⭐ Merited by LoyceV (6) ,hosemary (4) ,vapourminer (4) ,dkbit98 (3) ,joker_josue (2) ,ABCbits (1) ,Cyrus (1)
Would it be possible to make something other than the title clickable? Say the post number, the date, or even the "/"?
Nice one. I'll likely work on that (at some point).What's going on there is that Symmetrick edited the subject into the Unicode character U+3164 ("Hangul Filler"). I quickly parsed the UCD XML file (for Unicode 16.0.0) and found ~406 other characters that will cause that same kind of (browser dependent) nothing-to-click problem. This is more of a note to myself than to you, but, to prevent that kind of "blank" subject from being possible in the first place, I suppose I should write a stripInvisible function (to filter out those ~407 "default ignorable" characters) along with a beefed-up trim function (to gobble up all ~25 kinds of whitespace from both ends of a string). That way, blank-but-not-empty subjects won't sneak past the minimum-length check. Probably, almost all of the ~65 Unicode control characters have no business being in subjects, either. I'm not sure about the ~170 formatting characters (though, I think ~138 of those would be caught anyway by the hypothetical stripInvisible function).
Hmm... I just tired myself out thinking about how I'm going to shoehorn all of that (or its whitelist inverse) into SMF's strange and inconsistent text-handling story; Imma rest my eyes for just a minute, m'kay?
* PowerGlove dozes off...
About the interesting discussion on the previous page: I have thoughts, but, as usual, they're complicated, and it will take time for me to try to distill them into something readable...
I guess, one thought that I'm ready to share now is that I don't see how someone could be for self-moderated threads but against merit-restricted threads. As in, if you resent the idea that the thread-starter should have the power to limit merit-sending, then you should really resent the idea that the thread-starter should have the power to limit discussion.
I recently found this post by OgNasty (who I think is just about the biggest plonker that I've ever bumped into, but, even grade-A dingleberries occasionally have good thoughts):
Perhaps another idea is for some sort of list of deleted posts at the bottom of self moderated threads so that if people want to read what has been deleted, they have the option.
If it were up to me, I think I'd get rid of the self-moderation feature completely, but, failing that, I think something like what OgNasty is suggesting makes a lot of sense...
I think what I'd do is adjust the self-moderation notice from currently looking like this (and only being at the top of the page):
To looking like this (and being at the bottom of the page, too):
(The important change is that the "44 posts" part is now a link which will take you to a view of the deleted posts.)
There's also this idea from suchmoon:
It's allowed for topic-starters to delete all replies to their self-mod topics. Restoring the posts would only be considered in special cases such as if their account had been hacked.
Also, if a topic has no more replies, moderators will typically delete the topic on request, since then there isn't the issue of deleting other people's replies. That's why the empty topics were not restored.
Also, if a topic has no more replies, moderators will typically delete the topic on request, since then there isn't the issue of deleting other people's replies. That's why the empty topics were not restored.
It's just that he trashed a bunch of threads out of spite or mental breakdown or whatever that was, not because of anything related to the threads themselves. That's why I think it's abuse of a forum feature/privilege.
Perhaps there should be a time limit on self mod. I can't think of a good reason to delete posts months later.
I agree with that... I too can't think of a good reason to allow a self-moderating topic-starter to delete another user's posts a long time after they were written. (Unless, maybe, the topic-starter has returned after a long break from the forum, or something. I guess, accounting for that would be simple enough, but, it's the kind of band-aid-on-band-aid logic that quickly leads me back around to thinking that the whole self-moderation feature should never have been implemented in the first place. In fact, if it didn't currently exist, and it only now came up as a new suggestion in this thread, I'm pretty sure that almost everyone would hiss at the idea.)