Ask the Staff Anything About RF

[Eddi]

I miss the thing that used to list the ten most recently created new threads

Will this feature ever return?

 

[Harel13]

I miss the thing that used to list the ten most recently created new threads

Will this feature ever return?

Unfortunately, we don't know.

 

[Eddi]

Unfortunately, we don't know.

Oh no!

Is there any chance the featured threads thing will ever return?

 

[Harel13]

Oh no!

Is there any chance the featured threads thing will ever return?

Likewise, unfortunately, we don't know.

 

[Eddi]

Likewise, unfortunately, we don't know.

If it were somehow possible for those two things to return would the staff want them to?

 

[Harel13]

If it were somehow possible for those two things to return would the staff want them to?

Yes.

 

[Secret Chief]

I miss the thing that used to list the ten most recently created new threads

Will this feature ever return?

I've created loads of brilliant threads that just sank without trace. Some of them even had a reply.

 

[Eddi]

I've created loads of brilliant threads that just sank without trace. Some of them even had a reply.

Me too!

That recently created threads thing really helped new threads take off and get some traction

 

[sun rise]

Likewise, unfortunately, we don't know.

Just after the migration, I did some research about what we lost. I don't remember the details but other people had the same issue and someone had figured out how to bring it back but it was not a simple "click this option". Adding "likes" was something easy. Some things require technical people to fiddle with.

 

[Eddi]

If restoring RF to its former glory is a matter of money might it be possible to organise some kind of whip-around to which the membership could contribute?

It surely can't be prohibitively expensive to pay for some tech person to come and make everything right?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I seem to be having a misunderstanding of something.

It is my understanding that when a thread title states the target participants that non target participants are to not post.

For example, the thread Theists: what would a godless world look like is for theists only.
And not being a theist, I stayed out of it.

However, the thread titled Atheists: what would a god world look like has theists in there attacking everyone.

So is my understanding incorrect and the non targeted participants are not only allowed to participate but attack?

The rules about DIR forums are clear, but I've always assumed that any other threads are open to all. The thread creator can request that someone doesn't participate, or that the subject matter be constrained in some way, but that is not a rule to be enforced by Mods.

Is that correct? (I personally prefer a "wide open" approach, but that's me).

To be clear on the policy, a thread entitled "Theists: What Would a Godless Universe Look Like?" is open to all members. However, a thread titled "Theists Only: What would a Godless Universe Look Like?" would be, as the title indicates, only open to theists. The former makes it clear that the question is directed at theists, but anyone may participate in the thread.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I miss the thing that used to list the ten most recently created new threads

Will this feature ever return?

Oh no!

Is there any chance the featured threads thing will ever return?

These were Xenforo extensions that were purchased by the previous owners on the previous iteration of the software.

Whether or not they return would be a decision for the current owners, as the staff does not have the ability or authorization to make such changes to the forum software at this time.

If it were somehow possible for those two things to return would the staff want them to?

I think most of the staff would like to see them here again. Especially the former. The latter would probably be inconsequential with the absence of the "Home" page that existed on the previous version of the software.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I've created loads of brilliant threads that just sank without trace. Some of them even had a reply.

I keep asking the rest of the staff to move mine threads to Stupid Thread Ideas. I guess they're too busy.

 

[Secret Chief]

I keep asking the rest of the staff to move mine threads to Stupid Thread Ideas. I guess they're too busy.

You trying to break the thread?

 

[sun rise]

These were Xenforo extensions that were purchased by the previous owners on the previous iteration of the software.

Whether or not they return would be a decision for the current owners, as the staff does not have the ability or authorization to make such changes to the forum software at this time.

My cursory research shows that there are a lot of cheap extensions. Does anyone know what the name of those extensions were or where they were purchased? If they're cheap enough, we might have a few people who could kick in some money if and only if there was an agreement to install them.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My cursory research shows that there are a lot of cheap extensions. Does anyone know what the name of those extensions were or where they were purchased? If they're cheap enough, we might have a few people who could kick in some money if and only if there was an agreement to install them.

One of the admin that have been here a dating back to that time may know or at least know how to find out.

@Quagmire @Debater Slayer

 

[McBell]

To be clear on the policy, a thread entitled "Theists: What Would a Godless Universe Look Like?" is open to all members. However, a thread titled "Theists Only: What would a Godless Universe Look Like?" would be, as the title indicates, only open to theists. The former makes it clear that the question is directed at theists, but anyone may participate in the thread.

So Theists: is merely indicating the intended target but not limited to the intended target.

Whereas Theists Only: is indicating the intended target and only the intended target may participate.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So Theists: is merely indicating the intended target but not limited to the intended target.

Whereas Theists Only: is indicating the intended target and only the intended target may participate.

Precisely!

 

[Alien826]

To be clear on the policy, a thread entitled "Theists: What Would a Godless Universe Look Like?" is open to all members. However, a thread titled "Theists Only: What would a Godless Universe Look Like?" would be, as the title indicates, only open to theists. The former makes it clear that the question is directed at theists, but anyone may participate in the thread.

Thanks. A couple of further questions then.

Is that in the rules somewhere?

If not how can I know which threads it applies to? (Not too silly a question, how about "only theists" or "just for theists"?) And are there other similar things to watch out for?

I'm not trying to be nit picky, but it would not have occurred to me that "Theists only" was anything but a request by the OP. I'm trying to avoid breaking rules.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Thanks. A couple of further questions then.

Is that in the rules somewhere?

If not how can I know which threads it applies to? (Not too silly a question, how about "only theists" or "just for theists"?) And are there other similar things to watch out for?

I'm not trying to be nit picky, but it would not have occurred to me that "Theists only" was anything but a request by the OP. I'm trying to avoid breaking rules.

It's covered by Rule 10, though not explicitly, and "Only" threads are treated in much the same way as DIRs, with the exception being that the OP, if they don't identify as a member of that religion, may ask follow-up questions.

There are so many variables when it comes to enforcing the forum mission, it's difficult to have a written rule for every potential circumstance.

We're not going to drop the ban hammer on someone that unwittingly posts in such a thread, especially if they're a member in good standing. In such cases, the harshest action you'll see would be an informal reminder.