Updates

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

So I had some motivation today and made the following updates:

Post numbers - There's now a post number at the top of each post to make it easier to communicate to each other to which posts we are replying or so forth.

Automatic blocking of Double Posts - If someone tries to double post, they will automatically be blocked. In other words, if you were the last person to post in a thread, you cannot post again until someone else does. (Until someone else posts, you will be able to edit your last post. So if you have something to add, just edit your last post.)

Automatic Blocking of Links by New Members - New members will not be able to post URLs or links until they have been registered for 7 days (and as before made 10 posts).

Automatic word breaks - A space will automatically be added to words that are 50 or more characters long to prevent them from disrupting the site layout.

Thanks!
Scott

[lifegazer]

In other words, if you were the last person to post in a thread, you cannot post again until someone else does. (Until someone else posts, you will be able to edit your last post. So if you have something to add, just edit your last post.)

Scott, I think you've made a big mistake here. I mean, firstly, I've just tried to edit a post of mine but wasn't allowed to because it was the last post in a thread (gremlins?).
But most importantly, why would you want to stop an individual posting consecutively in a thread?

In any new threads, several responses might be forthcoming to an opening post. Your new rule restricts the thread-starter to only responding to one of those posts until somebody posts again, afterwards, unless he just attempts to respond to everyone in one lonnngggg and jumbled post.

I really don't see the point of this 'update'. Have you really implemented it just to stop the occasional double-post mistake?

I'm hoping a few members join with me to get you to change your mind about this. I really don't like it, to the point that it's going to put me off starting new threads any more. Sorry.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Before someone else makes a reply, you can still edit your post. If you have something to add, just add it by editing your post.

If you have points to make directly at a person and then more points to make directly at another person, then do it in the same post. But I recommend trying to respond to everyone as a group rather than conduct several separate one-on-one conversations in the thread. If you think it won't be too confusing and won't derail the discussion to address each person individually, do it one post like this.

[athena]

Man I hate it when changes are made before I have a chance to say if I like the idea or not. Maybe I need to check this forum daily, so I don't miss the opportunity to put in my two cents.

When the changes were made, the edit function was also blocked.

I "double post" to acknowledge others. When we acknowledge others, we build relationships with them, and those relationships become an important motivating factor for signing on and spending time here.

How about this, instead of acknowledging and interacting with the other members, I end each post with a list of the names of the posters I read. Responding to everyone in one post, would result in post too long to read. Actually, I left another forum because double posting was not allowed. I have a problem with the change, and now the quality of post has become more important.

[lifegazer]

Before someone else makes a reply, you can still edit your post.

Actually, I tried to do that but couldn't, which is why I think there might be a problem.

If you have points to make directly at a person and then more points to make directly at another person, then do it in the same post. But I recommend trying to respond to everyone as a group rather than conduct several separate one-on-one conversations in the thread.

The problem with that, is that responses to individuals can be very long in themselves. And if I have a thread and I'm talking to several people at once, it would often take a post of several thousand words if I have to respond to everyone at the same time. Which puts me off responding altogether.

[Belinda]

Before someone else makes a reply, you can still edit your post. If you have something to add, just add it by editing your post.

As Lifegazer says. I too tried to do this and was told that I had to wait until someone else had posted in the same thread. I moved on and forgot what I had been going to reply.

[athena]

Thank you Scott for the beautiful demonstration of what has gone wrong in the world. What is happening here is exactly why I am no longer Senior Companion.

My superiors insisted there are not problems. From their point of view, the only problem was me and getting rid of me was resolution to the problem.

SCOTT, WE CAN NOT EDIT. Telling us you think we can, is detached from the reality. You are behaving just like my superiors and this kind of dysfunctional relationship is what has gone wrong in the world. Thank you for the demonstration of what is hard to explain.

[Alun]

2nded lifegazer's problem. I like the double-post blocking, but it seems to think editing is also double-posting.

[lifegazer]

It is, without doubt, a decision that could kill this forum. Please Scott, reverse this choice. I'd rather allow for the occasional double-post blunder (which can be deleted by the mods anyway), than take away the individual's right to post two meaningful posts, consecutively.
The annoying thing is that I like this forum, and I don't understand why it's so quiet. But I will do, if this decision of yours sticks.

[athena]

Lifegazer, I am with you on this issue. Would it be possible to split the forum, so those of us who want the block can have it, and those of us who don't want the block, can have a forum without the block?

Actually, I quit another pretty good forum, precisely because we were not allowed to post a second time before someone else posted. Heck, I don't want to read what someone says and feel moved to respond, and not be able to respond, so I am no longer reading what everyone has to say. The only way I can handle this restriction on posting, is to stop reading what others have to say. after I find a post I want to respond to.

It is really awful to leave people I like a lot, but the new condition is destroying the pleasure I was having. It seems so meaningless to read and respond to one post and ignore all the rest. Like what is the point?

[wanabe]

I THIRD LIFGAZERS PROBLEM, AND HAVE NOTIFIED ALL MODERATORS OF THE GLITCH.

this needs to get fixed its very annoying. but i like the idea(lifgazer, just make a page break its no big deal) if it worked right.

the work around is to copy your post, delete it and then reply paste the old post in there and make any additions.

[lifegazer]

lifgazer, just make a page break its no big deal if it worked right.

the work around is to copy your post, delete it and then reply paste the old post in there and make any additions.

That's a pain in the butt, to be honest. And it delays me saying something that I want to say, whilst I wait, in anticipation of adding more to it.

Look, if I start a [what comes to be a] popular thread, I don't want to be in the position of having to manufacture a responsive post of several-thousand words, each time that I respond to several individuals, who each comment on my previous post.

Anybody here who instigates serious threads, should know exactly what I am talking about.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Sorry about the glitch. There was an error in the code. You can now edit posts again. I'm sorry about that.

So if you need to add more to a post, instead of making a whole new post, you can just add it in to your post with an edit rather than make two consecutive posts.

I do not understand why one would want to post a second consecutive post when they could just edit their first post. Making a second post merely reshow one's username, avatar, signature and so forth, which is a waste of space. In the rare case one needs to separate their post into two or more sections, then you can use an extra line break or some asterisks.

I know I get confused when I am reading the posts, I reach the end of one, then start reading the next post, with a new avatar, poster count, signature, etc. but then I realize it's the same person. It'd be like a speaker a board meeting turning on his mic, standing up, talking for a while at one other person in the meeting, and then sitting down, turn his mic off, immediately turn his mic back on, stand back up and start talking at someone else in the meeting. It's confusing.

When you want to address more than one person separately, I gave an example of how you can do it in one post. Here's another example. Here's another.

And here's a great example of an instance when I wanted to separate one part of the post where I was responding to a specific individual. I believe created a whole new post and posting it consecutively after the first one would be more confusing. Using a few asterisks was much preferable to me than re-displaying my avatar, post count, signature, and perhaps even causing a new page for my post.

Most of the time, if you need to make two or more separate posts at once in the same thread, then that indicates that the thread itself needs to be split. It's confusing to read through a thread in which different groups of members are having multiple separate conversations about various sub-topics. If the post can't be put into one, then the thread itself also needs to be split.

We all need to work on staying on topic in each thread, starting new threads to address new topics, reading all the posts in the thread before we join the discussion, and posting in a more inclusive way (e.g. more often asking questions to any and all members who care to answer rather than specifically asking one individual a question).

Regardless, I bet 99% of the time someone makes a consecutive post it is by accident or because they thought of something to add and didn't think of using the edit function. I hardly think many members consciously choose to make two or more separate posts consecutively just to make it clear they are talking about two different subjects or responding to two different people. As I said, an extra line break or some asterisks do that job.

Anyway, thanks a lot everyone for your comments and for telling me about the glitch!

[wanabe]

lifegazer, not to gloat but I made the most relpied to thread. (even if there is a lot of "wanabe vs whitetrshsoldier")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's not a big deal to reply to several people, or several ideas in the same post, don't worry about it, just try it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure if splitting the post as Scott recommends is the best thing, but it is a solution when there are lots of ideas being discussed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tildes (a string of them(~) is called a page break)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
help
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a lot
~~~~~
I've come to realize.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you Scott for fixing the glitch.

[Alun]

Thanks Scott, editing works again.

I agree with Scott and recommend saving space and putting all of your responses in one post. It is especially annoying when people only have short, one-line responses to everyone, but feel they need to make 3-5 posts for them, and thus my entire view of the thread.