gray
Then again I tend to use them quite frequently, because I rarely type the things as I think them the first time.
That's what I do. But 'm sure we've both been through the routine of seeing posts change without a notice that we had thought were done since someone else had already answered them.
Okay a better solution would be if the courtesy time was effectively cut to zero once someone answered the post you edit.
Kolya
Gray on 6/9/2005 at 11:40
Hmm. What if nobody could reply within, say, two minutes, and you'd have that time to edit your post?
