Walter Montego: What about some parental lock added, with children being unable to unhide posts hidden by moderator, for those who want to take care of education of their children. Pawns and users with parental lock activated wouldn't see those. As it's probably usually the parent who pays for the child, (s)he could decide about it when paying.

Walter Montego:
Q: Who are these elite that you speak of?

A: I could see a good argument for only letting paying members have the ability

You answered your own question

This part of your post:

I meant my feature request to apply to all users

Sounds much more fair. It would be nice if that was possible, but seeing as this site is run in an autocratic fashion, the feaure will most likely go to the elite, who also, btw, are capable of causing trouble just like the kiddies.

I DO, however, support your other idea about having a list of Banned and Hidden Users, and which Mod responsible at the top of every board. That seems like a logical addition. It would be a good way to solve alot of the corruption going on among certain Moderator circles as well. :)

chessmec: Yes, but why not have it both ways if it'll work? That way there's a front line of defense against trouble makers (The moderator) and then a member on their own volition can choose to view objectionable or off topic posts by the unsocial miscreant and fully deal with it on their own. This is a good argument to have it for paying members only. You paid for, you can see it if you want to. Most moderator's don't willy-nilly hide someone, but there are on occasions where you still might want to view a particular person post even if it shouldn't have been placed for public discussion. Don't forget, moderators can also delete posts too. Usually for profane posts a moderator will put someone on hide and ask the person that posted the post to fix it up. Another reason to put someone on hide is to stop a disruptive person from wreaking havoc with the board and just cluttering up space from more legitimate or on topic posts. That requires the blanket hide or outright banning of the person in the moderator's view. One size fits all, doesn't work as well. Having it flexible can keep more people happy.

because apparently the feature "general ban" is used: what about a "general hide" feature for the individual posters?

gekrompen hoofd: Who are these elite that you speak of? I meant my feature request to apply to all users, but I could see a good argument for only letting paying members have the ability. That way multi-nicks and children would have no access to the feature and wouldn't cause trouble. Especially if the hidden posts have vulgar, profane, or racial stuff in them.

Walter Montego: let us see it vice versa; instead of the censor^Wmod here the reader can ban (hide) posters themselves. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_organization

chessmec: I fail to see your problem. If you don't like the fact that someone else has been hidden by a moderator, what exactly can you do about it? At least if the person is ever unbanned, you'll know to go back and check the postings to see if they posted anything of interest to you.

My request in the previous post would certainly eliminate that problem if you could choose to view moderator hidden postings on your own. It'd be a nice feature to have, plus you could toggle it back to match the board as is or just put on hide the particular person if you happen to think the moderator is right and this person has nothing of interest for yourself.


I would like a list of banned and hidden people to appear at the top of the discussion board, along with who put them on hide or banned them. This is what the moderators get to see, but us regular posters have no say or control over anything. Just knowing they were under scrutiny might help guarantee that such actions will be taken with deliberation or cause instead of the way it can go now at the whim of whomever is moderating at the moment. I like gekrompen hoofd's idea about sending the person that has been banned or hidden notice that it happened.

Walter Montego: Mmmm, I think you're asking a little too much there, Walter. The whole idea for hiding the posts is to make it so only MODERATORS of that particular board can see them, and nobody else. Not to mention if your request was granted, it will be a feature available for the elite and therefore unfair to the rest of us.

I fully agree with chessmec, the 'ghost number' is a bug that should be corrected.

And an Automatic Notifier through PM to those who are Banned or Hidden, with a reason attached, should be added. See post: "ON Topic"

Walter Montego: When there's 47 posts in the little number, do you really count each post to see if any are missing?

Because of the censorship i am making regularly snapshots, so it is easy for me to recognize which of the past posting were hidden.

So, if hiding, then do it very well. I saw it not directly but in a way which surely is not planned ... "2 new" but in the board only one.

Only those people that actually wanted to view the posts would have access to them.
People can hide postings themselves. Why that?

chessmec: I view it as a good feature, not as a bug. Until the time that there's a list of banned people, I like knowing that someone has been put on hide even if it is indirectly. It also doesn't mean that someone is on hide, the post might be deleted at the same time you click to the discussion board. When there's 47 posts in the little number, do you really count each post to see if any are missing?

A request. I would like to be able to see hidden messages from people put on hide by the moderator. The postings revealed to me in this manner would only show on my screen, but I could make up my own decision about them. The moderator could carry on with their job of keeping the board safe and on topic. Only those people that actually wanted to view the posts would have access to them.

BIG BAD WOLF: So it depends on how you look at it. The (1 NEW) message is a feature so people know there are new posts. But since the new post is hidden, then some may look at it as being a bug since even though there is a new post, it can not be read.

Exactly THAT I mean. It is a bug. And if you find irony in my posting you can keep it yourself.

BIG BAD WOLF: What is the point of telling people there are new posts when they can't seem them? Doesn't that just confuse the poor souls?

My feature request is something else again -- I think there should be an automatic notification sent in a pm to the person who is banned/hidden, reason stated. And also when they are unbanned/unhidden, no reason required.

Fair idea, no?

nobleheart: Heh, I'm banned from the general board, o well...

http://www.occultopedia.com/images/topic/window_ghost.jpg

ok ok we should really as the man says get back on topic..anyone want to discuss general stuff c u in the general board.

gekrompen hoofd: especially in today's fast paced society..the media for example bombards kids from infancy..not always with positive,healthy behavior patterns.
it is hard for parents to compete as they try to raise there kids descently.

working against this is the system making most 2 parent families work long hours to survive.so kids are raised up as "latch key kids"..whose only role models are rap-gangsta-drug-stars.

also working against this is parents who arent actively involved with their kids as much as they could be.

Hidden people can still post.

Post get a red (1 new) message for each post.

Users can not see hidden post.

So it depends on how you look at it. The (1 NEW) message is a feature so people know there are new posts. But since the new post is hidden, then some may look at it as being a bug since even though there is a new post, it can not be read.

BIG BAD WOLF: * * * * PLEASE - Lets get back to FEATURE REQUESTS EVERYONE!

My question: Is the case in what I asked in "[OT] strange ... but can me somebody explain this?" a BUG or a FEATURE?

they can't let me be visible on heret as I won't stop to demand a monitor function,
that shows transparently which fiddle-dweeb deleted what (own baiting included)
on which board, hidden persons listed for everyone with DATES when and by whom ... ~*~

chessmec: Moderators hide people too. I'm sure they have thousands silenced. It's easier (for them) than having a debate. Just ignore the ghosties ;)

chessmec: Moderators can choose to hide someone from all users - that is what you are seeing.... well not seeing.

* * * * PLEASE - Lets get back to FEATURE REQUESTS EVERYONE!

nobleheart: Kids would be better off with a sense of reality, life's gonna hit 'em eventually anyway. Parents should quit trying to get off the hook for raising their hoodlums by forcing others to stifle. Oh yeh, and TV is not a babysitter.

BIG BAD WOLF: I tried to hide somebody for testing ... then a list appeared that I had set this persopn to hidden. I took it back and all got OK.
So I have nobody hidden here. Hey ... it is necessary to run a cron at my server, WGETting every 15 seconds http://brainking.com/game/Board?bc=3 ?!

grenv: no, i have NOBODY on hidden. But I noticed that all postings from danoschek are suddenly not here ...

chessmec: Yes, when someone is hidden - they can still post, and it will show as a "new" message, but no one will see them.

chessmec: You must have hidden someone?

I opened brainking.com Main-Page and saw "2 new" standing next to board "Feature requests". I went into the board and saw only one new. Why that? Are there postings hidden or what?

Rex Nihilo: I agree,if kids were exposed to more than gansterism,rap music,pot & video games..they might actually start having a few neurons firing.

yeah right - not on the very own channels of the stalinistic nomenclatura after all.
supporting posts get deleted hastily, while the bully-flatulence stays wondrously long
until they look goofed and ugly as they are under comeback of my verbal superpower. ~*~

You can't win in an autocratic society

should be limited to 90 mins per day - I demand that the focus is on serious players,
not on the spampest that needs twilight for their heinous ways. mods should not be
allowed to cloak altogether. we want to see to which cosanostra the fiddlefreaks belong ... ~*~

Can we get back to serious feature requests please? Grenv, there is a f/s for debating if you should choose to join it.

Pedro Martínez: I was putting my support, in a round about way, for free and open debating. I know this is considered radical and dangerous to some though.

And your feature request is...?

grenv: My humble and sincere apologies to those offended.

Rex Nihilo: Watch out, you may have to say "all heck will break loose" on this board. People have been banned for less.

grenv: If children learn to debate, then they will learn to think for themselves. If that happens, all hell will break loose.

not commented yet. e.g. after I faced certain noriousness on let's say, two boards, try to avoid trouble and hide, but shortly later *heckle heckle* on the next board you know.
my suggested global board-hide option would be good not only for serious players then. ~*~

Czuch Chuckers: Debating is bad for children now? Heaven forbid they learn to develop an opinion or two early in life.

nobleheart: I wholeheartedly agree, but I think the more appropriate place in in a private fellowship... it can be too much for small children without parental guidence.

I was curious as to why you left me alone on some of my comment in the civilization fellowship.... I finally realized that you are now a pawn :)

Czuch Chuckers: debate is fine if done intelligently,as I am sure you would agree.it can be stimulating & opens the mind uop to opposing viewpoints.
but I would hope it would not degenerate into name calling & childishness.
some people cant deal with someone not agreeing with them.

Fencer: It was the suggestion that others might think of... that their paid membership could EVER buy numbers 1 and 2... Your reply, I assume, means it's not to happen :) As opposed to other sites that bend over backwards, making one not even want to consider a free membership there...

WhiteTower: What does the paid membership have to do with me?

Fencer: It was slightly aimed at you as well :> but you're the boss here, so...

I used to write policies for IRC networks, so it's quite easy to put such things in words, and with users like dano around, it's very easy to find material ;)

WhiteTower: Very well said. I should add it to FAQ.

danoschek:
1. Paying for a membership doesn't buy the right that your suggestions be automatically implemented, or even considered, as you may have already noticed...
2. Paying for a membership certainly does not buy you the right to rant and rave when your voice is lost in the desert...
3. Paying for a membership DOES give you the capability to hide other people's opinions, although you might find yourself very much by yourself in most DBs :)

Eriisa: i think he means 'vacation'

Could someone please define what is a vacancy function? A vacancy in a hotel is an available room. Is this an available game?

I reckon it was no affront. Unlike my pleasant call for clarifying the vacancy function
which was hastily deleted on mem-only by one prospecting personal gain just in blur.
PM's (last visible) flatulence here may be the encyphered request for czech holidays. ~*~

AbigailII: aggreed that the time displayed isn't necessarilly the total game time left.
But as it is now, a value is still displayed, and it's the value that is valid at each moment.

Anyway, my point was to have an indication that allowed us to distinguish between the two type os time control. How it is done and it's full implications I'll leave it to Fencer ;)