Message edited on: 07/17/2004 09:58

In theory, at least, they should be able to provide the same effect using a table (like they are) with graphics for the border edges only (4 graphics; the top border is already a single image: nav_mini_r1_c1.jpg, 468x11 pixels, 686 bytes) and add the Light Slate Grey as a background color for the table with text links.

Try going through Control Panel > Internet Options and scanning your system with AdAware and/or SpyBot Search & Destroy.

Perhaps we could start discussing what motivates people who thought the old OT was full of "hatemongers" to keep popping into threads about OT, resurrecting the topic, and spewing forth judgments on people vs letting things go? Or is there a lack of logic in that, too?

For anyone who knows databases, the problem should not be as severe as it would seem. It has been said before that posts are never really "deleted", just hidden from public view. So removing those posts should be no big deal, nor should marking a member's account "inactive".

I would suspect that the issue is more of willingness than it is of technical difficulty.

Message edited on: 05/15/2004 07:50

As a past participant "in the now-defunct OT forum", I think you're seriously over-generalizing about the participants; but I guess that's your opinion.

However, I think most active participants would disagree. Sure, there were a few bad apples - just like there are in any open environment, but most of us could disagree one day and still get along the next; whether it looked that way or not.

The thing that gets me is that anyone who found it to be "a forum for hate-mongerers" could have easily hid the forum entirely and never bothered with it again. There were other options, IMHO, but they were never given a chance. The mods have the ability to ban anyone, which is what should have been done, for one. If they had to weed out everyone, then so be it; it is, after all, R'osity's site. However, because of the actions of a few, the majority have to live with the consequences; not the most optimal solution.

Now, before you think I'm speaking of you mateo, let me clarify right here and now that I'm not; I'm just quoting you because it's convenient and I'm too lazy and tired to go to other threads. :)

There were choices on everyone's side that could've avoided closing two fora, and we're all supposed to be adults capable of making those choices for ourselves. I, for one, just so happen to disagree with the decision, but not R'osity's ability to make or enforce it. It just seems too over-the-top and heavy-handed for me. If a dog bites you on the ankle, you don't have to remove the whole leg if you tend to it properly and in time.

FWIW, it's happening to me, as well in H/T and this forum that I've noticed.

"Yes, because with a database this size it would probably take a full-time person just to go through and keep it up to date..."

From a technical standpoint, you could have the database do it on it's own at scheduled times by various means; not so much as requiring any human intervention at all once the code is in place. In fact, it would be less resource-intensive than running the Marketplace or the Forums.

However, a step forward is a step forward.

"The admins should allow themselves some room for individual judgements on a case-by-case basis. The admins need to have some leeway for discretionary actions."

The Admins/Mods have this leeway already: At any time, they can forgo the usual process and outright ban someone if they determine the actions warrant it.

The warnings, IMHO, are for Members who have not crossed the "instant ban" line and deserve a chance at proving themselves. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that, after they have proven they can "play nice", the lesson is learned and the warning should be removed.

This seems like a viable idea, and I like Varian's suggestion as well.

The kicker is that this could actually be programmed, requiring a little investment in coding then let it run for itself, you would not need any human intervention at all when put in place.

I think it would also be reasonable to see an indicator of some sort on your account page of how many warnings you have against you vs. having to request it from an Admin/Mod. IMHO, it should have the date/time of the infraction, the reason, and the Admin/Mod who initiated it, as well.

"Oh, Scott, do you also have a solution for those bastards that install a whole searchbar instead of just a homepage????

Spyware Blaster just does that. It sets kill bits in the registry so they never get installed in the first place. It currently protects against 1170 items as of 02/09/04. It takes up no resources since all changes are maintained in the registry.

"I'm a big fan of the series... It should be considered as a fan work and iw43d should share with us for free not charge $28."

One Word: Nutshell. :)

SnowS,

You should avoid using over-generalizations.

Instead, pay a little more attention to whom is doing the R'osity bashing and wonder why they may be doing it. Some have very legitimate issues with R'osity stemming from histories the casual Member may not be aware of. Some just do it for fun. Instead of refraining from posting there, perhaps you should try to find out why people post what they post? Perhaps, by finding out the reasons behind the actions, you will understand the animosity a little better.

I am not a frequent poster at PoserPros, but over the years I have been a Member of the community-at-large, I have taken the time to sit, discuss, and listen to find out the truth behind some actions. Knowing only half the story can be deceiving.

Why not have a check box that IDs/flags threads of interest - in the Coords/Mods/Admins view only - based upon how many Members check the box? Kind of like an "Adverse Thread Ranking", of sorts. It should not be that hard to do.

IIRC, I suggested this - or something similar - a long time ago; but I am too lazy to use the ridiculous Site search to find it. :0)