Conquer Club

Dancing Mustard wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:The limit probably will not be abolished, as it cuts down on spam. It may, however, have a chance to be raised slightly.

Given an 85% vote in favour of abolishing it, that seems like a remarkably autocratic stance to take. Has there ever been a poll in which relevant users have been so unanimously in favour of a measure before?

Given that a very 'vocal minority' (whom this time we're apparently catering to) seem to think that keeping the quote limit is a very serious matter, is there a way to sort this out a little more subtly?
What I'm getting at is that this whizzy new forum interface might be able to support different quote limits on different forums; allowing us to switch off the limit in social-lounge, raise it slightly in all the other forums, and keep it at three in C&A and GD.

Is such a solution possible, especially in the light of the overwhelming number of users who seem to disagree with the administrator's personal preferences?

YEAH I LIKE THAT. DM WHEN DID YOU START MAKING SENSE?

firth4eva wrote:*Prepares to make thread called "Get rid of the 5 quote rule"*

QTF

t-o-m wrote:QTF

What?

Dancing Mustard wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:The limit probably will not be abolished, as it cuts down on spam. It may, however, have a chance to be raised slightly.

Given an 85% vote in favour of abolishing it, that seems like a remarkably autocratic stance to take. Has there ever been a poll in which relevant users have been so unanimously in favour of a measure before?

Given that a very 'vocal minority' (whom this time we're apparently catering to) seem to think that keeping the quote limit is a very serious matter, is there a way to sort this out a little more subtly?
What I'm getting at is that this whizzy new forum interface might be able to support different quote limits on different forums; allowing us to switch off the limit in social-lounge, raise it slightly in all the other forums, and keep it at three in C&A and GD.

Is such a solution possible, especially in the light of the overwhelming number of users who seem to disagree with the administrator's personal preferences?

Unfortunately quote limits per forum would require a forum hack most likely, if possible, and Lack is working hard on the next update and would rather spend his time on something more worthwhile.


--Andy

So given the overwhelming user preference for scrapping or upping the chain-quote limit; let's bump it up to 5 in all forums until such a mod/hack is available.

Why the delay when the forum community is so unanimous? Let's at least get a trial-period underway.

What's the hold-up here Andy? This is such a no-brainer of an issue, click the buttons and get it sorted.

Even in mafia games, there's rarely a need to quote more than three. Most people either hit the quote button out of laziness or in an attempt to spam. Neither are a good reason to up the limit.

What about a 92% majority in favour of upping the limit. Is that a good reason to up the limit?

Or are we once again in a situation where a vocal minority of mods dictate what is and isn't in the community's interest, regardless of the wider community's opinion? Because if we were, that'd be a fairly patriachal and patronising place to be.

Come on guys, the people have spoken overwhelmingly in favour of upping the limit. What is the problem with having a trial period of permitting chaining five quotes? How would that detriment user's experience of these boards in any way?
Has anybody ever explained how the number three was arrived at? Or was it just a random figure picked on the basis of zero testing and opinion polling? Five chained quotes aren't going to unleash a critical board-killing spam-wave, let's try it out as a new (extremely sensible) limit and see how it works.

Just refusing to listen to the community's opinion because you personally don't agree is both churlish and unhelpful. What's the point of having a suggestions forum if you're not going to listen to suggestions that have a 92% majority approval?

I would prefer it if this was removed from PM's - but I guess it's not easy to remove it from half the forum.

C.

Dancing Mustard wrote:What about a 92% majority in favour of upping the limit. Is that a good reason to up the limit?

92% of people reading this thread. Hardly representative of all CC'ers in the forums.

Sometimes including the quotes is helpful to keep the continuity of the discussion. I may be responding to someone 2 pages back, who responded to someone else 2 pages back. Without the quote, one ends up having to rephrase stuff -- actually makes the post longer, not shorter in some cases.

I can see the need for some limits, I just think 3 is too few... at least within the Chatter forum.

I have to disagree with wicked's statement that more than three quotes aren't necessary in mafia. Very often, a certain statement is misunderstood, or becomes a source of conflict. It is very helpful to keep that statement, and everything said about it, visible as a back-and-forth discussion resolves the matter. If this is happening while there are other discussions going on in the same thread, quotes are necessary to keep the relevant information at-hand. Ever since we've updated to the new forums, I have ran across this problem frequently.

wicked wrote:92% of people reading this thread. Hardly representative of all CC'ers in the forums.

92% actually equates to the opinions of 123 (at present) forum users; that's a substantial number of total forum users.
On the other hand, the rule is only supported by 12 (at present) forum users.

I take it that what you're saying is that we ought to imagine that despite what the overwhelming majority of users who have voted, other user's responses would, for no readily discernable reason, differ vastly? I have to say I'm not convinced (and I don't imagine 122 other users are either). Precisely why is it that you imagine that other forum-users would have this alleged difference of opinions? What is it that you believe makes this large sample of surveyed users so aberrant from others?
Simply pointing out that not every possible informed party has voted, does not in and of itself make a sample invalid.

Of course, if we do accept your argument, then it logically follows that no suggestion voted on here ought to be implemented until put to a full public referendum, so that all informed users are able to vote. After all, without that it's quite possible that the 100+ votes cast might not be indicative of the preferences of all relevant users, right?
Not only does that seem impractical wicked, but it seems absurd. The proof is right in front of you, you're just not particularly keen on seeing it.

So far as I'm able to tell, it appears that this is just a case of a vocal minority refusing to change a rule, despite strong indications that the vast majority of the relevant affected group are opposed to the rule in question. Humbug about "over 100 fictional and imaginary users who haven't posted here might, for no readily apparent reason, think differently" is just a red-herring.

I note that I still haven't recieved an answer specifying what harm a trial period would cause, or any explanation of how the number three was decided on in the first place. Care to help me out?

I've played mafia as much as anyone here, and have yet to have a problem continuing a conversation w/o quoting the entire thing. Half the time, quotes aren't needed as much as they're used if you're in the middle of an active conversation anyway. If you need to make a point with quotes, it's quite easy (and much more tidy!) to take out the pertinent snippets of convo and just quote those instead of quoting entire pages. If there's a huge need to quote more than three people, then it's easy to do just as Andy showed. Now Ditocoaf, I haven't quoted you in my response, did you have problem understanding me? (no, not trying to be a smartass!)

I don't see what's the big deal about increasing it to 5 It's a nice compromise that pleases everyone.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

wicked wrote:92% of people reading this thread. Hardly representative of all CC'ers in the forums.

92% actually equates to the opinions of 123 (at present) forum users; that's a substantial number of total forum users.
On the other hand, the rule is only supported by 12 (at present) forum users.

I take it that what you're saying is that we ought to imagine that despite what the overwhelming majority of users who have voted, other user's responses would, for no readily discernable reason, differ vastly? I have to say I'm not convinced (and I don't imagine 122 other users are either). Precisely why is it that you imagine that other forum-users would have this alleged difference of opinions? What is it that you believe makes this large sample of surveyed users so aberrant from others?
Simply pointing out that not every possible informed party has voted, does not in and of itself make a sample invalid.

Of course, if we do accept your argument, then it logically follows that no suggestion voted on here ought to be implemented until put to a full public referendum, so that all informed users are able to vote. After all, without that it's quite possible that the 100+ votes cast might not be indicative of the preferences of all relevant users, right?
Not only does that seem impractical wicked, but it seems absurd. The proof is right in front of you, you're just not particularly keen on seeing it.

So far as I'm able to tell, it appears that this is just a case of a vocal minority refusing to change a rule, despite strong indications that the vast majority of the relevant affected group are opposed to the rule in question. Humbug about "over 100 fictional and imaginary users who haven't posted here might, for no readily apparent reason, think differently" is just a red-herring.

I note that I still haven't recieved an answer specifying what harm a trial period would cause, or any explanation of how the number three was decided on in the first place. Care to help me out?

Very well said. I can see the uses for a limit, but three is a pain in the ass. I'm all for not being lazy, but the limit is low enough to be a serious annoyance. And the poll really is hard to argue with.

Wicked, mafia games can get a little more complicated than this conversation.

wicked wrote:If there's a huge need to quote more than three people, then it's easy to do just as Andy showed.

This point has already been raised and answered. Please read the thread and respond to the answer given, rather than just spamming by asking the same question for a second time.
If you're going to invest time arguing for your personal preference here, and if you expect us to listen to that; then at least have the courtesy to read the points raised by the the other side.

wicked wrote:Now Ditocoaf, I haven't quoted you in my response, did you have problem understanding me?

No, I'm sure he didn't. But this is a thread only three pages long, and yours is the first answer to his question... as such it's not a helpful example of a time when several quotes would be required. Even if it was, then it wouldn't be indicative of every sequence of posts on the entire forum, and thus wouldn't help us in making any deciscion on whether three was too low a number for maximum embeded quotes.
As such, who cares whether Ditocoaf did or did not understand you... the question is irrelevant and doesn't prove anything.


I continue to note that I still haven't recieved an answer specifying what harm a trial period would cause, or any explanation of how the number three was decided on in the first place. Does anybody care to help me out yet?

Dancing Mustard wrote: I continue to note that I still haven't recieved an answer specifying what harm a trial period would cause, or any explanation of how the number three was decided on in the first place. Does anybody care to help me out yet?

Suspect 3 is PHPBB3 default.

C.

Can we have any official confirmation of that?

Dancing Mustard wrote:Can we have any official confirmation of that?

Nope - but I can post you this...

http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=21864

the default nesting quote limit is 3

C.

Good to know, but it's still an arbitrary and overly restrictive limit; and the opinions of the community at large reflect that.

We've noted your position, DM, and others too.


--Andy

wicked wrote:I've played mafia as much as anyone here, and have yet to have a problem continuing a conversation w/o quoting the entire thing. Half the time, quotes aren't needed as much as they're used if you're in the middle of an active conversation anyway. If you need to make a point with quotes, it's quite easy (and much more tidy!) to take out the pertinent snippets of convo and just quote those instead of quoting entire pages. If there's a huge need to quote more than three people, then it's easy to do just as Andy showed. Now Ditocoaf, I haven't quoted you in my response, did you have problem understanding me? (no, not trying to be a smartass!)

i dont think u have played on new forum...and u were never one to post long winded arguments with many quotes
however thats irrelevent. an extension to 5 cant hurt and if people get overly spammy cut it back again

I have played on this new forum. And I've posted plenty of long-winded arguments, however they probably don't seem as long since I see no need to quote the entire bloody previous conversation. There is simply no need in mafia to quote the previous FIVE people ahead of you! People follow along fine and half the time probably don't even read all the quotes anyway since they're aware of the conversation. Besides, the long quotes make the game length that much longer.

Official comments:

• 3 was the phpBB default so that's why it is the way it was set at that specific level.
• There is no way the limit is getting removed. As was demonstrated in version 2 of the forum people love to abuse nested quotes and so those few who abused it ruined it for everyone. Hurray for the vocal minority.

I think that we can all agree that for most people the problem of 3 quotes is that it's just plain annoying to have to delete a quote when you have too many rather than limiting functionality. It really isn't about necessity or limiting the ability function.

That being said, there isn't any harm that Lack, Andy or I can see in upping the limit to 5 (other than the fact that people will complain that they have to delete quotes when they reach 5).

So, because people are saying that it is too low, while there really isn't the need that people are claiming, for convenience sake, the limit will be upped to 5. Going above that by any more verges into nests that are too small to be readable and too open to abuse and so it can't be taken above that.

Have a good one, thanks for the feedback.
Twill