Hello,
Just a quick idea to throw out before you all about the users ignored in private messages and chatterbox page. I have used this great facility recently when occasionally, just occasionally "things get out of hand" and tempers/egos flare.

I realise that just like a TV or radio there is always the 'off' button choice, but whilst two or more personalities are slugging it out there is more often than not an interesting conversation trying to happen at the same time.

My petition is this;
Any chance we could have beside the name/s listed on the page a checkbox with a form submit button at the bottom to allow multiple /unignore users at the same time?

This way users can quickly be brought back once reason has prevailed (after say, leaving them there for half an hour or so).

I'm no saint myself, (no pun intended), I just thought it might be a useful feature.

As for multiple /ignore users, that would be understandably a tad more difficult ergo why I haven't brought it up as a suggestion.

Just a thought... I know, I'm being pedantic again... sorry ;)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Ignored Users - Automation rather than by hand...
by theorbtwo (Prior) on Aug 01, 2003 at 17:06 UTC

    I just wrote a patch that doesn't behave quite like what you asked for, but is still much better then the current method.

    What it does is this: it adds a "(unignore)" link after each user, which, when clicked on, will unignore that user.

    Doing it how you asked (with a form with checkboxes) would be harder, mostly because I'd be obliged to create a new htmlcode (a callable routine) for unignoring users, and use it in the message opcode (which handles, unsurprisingly, things typed into the talk box) as well as in the form ignored users submits to. The way I've done it, I simply make that link invoke the message opcode, just as if you'd typed it in manualy (and similarly to how homenode buttons do it, it happens).

    Please note that just because the patch is written does not mean it will be applied, nor applied in a timely manner. The gods do things in their own time -- which is to say, when they have the time. Additionaly, the patch may be buggy, or stylisticly bad -- I'm not the best of coders.

    Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

[reply]
      Hi theorbtwo,
      What it does is this: it adds a "(unignore)" link after each user, which, when clicked on, will unignore that user.
      Great, cool, sounds easier to use than the current system, so thank you for your input into this.
      Doing it how you asked (with a form with checkboxes) would be harder...
      That is entirely understandable, I was just throwing some ideas in the air to see what comments came back, I'm very happy to hear/see that you came up with a solution. I realise that it may not be implemented (gods) but wish to thank you again for taking the effort to implement a solution.

      So, thank you again for your efforts and reply, its more than I had anticipated.

      Many regards ~ barrd

[reply]
Re: Ignored Users - Automation rather than by hand...
by sauoq (Abbot) on Aug 01, 2003 at 20:15 UTC
    I know, I'm being pedantic again...

    Well actually, you weren't. Allow me to be truly pedantic. :-)

    According to Merriam-Webster, an appropriate definition of "pedantic" in this usage would be "of, relating to, or being a pedant." Its root is defined variously as one who makes a show of knowledge, one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge, or a formalist or precisionist in teaching.

    I don't believe those definitions accurately describe your post. Unless I'm mistaken, you were using "pedantic" to convey that you felt your suggestion — which, btw, I quite liked — was "trivial," "trifling," "frivolous," or "picayune."

    -sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
[reply]
      Yeah, spot on sauoq,
      Unless I'm mistaken, you were using "pedantic" to convey that you felt your suggestion — which, btw, I quite liked — was "trivial," "trifling," "frivolous," or "picayune."
      True, so true, "you" are amongst some of the people I have come to truly respect here. I sometimes lose aspect of 'me' and my ability to do/say anything of any merit here... I only want to help, or indeed *really* help myself, if in doing so I can help others, then all the better.

      Thank you for having the conviction to bring that up... makes you a "good person", least in my book...

      And I mean that ~ barrd :)

[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion