Search found 362 matches

by Rotsblok
Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:56 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: - Ideas for phpBB 3.2 -
Replies: 25
Views: 49947

Re: - Ideas for phpBB 3.2 -

TBH if I got the wrong impression..

I believe the BBCode system was being developed as all bbcodes as optional, so no defaults any more.. (but that can also be in 4.0)
by Rotsblok
Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:51 pm
Forum: [3.x] Rejected RFCs
Topic: [RFC|Replaced] MOD Installer in 3.1
Replies: 16
Views: 45443

Re: [RFC] MOD Installer in 3.1

I'm with DavidIq here.. so a +1 for him :D

But Ithin a transition situation is never easy.. You ahve to change the thinking of the mod dev's and add a bunch of hooks... But by beginning to add the commonly used things (adding hook to common.php etc) makes it easier for all. Of course we cannot add ...
by Rotsblok
Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:58 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: Statuses in phpBB?
Replies: 5
Views: 12975

Re: Statuses in phpBB?

huh what do you mean with statuses? phpBB has the possibilities of ranks.. which can indicate who does what? Or do you mean something else?
by Rotsblok
Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:23 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Stop Supporting Subsilver
Replies: 24
Views: 38461

Re: [RFC] Stop Supporting Subsilver

then i guess for such users there will be no choice else to get rid of there current style and hope some one build a similar style to work with the new versions :lol:
as it was with the phpBB3 release etc..

Why would 3.2 be any different.. as 2.x => 3.0 was a complete overhaul and not to mention ...
by Rotsblok
Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: SEO URLs
Replies: 94
Views: 270951

Re: SEO URLs

TBH I don't like the excess of ///// makes the url looks ugly to me...

But I think just adding the topic title and dropping the f= parameters is enough.. Keeps the url nice and clean.. ppl know what the url is linking too..
by Rotsblok
Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:50 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: SEO URLs
Replies: 94
Views: 270951

Re: SEO URLs

And TBH sooskriszta you say our points are invalid (most of the time) or saying we don't read the entire topic. But sometimes I wonder if you really read our posts and the objections we have.

What do you mean "our" and "we"? What are you, a posse? I don't remember engaging in any sort of ...
by Rotsblok
Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:46 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: SEO URLs
Replies: 94
Views: 270951

Re: SEO URLs

Im a bit lost here...

Lots of talk about pretty urls where all the ing.php?mode=reply&f=105&t=35616 stuff is gone...
But now whe want stuff like: funkyboard.com/funky-1/board-subject-1323

To be honest it's just replacing things.. it still contains the id's and in my opinion its no more easier then ...
by Rotsblok
Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:13 pm
Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
Topic: [RFC] Infractions System
Replies: 4
Views: 14877

Re: [RFC] Infractions System

just for a human reading point of this topic.. (can you bullitise your several points or add some bold/cursive letters?

Like this?

Outcomes/ Objectives :
Allow existing infractions models used by forum admins to remain usable (
Not force much on the admins (links with above)
Make the warning ...
by Rotsblok
Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:08 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: ACP Notes
Replies: 3
Views: 10330

Re: ACP Notes

TBH I think it will reduce the communication between admins, cos they just say simply: "Didn't you read the note I left.", and in my opinion it will just clutter things up, as you need to read everytime the note someone just left.. It would make the operations you want to do fast, way more time ...
by Rotsblok
Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:02 pm
Forum: [3.x] Discussion
Topic: xenforo, new forum software, great source for ideas
Replies: 23
Views: 58088

Re: xenforo, new forum software, great source for ideas

Strategy .
If phpBB is going to be squarely targettted at being the highest-security forum software, then naturally some usability features would not be implemented.

If phpBB wants to be a modern, appealing and addictive forum system from the user's perspective (ie. not from the developer or ...