Nobody can tell Marmaduke what to do. That's my kind of dog.

Trick ,'First Date'


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.

To-do list


Sue - Nov 09, 2004 9:49:41 am PST #8685 of 10000
hip deep in pie

I think it's good.

I would do a little blinvisible FAQ bit, but I don't know what the origin of the word is.


DXMachina - Nov 09, 2004 9:53:18 am PST #8686 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.

From "Gone":

WILLOW It was nothing. I didn't slip--

XANDER Will, nobody's mad. Relapse is part of recovery. We understand that. We just have to figure away to fix it.

WILLOW Fix what?

XANDER Fix Buffy.

WILLOW Buffy's broken?

XANDER You know what I-- You don't know? (off her confusion) Rhymes with "blinvisible?"

WILLOW What?

XANDER Buffy was in town, leaving the haircutting place, when she suddenly--

WILLOW Buffy cut her hair?

XANDER Yeah. It's adorable. Apparently. I, personally, couldn't tell since she's all... blinvisible.


Sue - Nov 09, 2004 10:01:21 am PST #8687 of 10000
hip deep in pie

How this? Is this enough?

Blinvisible?

When you use the blocking feature (link to FAQ entry?) to hide another person's posts, we like to say they were rendered blinvisible. We've borrowed it from the season 6 episode "Gone":

XANDER Buffy was in town, leaving the haircutting place, when she suddenly--

WILLOW Buffy cut her hair?

XANDER Yeah. It's adorable. Apparently. I, personally, couldn't tell since she's all... blinvisible.


Jessica - Nov 09, 2004 10:24:40 am PST #8688 of 10000
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset

Looks good to me, Sue.


DXMachina - Nov 09, 2004 10:36:08 am PST #8689 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.

But it doesn't explain that Xander was trying to find a word that rhymes with invisible. It's really something that's was easier to explain when everyone on the board was watching the same show.


Wolfram - Nov 09, 2004 11:15:40 am PST #8690 of 10000
Visilurking

Why did we veto Marcie again?


Liese S. - Nov 09, 2004 11:18:29 am PST #8691 of 10000
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."

Bad connotations.


amych - Nov 09, 2004 11:20:36 am PST #8692 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

Why did we veto Marcie again?

1) Some posters find the name itself distasteful or disturbing, as it was based on the girl who was permanently disappeared by her unpopularity.

2) Some posters find cutesy acronymic names for what should be quietly-done functions to be nails-on-a-blackboard horrible.


DCJensen - Nov 09, 2004 11:37:34 am PST #8693 of 10000
All is well that ends in pizza.

I'm not understanding. You only have to block a particular person once to block all their posts. You can temporarily unblock single posts as needed.

This is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Never even considered such a permutation. I was talking about blocking all users, not blocking all the posts from a single user.

I'm not sure being able to block everyone at once is particularly desirable. If you're going to do that, you might as well just leave the board and set up a Live Journal.

The block everyone at once was the first step in the two step I proposed before it was explained to me the post labels remain. The second step was to uncheck the people you want to read.

I basically proposed that it would be easier, sometimes, to block everyone, and then unblock the one, two or ten people you wanted to read, rather than go through and block large quantities by making repetitive clicks for each person.

Say you had a group of twelve core Buffistas you wanted to catch up on, and you were 8000 posts behind in Natter. Selecting "block all," and then unchecking the twelve people would be much faster than to search for each name individually.

That's all I was suggesting. Again, sorry for the confusion.


Wolfram - Nov 09, 2004 11:49:02 am PST #8694 of 10000
Visilurking

Say you had a group of twelve core Buffistas you wanted to catch up on, and you were 8000 posts behind in Natter. Selecting "block all," and then unchecking the twelve people would be much faster than to search for each name individually.

I'm opposed to this type of usage of the filter on principle. I can't articulate why right now but it gives me a very queasy feeling.