Page 74 of 75
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 12, 2018 4:39 pm
by FireyPaperMario
Guys, is it normal for when I use the code in my posts:
Is it suppose to look like this:
Glitched shits
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 12, 2018 4:50 pm
by GforGoomba
MarioRPGExpert93 wrote: ↑Sat May 12, 2018 4:39 pm
Guys, is it normal for when I use the code in my posts:
Is it suppose to look like this:
Glitched shits
Yep
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:59 pm
by Emral
I sometimes see staff replying to a post that breaks the rules and other times adding a note along the lines of "user has been notified about this post". Is there some sort of pattern behind using one over the other? I find the latter option to be much sleeker in any case.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 8:05 pm
by Danny
Enjl wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 6:59 pm
I sometimes see staff replying to a post that breaks the rules and other times adding a note along the lines of "user has been notified about this post". Is there some sort of pattern behind using one over the other? I find the latter option to be much sleeker in any case.
I've noticed this happening for the past like 4 years and there seems to be no conformity to it. Would be interesting to know, though. Thanks for bringing it up.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 4:50 pm
by FireyPaperMario
Can the
Staff of the
SMBX forums make a small rule about avatars:
- The small rule should be that you should not use a forums avatar that's currently being used by somebody else as your's without the original owner's approval?
Just saying that because some 10 year old is using my current avatar.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 4:57 pm
by ElectriKong
MarioRPGExpert93 wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 4:50 pm
Can the
Staff of the
SMBX forums make a small rule about avatars:
- The small rule should be that you should not use a forums avatar that's currently being used by somebody else as your's without the original owner's approval?
Just saying that because some 10 year old is using my current avatar.
I think your case is one of very few cases where this could apply. In the case of most avatars though, I would imagine they originated from Google images and therefore the rule can't apply.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 11:02 pm
by aero
Enjl wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 6:59 pm
I sometimes see staff replying to a post that breaks the rules and other times adding a note along the lines of "user has been notified about this post". Is there some sort of pattern behind using one over the other? I find the latter option to be much sleeker in any case.
There's no pattern, just different preferences. At one point the staff agreed that the note thing wasn't necessary, but it ended up going along anyway after a while.
MarioRPGExpert93 wrote:
Can the
Staff of the
SMBX forums make a small rule about avatars:
- The small rule should be that you should not use a forums avatar that's currently being used by somebody else as your's without the original owner's approval?
Just saying that because some 10 year old is using my current avatar. :o
As long as they're not impersonating you there not really much of a point to this. Just ignore it.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:39 am
by Emral
GhostHawk wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 11:02 pm
Enjl wrote: ↑Wed May 16, 2018 6:59 pm
I sometimes see staff replying to a post that breaks the rules and other times adding a note along the lines of "user has been notified about this post". Is there some sort of pattern behind using one over the other? I find the latter option to be much sleeker in any case.
There's no pattern, just different preferences. At one point the staff agreed that the note thing wasn't necessary, but it ended up going along anyway after a while.
Huh. Why was the reply chosen over the note thing, out of curiousity? As far as I can tell, the note is much closer attached to the post (which makes it easier to see which reported posts were already dealt with), doesn't bump the topic, feels less expose-y, makes sure the full message only goes to the user who needed to hear it in the first place and removes something that feels like it should've been a PM from the mod's post histories.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:55 pm
by aero
Replies weren't necessarily chosen, but in cases where a mod would do the note thing it was decided that a PM would be better. That decision was made based on if it was anyone else's business other than the staff and that user that they did something wrong, and at the time staff felt it wasn't so that practiced was moved away from. I do agree that it's better than replies because of the specific reasons you mentioned, and I try to apply that however the thing is all of the staff respond to situational things at their discretion and because of this there is no pattern.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 2:37 am
by Archived
Just wondering, what exactly determines if something goes into archives?
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 3:35 am
by aero
If it fits into any of the categories or important enough to archive instead of being locked and forgotten about.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 1:03 pm
by Archived
GhostHawk wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 3:35 am
If it fits into any of the categories or important enough to archive instead of being locked and forgotten about.
Is there a certain post count that causes a thread to be archived by any chance?
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 1:31 pm
by GforGoomba
Eclipsed wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:03 pm
GhostHawk wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 3:35 am
If it fits into any of the categories or important enough to archive instead of being locked and forgotten about.
Is there a certain post count that causes a thread to be archived by any chance?
100
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 1:34 pm
by Cedur
^ page count, not post count
and it rarely happens
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 2:04 pm
by Archived
Cedur wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:34 pm
^ page count, not post count
and it rarely happens
Yeah that makes much more sense since I'm pretty sure most threads get to 100 posts
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 2:32 pm
by Taycamgame
^
Which is equivilent to 20 posts per page x 100 pages = 2000 posts.
EDIT, 21/05/2018:
So i decided to come onto the forums today, like i do everyday. But something was wrong; when i came to the site it gave an error basically saying the site was "unsafe" and that hackers could steal my data from here... is that an issue on my end, or a problem with the site? (It says in bold at the top, "your connection is not private")
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:27 am
by Warlock
Taycamgame wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 2:32 pm
^
Which is equivilent to 20 posts per page x 100 pages = 2000 posts.
EDIT, 21/05/2018:
So i decided to come onto the forums today, like i do everyday. But something was wrong; when i came to the site it gave an error basically saying the site was "unsafe" and that hackers could steal my data from here... is that an issue on my end, or a problem with the site? (It says in bold at the top, "your connection is not private")
It's an issue with the site. We're currently working on a fix.
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 1:15 am
by aero
Would a return of the SuperMarioBrosX.org forum with some changes be popular?
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 3:32 am
by Taycamgame
I see... how did it happen, as i was not here to witness it?
Re: Site Discussion Thread
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 7:02 am
by ShadowStarX
GhostHawk wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 1:15 am
Would a return of the SuperMarioBrosX.org forum with some changes be popular?
You mean the 2014 layout?