New Forum Logo

[Nancy]

Sorry, but the idea that anyone would actually be trying to do what you describe is scary and very disconcerting!


Nancy

I guess I should define it again, especially since it's a term with multiple meanings outside of internet posting boards.  Fluffing occurs when members attempt to inflate their post totals in order to gain a more prestigious title on the forums.  We're not attempting to judge the content of messages; if a poster wants to merely post "LOL" or a smiley because that's how they want to express themselves at that time, then by all means they should do it.  What makes a message problematic is its intent-- if the poster is clicking submit with the purpose of upping their own total, they're fluffing.  This doesn't enhance the board, it does waste bandwidth as well as the time of everyone that reads these posts, and it ticks off the moderator.

I hope I didn't confuse anyone!  And I didn't mean to come across like I'm lecturing, or that I'm only addressing one person.  

[Nancy]

Another thing too MB is that I don't know how many people read the Testing board and where you make the requests.  I rarely ever looked at those source because I didn't have any problems with the board and if he was down when I tried logging on, I knew it would be back up eventually.  Until recently, as I said, I didn't read those posts even the ones above the Current Talk board but I started to recently realizing I was skipping important information such as the bandwith saving measures you wrote about.  I wonder how many other people also have ignored the sections thinking it only applied to those who were having problems??

However, I realize that if that is the case, as it was with me, it's not at all a good idea to skip over those sections whether or not you have a technical issue on the board you want to discuss.  I did just collapse all the sections since I started reading these testing boards and issues.  I should not have skipped over those sections.

Nancy

Hmmm - now wouldn't it be so interesting if I did decide to post the names of the people who've taken it upon themselves to forego their share of the responsibility for saving bandwidth so that those people who are actually doing their part could see exactly who seems to think they're above their fellow posters.

[Connie]

Another thing too MB is that I don't know how many people read the Testing board and where you make the requests.  I rarely ever looked at those.......Until recently, as I said, I didn't read those posts even the ones above the Current Talk board but I started to recently realizing I was skipping important information such as the bandwith saving measures you wrote about.  I wonder how many other people also have ignored the sections thinking it only applied to those who were having problems??

I'm glad Nancy brought this up.  
MB....I rarely read the Testing section either or the top flagged posts in Current Topics area.  My eyes just have a tendency to glance over them - simply because I've maybe read something there in the past and don't realize there's a new issue or request.  I bet many people do the same thing.  
It sort of upsets me that you may be thinking the worst of people because they're not responding to your requests.  I think there are probably quite a few who aren't aware of them.  Not everyone reads EVERYTHING that's posted on this board.  (I certainly don't - I don't have the time.  It's a busy board and I can't keep up).
Also, not everyone understands everything they're reading.  If they don't, they'll have a tendency to skip over it.

Example:  Yesterday I asked my daughter if she'd collapsed her categories and she didn't know what in hell I was talking about.  I had to explain everything.

Also, the issue of your thinking some members are spiteful and turned the smileys back on after you turned them off....think about it.
You have to realize that you know this board intimately, how everything works, what everyone is doing, etc.
WE, on the other side, see the board differently.
It's obvious to me, that someone has logged on, gone to type a post in, and seen that their smileys are missing.  So they check in their profile and it's like, "hey - something weird happened" and they go and turn them back on -- NOT realizing you turned them off to save bandwidth 'cause they never read the message.!!
Most of the people on here aren't programmers, computer wiz's, etc.  Some of us are in the dark in certain areas (and at times, a bit thick)(at least I am).
Please don't think badly of people because it "appears" that they've deliberately done something out of spite.
I think the overwhelming majority of board members are good people with no spiteful intentions at all.

Don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or anything....
Just wanted to give you my take on what I think happens -- on the "other side of the screen" from you, so to speak, ya know?

-CLC  
Who still isn't familiar with ALL the features of this board!

[Mysterious Benefactor]

MB....I rarely read the Testing section either or the top flagged posts in Current Topics area.  My eyes just have a tendency to glance over them - simply because I've maybe read something there in the past and don't realize there's a new issue or request.  I bet many people do the same thing.  
It sort of upsets me that you may be thinking the worst of people because they're not responding to your requests.  I think there are probably quite a few who aren't aware of them.  Not everyone reads EVERYTHING that's posted on this board.  (I certainly don't - I don't have the time.  It's a busy board and I can't keep up).
Also, not everyone understands everything they're reading.  If they don't, they'll have a tendency to skip over it.

Example:  Yesterday I asked my daughter if she'd collapsed her categories and she didn't know what in hell I was talking about.  I had to explain everything.

Also, the issue of your thinking some members are spiteful and turned the smileys back on after you turned them off....think about it.
You have to realize that you know this board intimately, how everything works, what everyone is doing, etc.
WE, on the other side, see the board differently.
It's obvious to me, that someone has logged on, gone to type a post in, and seen that their smileys are missing.  So they check in their profile and it's like, "hey - something weird happened" and they go and turn them back on -- NOT realizing you turned them off to save bandwidth 'cause they never read the message.!!
Most of the people on here aren't programmers, computer wiz's, etc.  Some of us are in the dark in certain areas (and at times, a bit thick)(at least I am).
Please don't think badly of people because it "appears" that they've deliberately done something out of spite.
I think the overwhelming majority of board members are good people with no spiteful intentions at all.

Don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or anything....
Just wanted to give you my take on what I think happens -- on the "other side of the screen" from you, so to speak, ya know?

Well, I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing anyone either, but as a point of reference, I'd like to quote a paragraph from the forum's rules/guidelines, which I'm sure you and everyone else thoroughly read over when you registered as a member, right?

"It is the responsibility of posters to this board to familiarize him- or herself with these guidelines before posting to these forums. It's up to you to periodically check to see if they have been added to and/or amended. It's also up to you to be sure to read and follow any instructions that might be posted to either the 'Testing. 1, 2, 3...' board and/or specially marked topics atop 'Current Talk'. Failure to read additions/amendments and/or special posts will not be considered an excuse should you violate a guideline or fail to comply with a request."

Periodically checking the rules/guidelines is a simple enough task as we've made sure that a link to them is in the menu at the top and bottom of most of the forum's pages. And any special posts made on either "Testing. 1, 2, 3..." or "Current Talk" are always specially marked to draw attention to them.

Also, it's unfortunate that four posts I made in this topic last night are no longer here (due to our host's rebooting of the server) because you might not have come away with quite the same impression as you did without having read them...

[Connie]

Also, it's unfortunate that four posts I made in this topic last night are no longer here (due to our host's rebooting of the server) because you might not have come away with quite the same impression as you did without having read them...

Soooo...does this mean you're like, pissed at me or anything?  (No - I didn't see the 4 posts you're referring to).
I just felt badly that in a couple of your earlier posts you were thinking people spiteful, when I just had the strong impression that probably the most they were guilty of was negligence at the worst.
I dunno...maybe I'm naive.

As far as the guidelines you posted above, I believe I read the guidelines when I first registered.  But do I remember that specific paragraph?  Can't say that I do.  Guilty
When I come on here, I just sort of try to behave myself, and if I see a request by you or Midnite I try to follow it.  (shrug)

-CLC        

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Soooo...does this mean you're like, pissed at me or anything?

No. Not at all! In fact, in one of my missing posts I added to Midnite's sentiments by telling you that there was absolutely no reason to limit yourself to only five posts a day unless you didn't have more than five in you. You've given me some of the best laughs I've had reading the forum - and you have no idea just how therapeutic that's been some days!

I just felt badly that in a couple of your earlier posts you were thinking people spiteful, when I just had the strong impression that probably the most they were guilty of was negligence at the worst.
I dunno...maybe I'm naive.

Naive? No. And truthfully, part of the impression you got is my own fault for making those comments publicly. But, you see, they were directed at people who, shall we say, have been less than cooperative with Midnite or myself in the past when privately we've politely made a request of them, so addressing them publicly was sort of a change of tack that we hoped might work. Sadly, so far anyway, it hasn't...

As far as the guidelines you posted above, I believe I read the guidelines when I first registered.  But do I remember that specific paragraph?  Can't say that I do.

Well, the majority of the wording (particularly the parts about it being people's responsibility to periodically check the quidelines for updates and amendments) has been there all along - but it was amended a few months back after a somewhat similar incident occurred.

When I come on here, I just sort of try to behave myself, and if I see a request by you or Midnite I try to follow it.  (shrug)

And, believe me, in the overwhelming majority of cases, Midnite and I couldn't ask for a nicer or a more conscientious bunch of people to enjoy our love of DS with. What's unfortunate are the ones that seem to continually cause problems for no apparent reason other than they can. But at least Midnite and I have each other to vent to - and that's a hell of a lot more healthy, not to mention a lot safer than actually finding out where these people live and throwing them off a cliff, blowing them up, running them down, or any number of other fantasies we've joked with each other about doing. And one thing's for sure, behind the scenes of this forum is never dull.

[Nancy]

Connie, I'm almost sure I was one of those people who probably went in and thought previously checked boxes were unchecked because I screwed up. However, I should have been reading the testing board all along as it is the individual responsibility to keep up with changes.  When I initially started reading everything when this new board went up, frankly I found some of the complaints on the testing board too finicky for me, especially in light of the fact the board was new and obviously there were many things to be worked out and would be in time.  So, I stopped reading. However, I should not have done so obviously since I think I'm one of the people the MB was talking about, though I am simply not smart enough computer-wise to have been deliberate in not cooperating.

Scrolling through the board to keep up with what the MB or Midnite say on the testing boards etc. is the way to go.  I spend most of my online time on two political forums but I want this forum to go well especially after so much time has been put into it, so I will take the time to read and comply with future requests etc.  It's only fair to everyone else.

Nancy

I'm glad Nancy brought this up.  
MB....I rarely read the Testing section either or the top flagged posts in Current Topics area.  My eyes just have a tendency to glance over them - simply because I've maybe read something there in the past and don't realize there's a new issue or request.  I bet many people do the same thing.  
It sort of upsets me that you may be thinking the worst of people because they're not responding to your requests.  I think there are probably quite a few who aren't aware of them.  Not everyone reads EVERYTHING that's posted on this board.  (I certainly don't - I don't have the time.  It's a busy board and I can't keep up).
Also, not everyone understands everything they're reading.  If they don't, they'll have a tendency to skip over it.

Example:  Yesterday I asked my daughter if she'd collapsed her categories and she didn't know what in hell I was talking about.  I had to explain everything.

Also, the issue of your thinking some members are spiteful and turned the smileys back on after you turned them off....think about it.
You have to realize that you know this board intimately, how everything works, what everyone is doing, etc.
WE, on the other side, see the board differently.
It's obvious to me, that someone has logged on, gone to type a post in, and seen that their smileys are missing.  So they check in their profile and it's like, "hey - something weird happened" and they go and turn them back on -- NOT realizing you turned them off to save bandwidth 'cause they never read the message.!!
Most of the people on here aren't programmers, computer wiz's, etc.  Some of us are in the dark in certain areas (and at times, a bit thick)(at least I am).
Please don't think badly of people because it "appears" that they've deliberately done something out of spite.
I think the overwhelming majority of board members are good people with no spiteful intentions at all.

Don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or anything....
Just wanted to give you my take on what I think happens -- on the "other side of the screen" from you, so to speak, ya know?

-CLC  
Who still isn't familiar with ALL the features of this board!

[Nancy]

MB,

Seriously though - why don't you and Midnite boot these people you describe? There is no reason in the world for something to continue if you have privately made requests about how you want things on your board.  

There are apparently many other people who would like to be on this board and can't get in now because of registration limitations.  Booting people who "deliberate" in the ways you and Midnite have described would not be at all unreasonable.

Just a thought.  I know I would.

Nancy

Naive? No. And truthfully, part of the impression you got is my own fault for making those comments publicly. But, you see, they were directed at people who, shall we say, have been less than cooperative with Midnite or myself in the past when privately we've politely made a request of them, so addressing them publicly was sort of a change of tack that we hoped might work. Sadly, so far anyway, it hasn't...

Well, the majority of the wording (particularly the parts about it being people's responsibility to periodically check the quidelines for updates and amendments) has been there all along - but it was amended a few months back after a somewhat similar incident occurred.

And, believe me, in the overwhelming majority of cases, Midnite and I couldn't ask for a nicer or a more conscientious bunch of people to enjoy our love of DS with. What's unfortunate are the ones that seem to continually cause problems for no apparent reason other than they can. But at least Midnite and I have each other to vent to - and that's a hell of a lot more healthy, not to mention a lot safer than actually finding out where these people live and throwing them off a cliff, blowing them up, running them down, or any number of other fantasies we've joked with each other about doing. And one thing's for sure, behind the scenes of this forum is never dull.

[Midnite]

Seriously though - why don't you and Midnite boot these people you describe? There is no reason in the world for something to continue if you have privately made requests about how you want things on your board.

Well, truthfully, persistent troublemakers do teeter on the edge, but as MB pointed out, these are persons that hear from us a lot already.  Yet kicking somebody off is an extreme measure (particularly since right now there's no way to get back on) and reserved for the most disruptive visitors, i.e. the trolls, whom we will not hesitate to deal with swiftly.  I don't know if this is surprising to anybody or not, but our ban list is very short.

We've found that other methods can be just as effective.  For example, most people don't like to be singled out publicly despite the fact that they may have continually ignored the same requests when asked anonymously or even privately, and members can and have been muted (prevented from posting) for a period of time.  Also, nobody likes to have their posts removed.  And while there's no guideline yet on fluffing, I suspect that once it's in place it might impact the persons the most that continue the practice if they lost their posting status, don't you think?  The total they worked so hard to inflate can be easily deflated with the click of a mouse.

There are apparently many other people who would like to be on this board and can't get in now because of registration limitations.  Booting people who "deliberate" in the ways you and Midnite have described would not be at all unreasonable.

It's true that there are a lot of people anxious to join, but the ones causing problems are a tiny minority of our membership, so we're not able to think in terms of replacing one cousin with another.

The only way we're going to get the registration process open again is to reduce bandwidth, so this is why we're being sticklers about it.  Reducing bandwidth will allow us to open the forum to new members and more importantly to stop the server from shutting us down periodically, which denies access to the members we already have.

Just a thought.  I know I would.

I understand, Nancy, and I appreciate your feedback.  I've looked at other message boards and at the different moderating styles and it's been eye opening, to say the least.  Anyone that thinks we're pushy should meet "Iron Bastard" on another forum (or maybe not.... brrrr!).  But anyway, though my patience is hardly limitless, I do believe in second chances.

[Nancy]

Midnite, my quotation gizmo was not working so I cut and paste parts of your message:

quote:[[We've found that other methods can be just as effective.  For example, most people don't like to be singled out publicly despite the fact that they may have continually ignored the same requests when asked anonymously or even privately, and members can and have been muted (prevented from posting) for a period of time. ]]]]

Ah, that's a good measure to have in place.

quote:[[ Also, nobody likes to have their posts removed.  And while there's no guideline yet on fluffing, I suspect that once it's in place it might impact the persons the most that continue the practice if they lost their posting status, don't you think?  The total they worked so hard to inflate can be easily deflated with the click of a mouse.  ]]

Frankly, anyone who cares about getting a certain number of posts to their credit isn't someone who thinks too much about the comfort or concerns of other people.  Sorry but that practice strikes me as bizarre and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it. I mean, it's not as if you will get Green Stamps, a free banquet table and no waiting at the Festival, and a chance to tie up and push Roger Davis in a vat of taffy.  But you and MB know what has worked best in terms of keeping people in line when they cross the line.  I think it's awful that either one of you gets any grief considering all the time you put into this forum which is for, I might add, recreation and enjoyment.  
quote:[[The only way we're going to get the registration process open again is to reduce bandwidth, so this is why we're being sticklers about it.  Reducing bandwidth will allow us to open the forum to new members and more importantly to stop the server from shutting us down periodically, which denies access to the members we already have. }}

I see. I will keep up with the news on that score in the future.

Quote: I understand, Nancy, and I appreciate your feedback.  I've looked at other message boards and at the different moderating styles and it's been eye opening, to say the least.  Anyone that thinks we're pushy should meet "Iron Bastard" on another forum (or maybe not.... brrrr!).  But anyway, though my patience is hardly limitless, I do believe in second chances. ]]

As do I but the impression I have gotten from reading comments here, you've given more than two chances. However, obviously, you know your limits. You are a very patient person. I'm not renowned for my patience or tolerance when it comes to folks who deliberately try to create a problem so I admire people who are a little more patient and understanding about it.  That particular neuron I was not blessed with at birth.

Nancy

[Mysterious Benefactor]

frankly I found some of the complaints on the testing board too finicky for me, especially in light of the fact the board was new and obviously there were many things to be worked out and would be in time.

No one actually has to read all the posts here to keep up with special requests. Whenever Midnite or I post a special topic, we're always sure to draw attention to it by either including asterisks in the title, moving it to the top of a board, highlighting it with a flag or a star burst, or some combination of all of the above. It's true that there's often a lot of useful information posted here concerning forum upgrades or posting features. But sometimes they're made in response to a question or a request, so those things could be harder to spot right off the bat. However, that sort of stuff doesn't really have much to do with the current discussion, which has more to do with people who've read the topics we've started but have chosen to do something contrary to what either Midnite or I have requested.

As I mentioned in the "Reporting Problems" topic at the top of this board, the forum's system compiles a lot of information. So, if need be, it's very easy for us to check who has opened a topic that we've started as well as how many times they've opened it. And it's very hard for someone to argue that they didn't open a topic when we know they, in fact, have - and exactly when they did so. And it's also very hard for them to argue that they didn't at least read the first post that we started the topic with.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Rewritten reply #1:

WHEW! Thanks for the logo fix, MB!

You're welcomed.

It's like the kind of relief you feel after Connie's been quiet for three days and then she posts some kind of a big honking episode of photos and captions and suddenly all is right with the world again.

LOL.

The card-style sliding of the page is kinda neat

Midnite and I thought so too.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Sort of rewritten reply #2:

i just hit collapse again and all is collapsed Is this right?

Yes, you've done it perfectly (again).

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Sort of rewritten reply #3:

(Josette had asked if the updates notice comes up in only the later versions of Windows because she's still using Win95 and has ever had it come up for her.)

Yes, the Windows Update window only comes up for people using Win98 or later. Anyone still using Win95 should go to this page on Microsoft's site:

Microsoft Download Center

select "Windows 95" from both the "Product Name" and "Operating System" menus, and "All Downloads" from the "Show Results for" menu. Then click on "Find It". What will then come up are the first 25 of 74 downloads available for Win95 users. And you might think about going there soon because Microsoft has already discontinued support for Win95, so it might be anyone's guess just how long the downloads that were specifically designed for Win95 will be available.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

And now back to new a new post.

When I was browsing Microsoft's site for Josette, I came across a link to this page in the Microsoft Knowledge Base that might resolve the error some people were getting when the transition logo was still in place:

Script Error Viewing a Web Site That Uses Transition Filters

I've also discovered that certain filters and transitions will work in IE4 and later, while others only work in IE 5.5 and later. Some of the new features that I plan to install on the forum will include a few of the ones that require IE 5.5, so if people using a version of IE earlier than that might want to consider upgrading to at least 5.5 if they want to take advantage of the new features. If you don't already have a link to the Windows Update home page in the top section of your "Start" menu, this can be done quite easily by going here:

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/

and clicking on "Product Updates" on the left hand side of the page.