4.2 Upgrade Complete.

[Mike1984]

How did this devolve into DP vs Mike again? Jeez, is every change a personal attack against you, Mike?

I didn't say that it was "anti-me", I just don't like the idea of having rules automatically enforced. Automatic enforcement is inflexible and can't be bypassed when it is clearly non-sensical.

[Dark Pulse]

And seriously, I can't find the goddamn RSS icon.

Hint: Forum main page.

I didn't say that it was "anti-me", I just don't like the idea of having rules automatically enforced. Automatic enforcement is inflexible and can't be bypassed when it is clearly non-sensical.

C'est la vie.

[Mike1984]

C'est la vie.

In other words "I'm not going to listen to you no matter how much sense you might be making, so just shut up", right?

[Lianru]

These ugly orange things, get them away from me D:

[Kyte]

Hint: Forum main page.

Theeeeeeere it is. Shows you how often I visit that page. :V

[NuitTombee]

Maybe this would look better?

I didn't know what size to use so I went with a 15x15.

[Lianru]

YES, it would.

[Dark Pulse]

In other words "I'm not going to listen to you no matter how much sense you might be making, so just shut up", right?

Oh no, you're making perfect sense. You're explaining your position quite well and quite reasonably.

It's just that it doesn't matter worth a damn what one person wants. I want a billion dollars, but that doesn't mean I get to have it just because I say I do, even if I went up to the richest people in the world and asked them very nicely, now does it?

You may see it as an attack because it forces you to keep your words shorter, but well, you don't have to download 500+ MB backups of the server in case something goes wrong, now do you?

And yes, that is GZipped - a full, uncompressed dump of the forum is well over a gigabyte.

No, you're not supposed to be "bypassing" the rules when you feel they're nonsensical. If the rule is nonsensical, it wouldn't be there, because I hate idiot rules myself. So the rules are there are there for a reason, and while I don't mind if you don't like it (feel free to think it's a horrible rule all you want, really) that doesn't mean I should change it just to make you happy. This is not a utopia.

So naturally, this makes me an evil overlord who does "tyranny by majority" once again. But hold on a second. Let's look at the reasons WHY I am doing this, before you cry foul yet again because I'm doing something, see no reason to change my position, and you don't like it.

In this case, while there's no sense to you for a limit on post length - and indeed, were this an ideal world, there would be no need for that limit at all - there are practical limitations like space consumed by posts, and considerations for when the backup script runs, because the bigger the posts table, the longer it will eventually take to backup. Before I added in some optimizations a few days ago (before I prepared to do the upgrade), a full forum backup took 422 seconds.

Yes, that would be seven minutes.

And it actually did not save properly. Which is very bad news if for some reason we ever suffer a catastrophic database failure.

It's now down by about 100 seconds, but it still takes over five minutes to complete a full forum dump, but at least now it is completing successfully.

Furthermore, we can't assume everyone who signs up here is benign and a Nasuverse fan. We do get spammers from time to time who manage to slip in through the CAPTCHAs. Imagine if they found out they had no fixed post length limit, for example - you think a wall of text is bad now, imagine when it's 5 million characters. Or worse, that the post length means they can try injection attacks that normally would not work due to the limitation.

There are practical as well as security reasons why limits are set, Mike. It would help you greatly if, instead of focusing on "This inconveniences me!" all the time, you would actually think about how other people could use - or abuse - it, all in the name of "freedom." After all, freedom also means less security, and while I'd like to give our users as much freedom as I can without being Big Brother (though I'll be the Nii-san for whoever needs it!), I'd also like to keep these forums from being hacked, if you don't mind. Thank you.

Maybe this would look better?

I didn't know what size to use so I went with a 15x15.

The one for the forums are 16x11. Probably not too big of a difference...

[Lianru]

So, Darples, how about changing that RSS image? The orange burns into my eyes.

[Mike1984]

No, DP I understand post length limits, and your reasoning makes sense, but given that you yourself extended them twice just to argue with me, it's pretty clear that they are not always correct. Similarly, there are situations where it makes perfect sense to go over them or to double-post, such as when posting a fanfic. But, you don't care about that, because you can just bypass the rules if they annoy you anyway. To you, the rules are nice and flexible, because if you don't like them, then you just ignore them. To us, they are rigid and inflexible. But, you don't care, because all you care about is you, apparently.

As you said, you don't actually care how individuals feel, no matter how much sense they might be making, so to expect you to actually be reasonable about things would just he ludicrous. Further, it's really fucking easy for you to say that when if you dislike them, you'll just raise the limit or break the rules at will. You claim you don't listen to what individuals want, but if you yourself wanted it it would be changed in an instant. As usual, though, you take the well-worn approach of "well, it's not my problem, so fuck you". If if inconviniences me, that's tough shit. If it inconviniences you, then you just change it.

Fucking typical bullshit authoritarianism. Not that I expected anything better from you by now.

I'm not arguing that the post length should not be limited, I'm just arguing that it should be possible to double-post when it is genuinely necessary to bypass it, like it was when I had the argument with you on the blog. That would not help spammers at all, because they would still be limited by the flood controls just as they were previously.

[SeiKeo]

Chillax.

[Dark Pulse]

So, Darples, how about changing that RSS image? The orange burns into my eyes.

Looking into it. Gotta find a way to replace the "default image" - while I could easily overwrite it, that means I'd have to redo it every upgrade, and that's not sensible.

No, DP I understand post length limits, but given that you yourself extended them twice just to argue with me, it's pretty clear that they are not always correct. Similarly, there are situations where it makes perfect sense to go over them.

That was on blogs, which do have different limits and are much shorter. Posts have been at 100,000 for awhile.

Of course, as you said, you don't actually care how individuals feel, no matter how much sense they might be making, so to expect you to actually be reasonable about things would just he ludicrous. Further, it's really fucking easy for you to say that when if you dislike them, you'll just raise them or break them at will. You claim you don't listen to what individuals want, but if you yourself wanted it it would be changed in an instant. As usual, though, you take the well-worn approach of "well, it's not my problem, so fuck you". If if inconviniences me, that's tough shit. If it inconviniences you, then you just change it.

Actually, I'd love to reduce the limits, and for blogs I probably will, since really blogs aren't meant to have ridiculous walls of text like you and I created - they're meant to be fairly short and concise, and realistically, needing more than a few ten-thousand characters to get your point across means you should probably frigging cut out some words, but with you, I have a bad habit of not doing so. Plus it lets me test if doublepost merging works with them. After all, I don't need to write huge replies - and the only times when I ever even come close to tipping those limits... is when I'm arguing with you.

Fucking typical bullshit authoritarianism. Not that I expected anything better from you by now.

Nice to know I'm living up to your expectations. Tune in next week when I ride down to my serfs' homes on my horsey Clop-Clop, and practice my rights of droit du seigneur!

[Mike1984]

That was on blogs, which do have different limits and are much shorter. Posts have been at 100,000 for awhile.

Yes, I know (and I've never yet experienced a situation where I've gone over the post length limit), but if it applies to blogs too, then it is still an issue there.

Actually, I'd love to reduce the limits, and for Blogs I probably will, since really blogs aren't meant to have ridiculous walls of text like you and I created.

Right, so you intend to restrict my ability to complain about the moderation on my blog, just because you don't like what I said and the fact that I talk in a non-DP-approved manner. But, of course, if you need to reply to me, you'll just bump the limit up like you did last time around, because you're a mod and you can.

Where else were we supposed to have that discussion, and resolve the problem? I couldn't do it by PM because the PMs are too damn small too, and the same probably applies to VMs. So, we wouldn't have resolved anything if you'd had it your way, just because I don't talk in the fucking DP-approved non-verbose speak that you seem to be insisting on.

Plus it lets me test if doublepost merging works. After all, I don't need to write huge replies - and the only times when I ever even come close to tipping those limits... is when I'm arguing with you.

Exactly, once again you only care about what you want to do, and not about anyone else. You decree how you think things should be used, and bugger how anyone else might want to use them.

Nice to know I'm living up to your expectations. Tune in next week when I ride down to my serfs' homes, and practice my rights of droit du seigneur!

Ah, yes, you can't actually come up with any reasonable arguments for the position you're taking, so you just resort to stupid jokes....

[Kyte]

If you can't express yourself in less than 10k characters, you're failing at communication anyways. For one, it means you lack the ability for synthesis. A trivial example: Taking multiple related or identical points and respond to'em in a single post instead of quoting and answering every. single. fucking. one. (Yeah you need to fix that one DP. Ganbatte!)

Or just skip the quoting altogether. If the posts're back to back, it's not even needed.

[Dark Pulse]

Yes, I know (and I've never yet experienced a situation where I've gone over the post length limit), but if it applies to blogs too, then it is still an issue there.

No, there's not. Blogs are supposed to be short; posts tend to have more content. Therefore, blogs should be smaller than posts; right now they are but not by much.

I don't see any legitimate reasons for having such a high limit for blogs (or for posts, for that matter, but I'm going to keep posts untouched because there are some people who are indeed unwilling or unable to upload attachments/DOCs for some reason or another) so that is likely going to be tuned back down, because I don't count on having ridiculous argument blogs again, and if I do, I'm damn well going to just keep my points more concise. I'm going to break that bad habit.

Right, so you intend to restrict my ability to complain about the moderation on my blog, just because you don't like what I said and the fact that I talk in a non-DP-approved manner. But, of course, if you need to reply to me, you'll just bump the limit up like you did last time around, because you're a mod and you can.

No, I fully intend that once I lower the limits I'm keeping them stuck to where they are. If that means you have to post four posts in a row back-to-back, then that's just what you're going to have to do. The argument only gets longer the more I try to explain things, so by keeping myself to one post, it'll make the argument less annoying for everyone else who has to be punished by it.

Where else were we supposed to have that discussion, and resolve the problem? I couldn't do it by PM because the PMs are too damn small too, and the same probably applies to VMs. So, we wouldn't have resolved anything if you'd had it your way, just because I don't talk in the fucking DP-approved non-verbose speak that you seem to be insisting on.

Not that there was much to resolve. What we spent a ridiculous amount of time doing was explaining why we did what we did, and what it boiled down to was essentially "In the future, we'll be a bit more in touch with you on warnings, but in kind, help us out by doing this and this." Agreement made; problem settled.

Exactly, once again you only care about what you want to do, and not about anyone else. You decree how you think things should be used, and bugger how anyone else might want to use them.

It's more like that "upping the things is being unfair because I can change that and nobody else can." Which is why from now on I'm going to be sticking to the limits, whatever they're set to. Post limit isn't changing, but blogs will be (probably to about 25,000) have been reduced to 25,000, and from there it's sticking, because 99% of blog replies or commentaries can be written in that much - much like probably 99% of posts can be written in 100,000.

Ah, yes, you can't actually come up with any reasonable arguments for the position you're taking, so you just resort to stupid jokes....

I came up with reasons. You chose to ignore them. As I said, potential attack vulnerability, site backup considerations, and the space the backups take. You don't notice or care about any of these things, but those are factors you have to take in when you run a site, so sorry if a little bit of security and making sure that we don't lose all our posts again infringes on your rights. I think more people would care that I could restore the forum than about you having the ability to write a million-character post.

---

Also, the RSS Icon is now changed. A few template modifications should mean it'll stick even through upgrades.

[Mike1984]

No, there's not. Blogs are supposed to be short; posts tend to have more content. Therefore, blogs should be smaller than posts; right now they are but not by much.

In general, yes, but that's not always the case.

I don't see any legitimate reasons for having such a high limit for blogs (or for posts, for that matter, but I'm going to keep posts untouched because there are some people who are indeed unwilling or unable to upload attachments/DOCs for some reason or another) so that is likely going to be tuned back down, because I don't count on having ridiculous argument blogs again, and if I do, I'm damn well going to just keep my points more concise. I'm going to break that bad habit.

Fics should not be uploaded in attachments, if that's what you're implying.

No, I fully intend that once I lower the limits I'm keeping them stuck to where they are. If that means you have to post four posts in a row back-to-back, then that's just what you're going to have to do. The argument only gets longer the more I try to explain things, so by keeping myself to one post, it'll make the argument less annoying for everyone else who has to be punished by it.

Except that I can't make four posts in a row (at least if the system applies to blogs), because your new system won't allow it. Which was the entire point I was trying to make in the first damn place....

I mean, seriously, did you actually read a single word of what I said? Because you seem to be under the distinct impression that I'm arguing against post length limits when I'm not. Hell, you've taken so little notice of me that you even suggested the very thing I complained about not being able to do as a solution to the issue with the limit you've placed on blog post lengths....

Not that there was much to resolve. What we spent a ridiculous amount of time doing was explaining why we did what we did, and what it boiled down to was essentially "In the future, we'll be a bit more in touch with you on warnings, but in kind, help us out by doing this and this." Agreement made; problem settled.

Well, yes, sure, but I needed to go through all that argument to get there.

It's more like that "upping the things is being unfair because I can change that and nobody else can." Which is why from now on I'm going to be sticking to the limits, whatever they're set to. Post limit isn't changing, but blogs will be (probably to about 25,000) have been reduced to 25,000, and from there it's sticking, because 99% of blog replies or commentaries can be written in that much - much like probably 99% of posts can be written in 100,000.

Well, I've never seen an issue with posts, but I'm not convinced about the blogs. But, whatever.

I came up with reasons. You chose to ignore them. As I said, potential attack vulnerability, site backup considerations, and the space the backups take. You don't notice or care about any of these things, but those are factors you have to take in when you run a site, so sorry if a little bit of security and making sure that we don't lose all our posts again infringes on your rights. I think more people would care that I could restore the forum than about you having the ability to write a million-character post.

Those are all reasons to have a post limit, yes, and I fully accept them.

However, my original point was not that post length limits are a bad thing, it's that, occasionally, there is a need to bypass them, and the ability to double-post allows for that. If the double-post protection doesn't allow for merging posts beyond the post length limit, then it will simply not be possible for someone to do that under any circumstances. And that, to me, is a bad thing, because inflexible rules like that just hinder people.

[Tobias]

Any circumstances? Couldn't they just wait 10 minutes or an hour or whatever it is?

[Lianru]

They're cut off but no longer painful! <3

[Mike1984]

Any circumstances? Couldn't they just wait 10 minutes or an hour or whatever it is?

If you're replying to someone else in a discussion? Not really....

And, it's pretty damn inconvinient, too.

[Counterguardian]

No, DP I understand post length limits, and your reasoning makes sense, but given that you yourself extended them twice just to argue with me, it's pretty clear that they are not always correct. Similarly, there are situations where it makes perfect sense to go over them or to double-post, such as when posting a fanfic. But, you don't care about that, because you can just bypass the rules if they annoy you anyway. To you, the rules are nice and flexible, because if you don't like them, then you just ignore them. To us, they are rigid and inflexible. But, you don't care, because all you care about is you, apparently.

As you said, you don't actually care how individuals feel, no matter how much sense they might be making, so to expect you to actually be reasonable about things would just he ludicrous. Further, it's really fucking easy for you to say that when if you dislike them, you'll just raise the limit or break the rules at will. You claim you don't listen to what individuals want, but if you yourself wanted it it would be changed in an instant. As usual, though, you take the well-worn approach of "well, it's not my problem, so fuck you". If if inconviniences me, that's tough shit. If it inconviniences you, then you just change it.

Fucking typical bullshit authoritarianism. Not that I expected anything better from you by now.

I'm not arguing that the post length should not be limited, I'm just arguing that it should be possible to double-post when it is genuinely necessary to bypass it, like it was when I had the argument with you on the blog. That would not help spammers at all, because they would still be limited by the flood controls just as they were previously.

Actually Mike, if you responded like this all the time and didn't use that many quotes, you might find the word limit a little more palatable.

Plus, it would help your stances as it would then look like you're actually arguing against concepts and premises in the other person's posts, as opposed to coming off as overly pedantic. Might want to sub out the cursing for words like "absolutely despicable" though.