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?
This is so nice. Having everyone together for my birthday. Of course, you could smash in all my toes with a hammer and it will still be the bestest Buffy Birthday Bash in a big long while.
Buffy ,'Potential'
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.
Liese S. - Apr 03, 2003 10:36:57 am PST #3680 of 10000
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
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.
Gandalfe - Apr 03, 2003 11:38:29 am PST #3684 of 10000
The generation that could change the world is still looking for its car keys.
if (post is unblocked) then [display post] else
if (user is blocked) then [don't display post] else
[display post]
Wouldn't it be more:
if (post is unblocked) then [display post] else
if (user is blocked) then
if (view specific post) then [display post] else
[don't display post]
Jon B. - Apr 03, 2003 11:44:44 am PST #3685 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
That's insane troll logic.
Seriously, I think you're being redundant. The logic is applied to each post. [post is unblocked] == [view specific post]
Zoe Ann - Apr 03, 2003 11:48:02 am PST #3686 of 10000
Mathair & Athair beo.
Wahey. What fun.
The whole of Scotland *blueyonder* just went down.
All good now, we're back up and cruising on impulse. :-P
t relief
Gandalfe - Apr 03, 2003 11:48:58 am PST #3687 of 10000
The generation that could change the world is still looking for its car keys.
OK, I see what you're thinking. I actually missed the first line, even tho I copied it. Color me embarrassed.
Connie Neil - Apr 03, 2003 11:49:15 am PST #3688 of 10000
brillig
t kicking back to watch the coders duke it out. Really, it's better than the Discovery Channel and World Wrestling combined
Gandalfe - Apr 03, 2003 11:53:08 am PST #3689 of 10000
The generation that could change the world is still looking for its car keys.
Personally, I would check if the user was blocked before you check the specific post. I guess it's just a question of how much you think people are going to be using the blocking feature - if you think they'll be using it a lot, then check that first, because if the user is unblocked, it doesn't matter about the specific post, and, in fact, I think it will be impossible to have a post unblocked unless the user is blocked.