No Link For You! (anti-spam)

[Master_Cylinder]

To me the whole "Auto Groups" discussion sure sounds like the events system proposed some time ago, I believe by Pony...

OK but how about the anti-spam idea? I think auto groups is too heavy of a solution for this and he thinks the flexibility is worth the load.

As far as the anti-spam idea goes, it could also add an anti-spam block that could be displayed anywhere in the ACP the devs want, it wouldn't even have to be in the GWS if there was a dropdown menu to select the group it applies to in the anti-spam block. Simple.

[Pony99CA]

To me the whole "Auto Groups" discussion sure sounds like the events system proposed some time ago, I believe by Pony...

While I have certainly advocated for an event-driven system, I can't say that it was my idea. I read somewhere here or at phpBB.com that the idea had been considered, but was too complex. I don't remember if that meant that it was too complex to fit into the release being worked on at the time or too complex to ever be worked on, though.

Auto Groups is a subset of events (as are Notifications and Ranks, currently). There would be two possible events for each group:

* If post_count > x then Add user to Group m
* if post_count > y then Remove user from Group m

You could also have other criteria, too (like how long the user had been a member).

However, more talk about events would definitely be hijacking the topic, and I've already been falsely accused of that once before. I think that Auto Groups is a happy medium (for now) between what we have and full event-based system.

Steve

[Master_Cylinder]

I think that Auto Groups is a happy medium (for now) between what we have and full event-based system.

Since, for now, all we need a simple group setting for this anti-spam option, it'd be better to start with simple rather than AG but we are leaving that up to the devs, right?

[Pony99CA]

I think that Auto Groups is a happy medium (for now) between what we have and full event-based system.

Since, for now, all we need a simple group setting for this anti-spam option, it'd be better to start with simple rather than AG but we are leaving that up to the devs, right?

You don't get to judge what "we" need; you only get to judge what you need. There is such a thing as starting too simple, though, as it reduces flexibility in the future. That's why I said that an Auto Groups solution would be a happy medium between your simple but limited solution and a fully event-driven solution.

As for it being the developer's call, as I said previously, it's always their call in the end. It's kind of sad that you don't seem to understand that and thus have to ask every few paragraphs.

Why is it a dev call when you want it to be and not when you don't?

I thought we were leaving that up to the devs?

That can happen with AG too...let me guess. We'll leave that to the devs too?

I know, we're leaving it to the devs.

It's like a broken record.

Steve

[Master_Cylinder]

First you said we had to leave it to the devs, then you kept arguing for AG. I get it, you want AG. If it's up to the devs whether they use a simple group setting or AG, then why are you still arguing? We've made our points, the devs aren't going to read this now anyway. So, what else is there for us to debate regarding AG vs no AG? Let's not beat a dead horse...

[Pony99CA]

First you said we had to leave it to the devs, then you kept arguing for AG.

Discussing a point to make a case for one method versus another does not imply that we're not leaving it up to the developers. Plus, I was hoping other users would given their opinions based on the pros and cons of each method.

I get it, you want AG. If it's up to the devs whether they use a simple group setting or AG, then why are you still arguing? We've made our points, the devs aren't going to read this now anyway. So, what else is there for us to debate regarding AG vs no AG? Let's not beat a dead horse...

Agreed. Of course, that's what I said ten days ago.

Anyway, I don't think that I'll convince you of the rightness of my solution and you obviously haven't convinced me of the benefits of yours, so how about we agree to disagree and see what other users prefer? Maybe a developer could even chime in with their opinions on load and development time.

I'd still be interested in what the developers (and others) think of simple counts on the Group-Wide Settings page vs. using Auto Groups to accomplish that. They don't even have to read everything -- just make a determination based on what they know about groups.

Steve

[Master_Cylinder]

So, are the group-wide settings ready for testing yet?

[Mess]

So, are the group-wide settings ready for testing yet?

Did you send a pull request?
If not, it will be ready for testing as soon as someone find it important/interesting enough to write the code.

[Master_Cylinder]

So, are the group-wide settings ready for testing yet?

Did you send a pull request?
If not, it will be ready for testing as soon as someone find it important/interesting enough to write the code.

I'm not a programmer, I'm an admin, I don't know what a pull request is nor how to send one. I thought writing the RFC was enough...

[Mess]

So, are the group-wide settings ready for testing yet?

Did you send a pull request?
If not, it will be ready for testing as soon as someone find it important/interesting enough to write the code.

I'm not a programmer, I'm an admin, I don't know what a pull request is nor how to send one. I thought writing the RFC was enough...

We are in the same boat then, I'm also only an admin.

If you are an admin and have feature requests/ideas you can vote/create them here: phpBB Ideas.
If you are a developer you write an RFC, if the RFC is accepted you write the code and make a pull request. The code is then checked and if ok, merged into the development branch.
Unfortunately opensource developers have the luxury to write what they want.

I realize that's not what you wanted to hear. But there it is. After phpBB Ideas was released In July 2013, there is no reason to create an RFC if you are not a developer.
If you want a feature in phpBB's core you need to be able to write the code yourself, or hope you're idea gets voted high enough in the ideas section that it gets the attention it deserves.
By writing an RFC and not being able to write the code. It could be interpreted as if you are trying to "jump the line" by creating attention for the features you want. And by bumping you're own RFC's it is only making it worse.


On a side note, I think it is time to start locking RFC's made by non developers or staff, and direct admins/users to phpBB ideas instead.