Subject:
|
Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 May 2003 14:53:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1423 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > Technical question? Can it be turned off again without disruption if for
> > > whatever reason that were desired?
> >
> > Do you mean can the feature as a whole be disabled?
> > Yes, it would be trivial.
This is what I meant.. if for whatever reason it's decided that FTX should no
longer be allowed in posts, can you at that point
- prevent people from including FTX tags? (I suspect not, at least not in an
easy to implement but hard to get false positives or false negatives way)
- turn off the rendering code that actually renders the tags as enhanced content
for posts? (I suspect yes)
> > Or do you mean on a person-by-person basis? That would be a bit more work.
I hadn't meant that but it's an interesting idea. Again... can you
- prevent a specific person from including FTX tags (I again suspect not)
- turn off the rendering code for some people's posts, but not everyone's, based
on some sort of privilege list? (I suspect yes but with as you say, a fair bit
of work... you have to recognise that a post is from a particular person in
order to turn off the renderer for that post)
> That's an interesting point -- I think it would preserve the
> freedom for those
> who use it responsibly, and enable you to prevent abusers from continuing to
> abuse the privilege.
I think it is hard to determine where the abuse border is. As Todd says, if
50x50 is allowed, is 60x40(less pixels but taller)? 48x55 (less height but more
pixels)? etc.
Hence my statement that I don't like this new feature. At least not yet. As of
right now, I see the disadvantages outweighing the advantages. I've always liked
Lugnet's relative serious look/format.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) Turn it around - let people turn off FTX in messages they read. Todd's already contemplating a setting to let people choose to filter out images based on size. How about another option to filter out all FTX formatting? (...) I've always liked (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) No... although preventing someone from posting with that content type wouldn't be much work if it were administered manually (the same way someone is prevent from posting at all, which is very rare). (...) Yes, trivial. Just commenting out one (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) The various discussion has brought up a lot of issues. There has only been momentary reference to pornography, but have you considered that? Since the images are hosted externally, you can't even put someone on moderation since they can make (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) That's an interesting point -- I think it would preserve the freedom for those who use it responsibly, and enable you to prevent abusers from continuing to abuse the privilege. -Tim (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
