• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Code for Anti-Necroposting (Staff only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobsican said:
Of course, I just thought pointing it out was a good idea.
Click to expand...
The comma was also missing from the expiryMessage line. It seems to be at the end of every line except the last one.
 
I had already fixed it. I got the error message when I was implementing it, and fixed it. The incorrect syntax never reached the page. You would've seen as much if you looked at the page.
 
Thought we were doing 30 days as the warning, to line up with the 1 month necro in the rules
 
Wokistan said:
Thought we were doing 30 days as the warning, to line up with the 1 month necro in the rules
Click to expand...
I thought the warning days would be 30 days too since it fit in our necro standand.
 
@Promestein

Well, it seems like the problem was simply that we should implement the changes in the manner that the Dev wiki admin instructed us to instead then.
 
Maybe we should adjust the rules to 3 months then?

In which page is this stated?
 
Versus Thread Rules:

"Please don't bump topics that have been inactive for over a month without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded."

This is obviously still subject to change if wanted.
 
Should we use this instead?

"Please don't bump topics that have been inactive for over 3 months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded."

Also, should we copy the above text to the Discussion Rules page, and increase the timespan for versus thread expiration even further?
 
Okay. Thank you for the input.

Are the rest of you fine with if we apply this change?
 
I don't think 3 months is necessary either

Even if a year went by on a thread I don't see why we should stop someone from Necroing if it's still valid, especially if even the match hasn't had much discussion.
 
I see @Schnee One's point. I think as a solution we could add this point to the Antvasima's proposed rule.

Code: 
There is no need to reply, unless the thread is part of the versus forum.
 
Something like this then?

"Please don't bump topics that have been inactive for over 3 months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded. However, we make exceptions for versus threads."
 
@Antvasima, I think this option is better. After thinking about it more, I think the Fun and Games thread would be part of the exception too; So, I think it additon as an exception could be needed too.
 
Bobsican said:
"Please don't bump topics that have been inactive for over a month without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded."
Click to expand...
So how should we reword the original Versus Thread Rules text in conjunction?
 
In this thread; Necroing Versus Threads (STAFF ONLY), I think the majority agree with @Schnee One's proposal which was changing the the original Versus Thread Rules text to this textbelow:

  • When bumping a thread that has been inactive for a long time, be sure to carefully look over both profiles to be sure the match hasn't changed, and also be sure to entirely avoid concluded topics.
So, I think we can used the text above for the Versus Thread Rules.
 
I rephrased the rule to make it sound better.

  • When bumping a thread that has been inactive for a long time, be careful to look over both profiles to make sure the match hasn't changed, and to avoid concluded topics.
Would love to see opinions on whether this spelling is punctuationally correct.
 
I would removed the "to" in front of "avoid". Otherwise, I think it is correct, @Skalt711
 
In our private conversation Thespeedforce21 suggested his own version for the rule's spelling.

  • When bumping a thread that has been inactive for a long time, please make sure to look over both profiles to ensure the match hasn't been changed, and to avoid concluded topics.
 
In another private conversation Firephoenixearl suggested his version of the rule's spelling:

  • When bumping a thread that has been inactive for a long time, be careful to look over both profiles to avoid concluded topics and to make sure the match hasn't changed.
 
Majorit ofy people read profiles in these case to check if the match conditions haven't changed. Making sure the match is not concluded is pretty much the same by checking if the match is in the profiles and the current decision in the thread.

So, I think the first two suggestions works better.
 
This seems fine to me:

"When bumping a thread that has been inactive for a long time, please make sure to look over both profiles to ensure that the match has not been changed, and to avoid concluded topics."
 
That seems fine for Versus Thread Rules.

We still have to implement the script in the manner according to KockaAdmiralac's instructions.
 
Okay. I will update the current rule text then.

Promestein seems to have now attempted to implement the script in the order that we were told, but the settings have to be accepted by the official Fandom staff before she can proceed with the final step.
 
Should we add this text to the Discussion Rules page as well?

"Please don't bump topics that have been inactive for over 3 months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded. However, we make exceptions for versus threads."
 
I´m sure there´s more to do, right? As I can tell te script doesn´t appear to be active yet.
 
Antvasima said:
Promestein seems to have now attempted to implement the script in the order that we were told, but the settings have to be accepted by the official Fandom staff before she can proceed with the final step.
Click to expand...
We'll have to wait a bit, I think.
 
Yes. You can check if the latest script update has been accepted/implemented by the Fandom staff yet, if you wish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
KingTempest
  • Locked
Obvious Revisions Revision (Staff Only)
2 3
Replies
104
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
LordGriffin1000
  • Locked
Human Statistics Scaling Standards in Fiction (Staff Only)
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Staff Discussion rules
2 3
Replies
109
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
That_moron2
Eustass Kid vs Code
2
Replies
74
Views
2K
SlendVeny
SlendVeny
Back
Top