There is nothing ooky about process or flow, grumble, but otherwise I'm with amych.
I am not having sex with Spike! But I'm starting to think that you might be.
Buffy ,'Dirty Girls'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Michele T. - Apr 03, 2003 10:13:54 am PST #3674 of 10000
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi
amych - Apr 03, 2003 10:17:08 am PST #3675 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
There is nothing ooky about process or flow
Nothing at all ooky about the, uh, process. I was just looking over it before I hit "post" and said, "ooh, buzzword!".
Jon B. - Apr 03, 2003 10:18:51 am PST #3676 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
amych needs to revocabularize her paradigm.
amyth - Apr 03, 2003 10:22:44 am PST #3677 of 10000
And none of us deserving the cruelty or the grace -- Leonard Cohen
Good of you to give amych pushback on that, Jon.
§ ita § - Apr 03, 2003 10:23:14 am PST #3678 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
it could be designed so that "unblock-a-post" would be an add-on. That is, let's get the block-a-poster-and-all-his/her-posts done first. Adding the unblock-a-single-post wouldn't require us to undo what had already been done.
In terms of my usage patterns at TT, I don't see the value in separating them. I block user X, and I'm good with that, except that someone reacts to post #1557, and I want to go and see what that post says. I do not want to unblock the poster, I just want to know what this particular kerfuffle is. I don't want to set up a scenario where I have re-blocking overhead to do after I click to read that post.
Dana - Apr 03, 2003 10:23:39 am PST #3679 of 10000
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
I think we need to sunset our outdated terminology and repurpose ourselves.
Liese S. - Apr 03, 2003 10:36:57 am PST #3680 of 10000
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
I see ita's potential usage.
In the blinvisible message, I'd prefer there not be a link, what with the eye-catching and all. At that point, I've already taken the action. Perhaps a link to the putative relevant faq portion elsewhere?
Michele T. - Apr 03, 2003 10:36:58 am PST #3681 of 10000
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi
I think the best-of-breed experience we're blue-skying here will be extensible into new vocabularistic domains by EOY.
amych - Apr 03, 2003 10:42:01 am PST #3682 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Fire bad. Tree pretty.
Jon B. - Apr 03, 2003 11:36:20 am PST #3683 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
In terms of my usage patterns at TT, I don't see the value in separating them. I block user X, and I'm good with that, except that someone reacts to post #1557, and I want to go and see what that post says. I do not want to unblock the poster, I just want to know what this particular kerfuffle is. I don't want to set up a scenario where I have re-blocking overhead to do after I click to read that post.
My "add-on" design would cover that. I'm imagining that we first setup code like,
if (user is blocked) then [don't display post] else
[display post]
Once that is working and in production, we could always later add a post-specific unblocking add-in like,
if (post is unblocked) then [display post] else
if (user is blocked) then [don't display post] else
[display post]
I thought there might be value in doing it in stages (getting something in production more quickly). If it's just as easy to do it all at once, then ignore me.