No Link For You! (anti-spam)

[Master_Cylinder]

Once again, you could simple allow always or deny always (per group) if you didn't want a # of posts but the choice to include it as an option means it helps more people that just you, it would help me too...

Once again, Auto Groups does that and more by allowing specified criteria (including post count) to control when somebody is added to a group. That's a much more elegant and flexible solution than a post count for URLs.

Once again, this RFC is to get the functionality of 2-3 MODs in the core. I *know* there are MODs (I use them) but something as basic as better anti-spam could be added to the core so people need fewer MODs/extensions. Isn't that what RFCs are for, to make/discuss such requests?

If you don't want all of the features that I've requested (assuming that they are accepted) then don't turn them all on. Simple.

[Danielx64]

Auto group sound like a good idea.

[Jessica.]

+1 for a required post count for posting URLs

[bonelifer]

They are free to give an alternate way of doing the same thing if they want. These RFC topics are for discussions. Not for you to micro-manage what others say or think.

[Pony99CA]

There is nothing wrong with what Pony99CA suggested. I also do think that the idea of combining this no link feature together with the autogroup mod seems like a good approach and the reason being having the auto group mod in the core can be useful to a lot of additional features/permissions such as this.

That's exactly what I was getting at. I think that an automatic group mechanism in the core would accomplish what this topic is about and be useful in many more ways. A simple post counter that only applies to the ability to post links is too specific and would require hard-coded rules to possibly exempt moderators and admins from that limit.

Two negatives don't make a positive in this case.

Steve

[DavidIQ]

Ok...since I don't really have the energy to clean this up right now this is getting locked until maybe one of the Moderators can take a look and split stuff out.

[DavidIQ]

Ok I'm going to put on my Grumpy hat now. I've split all irrelevant posts into oblivion. Since I've just wasted quite a few minutes reading PMs, splitting posts, and closing the 8 post reports, the next time you guys decide to resort to insults you will earn yourselves an insta-ban. Note the following:

1. Disagreeing with someone is not an insult.
2. When disagreeing with someone it should be done respectfully.
3. Providing alternate solutions or compromises is not "going off topic".
4. The Moderators are the ones tasked with policing the forums. The issues that arose in this topic should have been brought up to one of them, not a random team member or Team Leader.
5. Once a post is reported there is no need to continue sending PMs regarding it.

Please stay civil and respectful. All of you provide some valuable input and insight. I would hate to have to stop that input from coming in.

Thanks

*removes Grumpy hat*

[Danielx64]

For starters I think that having auto groups would be a good idea as it would be more flexible than having a one size fit all.

[Master_Cylinder]

I think that an automatic group mechanism in the core would accomplish what this topic is about and be useful in many more ways. A simple post counter that only applies to the ability to post links is too specific and would require hard-coded rules to possibly exempt moderators and admins from that limit.

There's no need to add a special group just for this and there would be zero need to hard-code exceptions for amins/mods because each group would already be able to be configured separately. If you look at this solution you see that the default can be set to always allow admin and mod groups to post links, default the NRU group to never post links and the registered user group can default to the 1st post but be changed as I described:
Just add can post links after X posts to the "group wide settings" config and let the admin choose how many.
0 = never, (1-99) = configurable X and blank = always."
...or something like that.

For starters I think that having auto groups would be a good idea as it would be more flexible than having a one size fit all.

One size fits all what? My solution doesn't need a special group but can still accommodate the flexibility. Maybe you want autogroups for something else but there's no need for a group for this idea, imho.

Let me ask the programmers this, which would be easier to code? Autogroups and no-link per group or no-link per group with an extra group wide setting? Which one is leaner? I think swapping members in and out of a group for this is heavier than a simple group wide setting. YMMV...

[Pony99CA]

I think that an automatic group mechanism in the core would accomplish what this topic is about and be useful in many more ways. A simple post counter that only applies to the ability to post links is too specific and would require hard-coded rules to possibly exempt moderators and admins from that limit.

There's no need to add a special group just for this and there would be zero need to hard-code exceptions for amins/mods because each group would already be able to be configured separately. If you look at this solution you see that the default can be set to always allow admin and mod groups to post links, default the NRU group to never post links and the registered user group can default to the 1st post but be changed as I described:
Just add can post links after X posts to the "group wide settings" config and let the admin choose how many.
0 = never, (1-99) = configurable X and blank = always."
...or something like that.

In your proposal, it's true that there would be no need for a new group, but you would need to go type the number of posts required to post links into the groups you wanted to limit. (Presumably it would default to zero, meaning anybody could do it.)

Now consider that another user wants a new feature -- the ability to not allow PMing for a number of posts (phpBB.com actually has this limit, I believe, set to 5). That means another counter in the Group wide settings section, changing the ACP to accommodate that counter and changing the code to check for it.

Now suppose that another user wants ability to limit linking to images for a number of posts. That means another counter in the Group wide settings section, changing the ACP to accommodate that counter and changing the code to check for it.

Now suppose that another user wants ability to limit posting Flash for a number of posts. That means another counter in the Group wide settings section, changing the ACP to accommodate that counter and changing the code to check for it.

Do you see where this is going?

With Auto Groups, you'd have two new Group wide settings counters -- Posts required to join group and Posts required to exit group -- and you'd create the group using existing permissions. Newly Registered Users would be 0 and whatever you set now. Most other groups would probably be the limit that you wanted to enter and zero to exit (meaning you don't exit).

Doesn't that sound simpler in the long run?

For starters I think that having auto groups would be a good idea as it would be more flexible than having a one size fit all.

One size fits all what? My solution doesn't need a special group but can still accommodate the flexibility. Maybe you want autogroups for something else but there's no need for a group for this idea, imho.

It's "one size fits all" in the sense that you're only handling the problem for one limit. Auto Groups makes it easy to limit the number of posts for any permissions that the admin chooses, not just the specific one that you may want right now.

Let me ask the programmers this, which would be easier to code? Autogroups and no-link per group or no-link per group with an extra group wide setting? Which one is leaner? I think swapping members in and out of a group for this is heavier than a simple group wide setting. YMMV...

Remember that it's not necessarily about what's easier to implement for one specific request; it's also about making things extensible for the future. As I hope I've demonstrated, Auto Groups is more extensible.

Steve