Conversation

Discussion in 'Suggestion Box Archives' started by Silken_thread, Mar 30, 2015.

?

Would you like to see this improvement

Poll closed Apr 7, 2015.
Yes 20 vote(s) 100.0%
No 0 vote(s) 0.0%
  1. I don't see why we have to use a 'bypass' system when, as nfell and mba have both said, it is literally just a small option change in Xenforo's settings.

    Its so easy to do, even I know how to do it - and I can barely navigate the Xenforo admin screen properly :p
  2. Yeah, but I think it shouldn't be too much of a problem to ask Krysyy, because needing more than twenty people is definitely an exception.
    And well, I think it's good that the limit is there, to make sure people keep talking in public as well, instead of just making threads that only fifty people they like can see.
  3. If I had known this when I was doing the New Republic it would have made everything so much easier
    krysyyjane9191 and 607 like this.
  4. Lol I found out when I had to go in and change pmss.emc.gs to add B4DMAN5IMON. I just realized today after experimentation that it could probably bypass amounts.
  5. Higher conversation limits would be a very nice and extremely easy to implement supporter feature... ;)
    sambish20 likes this.
  6. With the bypassing I just mentioned, I don't think there is a reason it should really be supporter only.
  7. That's true - although has that bypass been confirmed by anyone yet? I'd be pretty surprised if it works for non-admins, since AFAIK XF checks number of participants in form submit, not name enter (that said, I'm basing this on current XF - might have been different on the old version).
  8. Using krysyy's bypass I can confirm that it does work. :)
  9. That's mad... :confused: Wonder how it manages to do that since it links to the form pre-submit :confused:
    607 likes this.
  10. Yeah I tested with an alt =)
    JackBiggin likes this.
  11. In the NR, because we couldn't get a proper private forum set up, private discussions were conducted by organising all members into 'conversation cells' according to the date they joined, because of the conversation capacity limitations. Meaning if you were in one cell, you could not talk privately about NR stuff to other conversation cells. Was a pain in the ass to organise.
  12. I can definitely see why. Well for future reference at least we have a fix =)
  13. Damn right, this'll be really useful for the NR's true successor.
  14. False successor, aka the 2nd NR was such a flop it cannot be considered a successor:)

    Anyway, I thought the successor was Concordia, aka NR Lite?
  15. No, watch in the coming months...
  16. I will ask you to pls not to bring up old disputes over NR, regardless of the way they are expressed in this thread, I have seen way too much drama over this subject in the past.

    To pre-empt your next question, Volt simply referred to the conversation aspect being useful and would have been in relation to NR.

    Please keep the thread to the point of the discussion with regard to the Conversation aspect of the website.
    607 and krysyyjane9191 like this.
  17. I'm talking about my massive flop of the uselessly pathetic 2nd NR, not the NR. Both are very different things, including the fact that the second one was a dictatorship.

    Anyway, okay.
  18. Key words. Nobody really cares now, anyone involved has put it behind them, and we've all parted our separate ways anyway.

    Also... we're just going to ignore that I kinda hinted at a successor to the NR? ok
    607 likes this.

  19. No, we're not... we're just going to not remark anything about it right now. We'll keep it in mind, though.
    72Volt likes this.