No Link For You! (anti-spam)

[Master_Cylinder]

"Don't use a cannon to kill a fly" is actually a quote from Confucius. It's clearly not literal, it's figurative.

There doesn't need to be a permission for this UNLESS they use autogroups. My way is simple and everything doesn't need to be overcomplicated/overkill.

I *do* use autogroups and the "Authorized for URLs" permission MODs to get the functionality that I requested in this RFC (see first post); the problem is that it's over complicated, bloated and resource heavy for such a small task..like I keep saying. That's how I *know* that autogroups is a bad idea for this. That's why it's *like* (not exactly the same as) using a cannon to kill a fly.

If the "Disallow links before x posts" MOD actually worked and had separate group-wide settings, it'd be perfect but it doesn't actually stop them from posting a URL it's just makes it un-click-able and it's only one setting for everyone. Much less bloat and load though.

[Pony99CA]

"Don't use a cannon to kill a fly" is actually a quote from Confucius. It's clearly not literal, it's figurative.

I know that it's figurative. I was pointing out that your usage was a poor fit.

There doesn't need to be a permission for this UNLESS they use autogroups.

That's simply not true. There should have already been a permission for this, just like there is for Flash and images. That way you could use it with the Newly Registered Users group, for example. It's useful even without more general group post counts -- and it fits the current phpBB meme.

I *do* use autogroups and the "Authorized for URLs" permission MODs to get the functionality that I requested in this RFC (see first post); the problem is that it's over complicated, bloated and resource heavy for such a small task..like I keep saying.

How do you know that AutoGroups are resource heavy? I'm sure that it uses some extra resources, but how many? Have you benchmarked your board with and without the feature? Have users complained about slowness since you installed AutoGroups? Let's see some real evidence, not just assumptions, before ruling out a solution.

Yes, it may be somewhat overly complicated if all you need it for is this one thing, but that's not the point. The point is to provide function in the core that can be "scaled" to fit more needs as they arise. That's why I prefer AutoGroups even if you only want it for this. The phpBB permission system is "overly complicated" to many new users, too, but it provides a lot of function and flexibility, too. Would you rather do away with that in favor of a "simpler" (but less flexible) mechanism?

Steve

[Master_Cylinder]

The "overkill" analogy was fine, you just don't like that it's fitting.

Not with THIS idea, which also includes a per group post limit. That's a group-wide setting not a permission.

Back to the benchmark cop-out? If you want to waste time benchmarking go ahead, I don't need a benchmark to know that it is and convincing you just isn't important. You haven't convinced me that autogroups is the better solution and you wont. So why waste time trying?

Once again, and I'll keep it up as long as you keep repeating the same "flexibility" argument; there may be some things where autogroups would be fitting, this isn't one of them, imho. In some cases we need permissions and in some cases we need group-wide settings. That's why phpBB has both.

[Alien_Time]

This is how I see:

If it is "Disallow links before x posts", it will be under board Settings.
If it is "Authorized for URL", it will be under permissions.

If there are other RFCs that may be added to the core which depends on Auto group, then we might as well have Auto group on the core. If Auto group is going to be added to the core, then adding this will be easy.

I don't see why Master_Cylinder is Auto-group atheist. His argument about an auto group being resource heavy sounds sooooooo ridiculous! I don't thing he understands how much it takes to be a resource heavy module and keeps arguing about this being bloated with no idea. Having an auto group shouldn't affect more than a few nano seconds in page views or even the server load unless you have a really really slow ass 1998 dial-up connection or a super slow server hosting your site. However, if you are able to show statistics that shows the server load that you are claiming, I am all ears!

Back to the benchmark cop-out? If you want to waste time benchmarking go ahead, I don't need a benchmark to know that it is and convincing you just isn't important.

It can't get more ridiculous. Taking a benchmark test will not take even a fraction of time you wasted in yapping on how resource heavy is auto group. If you are going to argue auto group is a bad way to implement it, the right way will be to convince the developers on how bloated does the auto group does to phpbb and why you specially don't want your RFC to use auto group. Bringing adamant arguments and random unsupported statistics when you clearly have no idea is just plain annoying! It could be your RFC but be reasonable with your arguments when you disagree.

[Master_Cylinder]

This is how I see:

If it is "Disallow links before x posts", it will be under board Settings.
If it is "Authorized for URL", it will be under permissions.

If there are other RFCs that may be added to the core which depends on Auto group, then we might as well have Auto group on the core. If Auto group is going to be added to the core, then adding this will be easy.

I don't see why Master_Cylinder is Auto-group atheist..

What I've requested is a combination of features from different MODs and I'd prefer the lighter solution using group-wide settings instead of the bloated and heavy solution using autogroups, which is the only way to do it now.

Even if they add autogroups to the core, this feature doesn't have to be handled that way. They could do THIS the right way and use autogroups for things that would be more appropriate.

You don't have to see why, I don't have to convince you or 99...I just have to make the request and leave it to the devs whether they want to implement it or not. If you don't believe that it's heavy for this, then YOU benchmark it. I'm not wasting my time. Why don't the autogoup fan-bois run their own benchmarks proving that it's just as light as the group-wide setting? Maybe because there's no way to compare two solutions when one doesn't exist?

[Pony99CA]

Why don't the autogoup fan-bois run their own benchmarks proving that it's just as light as the group-wide setting?

Two reasons, Ms ter_cy.

1. You're the one with experience using AutoGroups for link control.
2. You're the one claiming that it's resource heavy.

We'll accept that it may be heavier than your suggestion, but is it too heavy to be useful in this context? You're claiming that it is, so it's up to you, Ms ter_cy, to prove your assertion or stop making it.

Steve

[Master_Cylinder]

I have nothing to prove to anyone. If it's heavier than my suggestion then it's too heavy, imho. Simple. If you admit it's heavier that's good enough reason to use my suggestion for this RFC.

You might want to argue the difference between heavier and too heavy, I'm not wasting my time. If you want to benchmark it; do it, but there's no other solution to compare it to and even if one person benchmarked it, another server would have different results. You can waste *your* time if you want but you already admitted your solution is heavier than mine so a benchmark would presumably say the same thing. That's why I don't need one to see the obvious. Why do you need one again?

[DavidIQ]

I think this discussion has run its course and there is no more further value to continuing with responses. Everyone has made their points and there's really nothing else to say. I'm locking this for a later time when a developer (or someone else) can review and take over the decision on what will be done.

Thanks.