Youmu Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Now, I understand this feature is to prevent spamming, and it is quite useful, however this really annoys me in the Forum Games forum. This is because in Forum Games, most of the threads are "Count to XXX", so I post in them, and as soon as I open another "Count to XXX", this message pops up for a minute. It gets extremely annoying at times. :x So, my suggestion is to remove this rule in the Forum Games forum so it wouldn't be so hindering. Hope my suggestion helps! :) BlogTrimmed | Master Quester | Final BossBoss pets: Bombi | Shrimpy | Ellie | Tz-Rek Jad | Karil the Bobbled | Mega Ducklings120s: Dungeoneering | Invention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laikrob Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Hi. :) There is a similar topic here, which explains it a bit. In short, we can't just remove the posting delay in just one forum, and the arguments for keeping it far outweigh the arguments of removing it. Hope that answers your question. :) P.S. Also, the mods don't want you to reach 500. :twisted: You're accusing me of bigotry, how ironic. It's a nice attempt at argument, but your responses are facile and asinine, if not diatribe. Who's arrogant now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Hi. :) There is a similar topic here, which explains it a bit. In short, we can't just remove the posting delay in just one forum, and the arguments for keeping it far outweigh the arguments of removing it. Hope that answers your question. :) P.S. Also, the mods don't want you to reach 500. :twisted: You definitely can, but I understand why you don't want to. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 ^ Spam users. It limits the damage they can do. (Although I have come upon a workaround which hasn't been implemented.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 ^ Spam users. It limits the damage they can do. (Although I have come upon a workaround which hasn't been implemented.) I don't understand that, would you add every forum member to that usergroup? "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 No, only the moderators. And actually, you wouldn't even need to do that, I found that setting the group's (In this case, the moderator group) "Can post without moderator approval" setting to "Never" (As opposed to "no") does the trick, no need to get personal. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 No, only the moderators. And actually, you wouldn't even need to do that, I found that setting the group's (In this case, the moderator group) "Can post without moderator approval" setting to "Never" (As opposed to "no") does the trick, no need to get personal. :P But what would the advantage of this be? "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Moderators with the required permissions could "Mute" users without actually banning them by adding them to a group. This way if they found a spambot they could "mute" it and report the spambot to an admin, who would ban it, instead of desperately searching for an admin/supermod while one spam post is posted per minute. I have mute in quotes because it's not actually muting it. It just makes so that their posts require moderator approval before they can be publicly viewable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Moderators with the required permissions could "Mute" users without actually banning them by adding them to a group. This way if they found a spambot they could "mute" it and report the spambot to an admin, who would ban it, instead of desperately searching for an admin/supermod while one spam post is posted per minute. I have mute in quotes because it's not actually muting it. It just makes so that their posts require moderator approval before they can be publicly viewable. However you need to be a super mod to modify user's groups, and if you are a super mod, you can ban anyway. EDIT: Unless the mods were all going to be group leaders? I assume it would work then. EDIT 2: After testing on my forum, I don't have an option to add users to groups without being a super mod, even if I am a group leader. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 No. You see, the thing about phpBB permissions is that any person can have any single permission. That means that a normal user could, if the Administrators so pleased, have access to create forums but no other higher permissions, or have all of them, or only be an Administrator but not a moderator, or any other insane combination of permissions. A user must not be an SMOD to be a group leader, all they need is the correct "permission mask". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 No. You see, the thing about phpBB permissions is that any person can have any single permission. That means that a normal user could, if the Administrators so pleased, have access to create forums but no other higher permissions, or have all of them, or only be an Administrator but not a moderator, or any other insane combination of permissions. A user must not be an SMOD to be a group leader, all they need is the correct "permission mask". I realize that, I guess my question now is: If I have a regular user who is a group leader, how does he go about adding someone to that group? I don't have an acp, mcp or administrate user option. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 UCP->Usergroups->Manage Groups->Manage Users Looks like this if you are a group leader: [hide=][/hide] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 UCP->Usergroups->Manage Groups->Manage Users Looks like this if you are a group leader: [hide=][/hide] Ahh ok, thanks. However I don't appear to be able to do it, it says "you are not allowed to manage groups". I assume there is an option in the acp somewhere? EDIT: I got it, I had "founder manage only" turned on. This is actually a really great idea, I wonder why tif hasn't done it? "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 and the arguments for keeping it far outweigh the arguments of removing it. Not really. It's more or less inaccurate methods in determining which arguments/ideas are better suited for the overall change that could potentially happen. The arguments on either side are pretty much equal to each other, yet technical limitations and lack of the general user population knowing about that thread from almost two months ago is what the problem is in that thread. As well, it still stands to reason that moderators/admins should go a week without the flood control and see how lovely it is, as it would give a better motivation or incentive to the naysayers (moderators/staff) to actually support the idea or the solution that has been posted repeatedly that could lower the flood control without much harm. Actually excluding the low amount of users that know or care to post in here, technical limitations is generally the only reason why a good portion of all suggestions never get implemented, even if they'd benefit the majority. Which is quite annoying and frustrating anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 UCP->Usergroups->Manage Groups->Manage Users Looks like this if you are a group leader: [hide=][/hide] You used my forum as an example :roll: 2257AD.TUMBLR.COM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Actually, I used my stable installation of phpBB hosted on my own machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate_Felix Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Can we maybe remove this cap for forums where you dont get post count for posts? [hide]Felix, je moeder.Je moeder felixJe vader, felix.Felix, je oma.Felix, je ongelofelijk gave pwnaze avatar B)Felix, je moeder.[/hide] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Can we maybe remove this cap for forums where you dont get post count for posts? Totally removing it, it would be spammed a lot. Though lowering it in such forums may not be a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Can we maybe remove this cap for forums where you dont get post count for posts? Totally removing it, it would be spammed a lot. Though lowering it in such forums may not be a bad idea. There is still the question of advertisers - I'm sure they don't care about post count and they could take advantage of the lower posting delay. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
das Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It's not disabled for staff as a whole, just disabled if you mod the forum. While the feature can be annoying - It's in place to prevent serious abuse and I doubt it will ever be lifted. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."Abraham Lincoln Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joes_So_Cool Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 In my opinion (which probably doesn't matter) it's somewhat annoying, I mostly browse off topic, and post occsioinally, and at times I'll have a few tabs open just waiting to submit posts. I think that there should be some restrictions however. I'm sure this has been suggested, but maybe a post count related time limit if that's doable. For example, 750+ posts and you have no limit, etc. Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsGuy Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 In my opinion (which probably doesn't matter) it's somewhat annoying, I mostly browse off topic, and post occsioinally, and at times I'll have a few tabs open just waiting to submit posts. I think that there should be some restrictions however. I'm sure this has been suggested, but maybe a post count related time limit if that's doable. For example, 750+ posts and you have no limit, etc. I can't think of anything worth saying that can't wait, especially if you can type it in quickly enough to have the post time limit affect you. [hide=My Stats]Attack:86/Hitpoints:88/Mining:74Strength:86/Agility:76/Smithing:75Defence:86/Herblore:74/Fishing:78Ranged:86/Thieving:73/Cooking:92Prayer:78/Crafting:82/Firemaking:86Magic:85/Fletching:77/Woodcutting:88Runecraft:71/Slayer:80/Farming:88Construction:70/Hunter:70/Summoning:69Dungeoneering:18Total level: 1936295/303 Quest PointsCombat Level: 117[/hide][hide=Interesting Links]My BlogSportsGuy's Short Guide to Ghostly WarriorsFamiliarisation Reward Research[/hide] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent1777 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Some places it is reasonable. But for places that posts dont count such as blogs/Forum games, there is no need for waiting to post. Tip.It's Official Undercover Agent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Some places it is reasonable. But for places that posts dont count such as blogs/Forum games, there is no need for waiting to post. What if a spammer comes? I'm sure they don't care about posting in a forum that gives no post count. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayOxide Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I hope noone takes offense to this but seriously why do we need a numerous amount of Mods if they dont do much at all? There's probably 5 locks a DAY. If someone spams, woop-de-doo. BAN THEM. I dont like the length of time it takes to post things because most of the time I'm giving advice in H&A, and posting in VG&C. Even lowering it by 15 seconds or 10 seconds would do dramatically and wont affect anything badly. I dont need a siggy no moar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now