Some questions about when functions will return

[Tellerian Hawke]

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being top priority, 10 being the very, very back burner:

1. What priority is making GM posts yellow again?

2. What priority is allowing GMs to edit their players' posts in gaming threads?

3. What priority is writing some sort of "Search and Replace" function to change SBLOCK to SPOILER?

3a. If the search and replace is not feasible, would it be feasible to make SBLOCK a command again, i.e., you could use SBLOCK or SPOILER and it wouldn't matter? (That would fix the problem)... and what priority is that?

Thank you kind sir, for all that you do. I am most appreciative, and I do NOT want to sound pushy or nagging. Just trying to get it all straight in my head, and want to know what to tell my players.

 

[CapnZapp]

A heads-up about 3a: SBLOCK is not supported by the app, so it would not solve anything.

Cheers

 

[Lanefan]

Sure it would, as either one could be used - thus you, from the app, would continue to use SPOILER - and pre-changeover posts that used SBLOCK wouldn't have to all be updated.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure it would, as either one could be used - thus you, from the app, would continue to use SPOILER - and pre-changeover posts that used SBLOCK wouldn't have to all be updated.

SBLOCK don't work in the app, never have.

So unless what you're saying is that you're ready to throw every app user under the bus, let's agree reimplementing SBLOCK is a bad idea.

Thx

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

I'm not trying to sound pushy, or arrogant, and I'm not trying to "poke the bear."

I truly want to understand the reasons behind this.

If the app is able to be modified by its implementors, why would adding SBLOCK as an alternate way to call the spoiler function be difficult?

I'm not saying that you should add another command that duplicates the function of the spoiler routine; I'm saying you should add a term to the existing spoiler routine, which will accommodate previous instances.

In my head, I am picturing this: (Very simplified version):

IF INPUT = SPOILER THEN OPEN SPOILER ROUTINE
IF INPUT = /SPOILER THEN CLOSE SPOILER ROUTINE

Would change to this:

IF INPUT = SPOILER, SBLOCK THEN OPEN SPOILER ROUTINE
IF INPUT = /SPOILER, /SBLOCK THEN CLOSE SPOILER ROUTINE

So I'm guessing it's a lot more complicated than that? I haven't programmed anything since my FORTRAN days (Yes, I'm that old) so please forgive me if this is a "Stupid" question.

To me, it seems to be the most elegant solution to the eyesore of all of those SBLOCK functions that now don't work. You don't add a command, you simply add a term that also calls the spoiler routine.

The alternative, would be to write a script, that scours the entire database, and replaces every instance of SBLOCK or /SBLOCK with SPOILER or /SPOILER. That seems like a big server load to me, whereas adding a term simply allows the old posts to remain unchanged, while allowing the spoiler command to continue functioning as intended.

 

[Umbran]

If the app is able to be modified by its implementors, why would adding SBLOCK as an alternate way to call the spoiler function be difficult?

Note: Morrus and EN World do not control or influence development on the app - it is developed by a third party, and Morrus merely offers it up to users. If you want the App changed, you have to have a discussion with the folks over at Tapatalk.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

@Umbran Ah, I see now. So this isn't like I was imagining, then.

I was thinking that Morrus and the other admins modified it from its original state. I thought it was a customizable platform.

Back in the old days, when my friends and I ran BBSs, we would often go into the source code, add commands, change the way existing commands worked, etc.

The same was true for when a friend of mine was running a MUD. The program (which ran in Linux) came as a "standard version" ("Rivers of Mud," or "ROM") and then everyone who ran it would customize it to suit their needs. You could log into a ROM implementation that looked nothing like the original, and other times, you could log into one, and it would look as if hardly anything had been done to change it at all... it all depended on the individual.

So, if you guys aren't modding the code, then my point is moot. And that's perfectly cool. Cheers!

 

[Umbran]

So, if you guys aren't modding the code, then my point is moot. And that's perfectly cool. Cheers!

The boards themselves have a whole lot of configuration that might be done, and Morrus does have an engineer who does such work - and helped with the migration to the new platform.

But, the mobile app is an interface to several different platforms that is outside our development control.

 

[Morrus]

Remind me what the PbPBB codes were.

			Think

OOC: OOC

GM: GM

			Say

 

[Morrus]

What did those two broken ones do before?

 

[jmucchiello]

Did anyone use them? I'm a frequent PbP player and I didn't even know the old place had them.

Making SBLOCK work again would say me a lot of hand editing.

Add to this OP list:

MENTION = USER

Getting POST to work would be useful too. But probably harder as it seems Xenforo doesn't have a post URL. Instead it uses the thread URL and uses the # anchor to get to the post.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

Yeah, I never used SAY or THINK, because I didn't even know they existed. I mainly used GM, OOC, and SBLOCK. But I agree with JMucchiello, fixing SBLOCK would save me a TON of editing, lol.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

Bumping this thread again, not for the SBLOCK thing, but simply for the other two features that were really simple and super useful:

1. What priority is making GM posts yellow again?

2. What priority is allowing GMs to edit their players' posts in gaming threads?

Thanks!

 

[Morrus]

I still don’t understand the GM posts issue. The GM post tag I posted above made GM posts blue, not yellow.

I don’t think the latter is possible in this software.

 

[jmucchiello]

I still don’t understand the GM posts issue. The GM post tag I posted above made GM posts blue, not yellow.

I think he means, the entire post by the GM being yellow. Not just

GM: GM Text

Presumably, if the software can't allow the thread creator to have edit rights, it can't figure out to make their posts yellow either.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

I'm talking about GMs having mod powers in their own games. i.e., this post:

GMs now have MOD powers over their own games (aka "Why are all my posts yellow?")

In this forum (Playing the Game) GMs now have more control over the PbP games they run. GMs - defined as thread starters in this forum - are distinguished from players with a yellow background to their posts. This enables players to easily pick out GM posts, instructions, information, etc...

www.enworld.org

 

[jmucchiello]

I was only referring to the "yellow" post part. And again, since that ability seems not to exist in the software, that feature will not be returning.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

Rats. That was a TREMENDOUSLY useful feature. I'm really going to miss that sigh

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, if I may, please stop asking for SBLOCK. It does not work for app users, and ENWorld doesn't control the app. It was unfortunate that it was supported on desktop (or to be specific, the unfortunate part was that SPOILER didn't work), but that's in the past.

Instead take this opportunity to standardize all your posts on the SPOILER tag, which now works everywhere.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

Again, if I may, please stop asking for SBLOCK. It does not work for app users, and ENWorld doesn't control the app. It was unfortunate that it was supported on desktop (or to be specific, the unfortunate part was that SPOILER didn't work), but that's in the past.

Instead take this opportunity to standardize all your posts on the SPOILER tag, which now works everywhere.

I stopped talking about SBLOCK several replies ago, we're on to GM moderator capabilities now, please keep up. teasing