PDA

View Full Version : Private Messages



Comrade
25-04-2005, 01:33 PM
Hi everyone,

I'm new here, do I need a certain amount of posts before being able to send a private message?

Thanks for your help in advance

Comrade

Rincewind
25-04-2005, 01:38 PM
I'm new here, do I need a certain amount of posts before being able to send a private message?

Welcome aboard, Comrade. The answers are yes and 10.

regards, RW (aka rockwimp)

Comrade
25-04-2005, 11:45 PM
10 posts and it still doesn't work :(
Aaah 11 and it does :)

Jesse Jager
01-05-2005, 06:47 PM
How many threads must i post before i can PM

Rincewind
01-05-2005, 06:54 PM
How many threads must i post before i can PM

10 in total. In your case, 9 more. ;)

eclectic
01-05-2005, 07:21 PM
10 in total. In your case, 9 more. ;)

10 posts won't help if perchance you are on the ignore list of any of your intended recipients

;) ;)

eclectic

ursogr8
02-05-2005, 08:04 AM
10 posts won't help if perchance you are on the ignore list of any of your intended recipients

;) ;)

eclectic
hi e

The Punters Club has a real challenge for you this week, mate. :uhoh:
The hardest of all forecasting is related to low incidence, limited data, large SD sequences.

Now there is a notorious poster who tends to go into recess for quite some periods...184 days was a recent example, and then over-indulge. Bill thought his posts a bit rich....perhaps because he was over-capitalized. :uhoh:

eclectic, my friend, would you like to forecast when this poster gets on the radar of your post?


starter

ps Punters Club rule > No bets are can be laid for a selection covering the next school holiday period. ;)

pps The PC would also accept bets on his mate, but his is is off-putting to the race-caller.

antichrist
02-05-2005, 12:06 PM
Bruce D/Cat has not posted for awhile

Comrade
02-05-2005, 02:58 PM
Bruce D/Cat has not posted for awhile

Random, but true. Perhaps he has other 'tasks' to complete firstly :D

eclectic
02-05-2005, 06:35 PM
hi e

The Punters Club has a real challenge for you this week, mate. :uhoh:
The hardest of all forecasting is related to low incidence, limited data, large SD sequences.

Now there is a notorious poster who tends to go into recess for quite some periods...184 days was a recent example, and then over-indulge. Bill thought his posts a bit rich....perhaps because he was over-capitalized. :uhoh:

eclectic, my friend, would you like to forecast when this poster gets on the radar of your post?


starter

ps Punters Club rule > No bets are can be laid for a selection covering the next school holiday period. ;)

pps The PC would also accept bets on his mate, but his is is off-putting to the race-caller.


perhaps it could be said starter that i'm already notorious for my under capitalization

i'm reminded of a certain "walter" in that monty python sketch who insists on being called "prince walter" when asked to if he wishes to marry princess mitzi gaynor ... yes she with the wooden false teeth and the dog she drags around on a sled because no one has the heart to tell her it is dead

:whistle:the person concerned may already have been detected by my ignore list radar:whistle:

eclectic

ursogr8
24-05-2005, 08:26 AM
When we report a bad post, is the text of our report regarded with the same privacy constraints as a PM? That is, not to be revealed without permission of the writer?

starter

Rincewind
24-05-2005, 09:00 AM
When we report a bad post, is the text of our report regarded with the same privacy constraints as a PM? That is, not to be revealed without permission of the writer?

Yes to the extent that the report goes to all the moderators who may discuss it amongst themselves in the moderator only area. Be aware though that future moderators will also get access to these discussions.

BTW, regarding your tagline: we can measure the speed of light. Can we improve it? ;)

ursogr8
24-05-2005, 09:22 AM
Yes to the extent that the report goes to all the moderators who may discuss it amongst themselves in the moderator only area. Be aware though that future moderators will also get access to these discussions.

Thanks Baz, this is a sensible policy.


BTW, regarding your tagline: we can measure the speed of light. Can we improve it? ;)

If I put all sorts of qualifiers and modifiers in the signature line then I would end up with a long diatribe that looks like the preamble to the Constitution, or even a Tolstoy quote. :rolleyes:

I prefer the brevity of the Sermon on the Mount . ;)


starter

antichrist
24-05-2005, 12:31 PM
What irks me is the inconsistency or favouratism amongst the mods. For example, last week I broadcast that "LATE FINAL EXTRA: "That post" is "over there" and it gets wiped out -- fair enough or not that is what happened.

A few hours later Bill posts something like "A/C was referring to FG7's posting of that PM from Jase on UCJ", and it says put???

If my message was offensive at least it was only ambigeous, whereas Bill's was in your face so to speak and yet it holds. What hippocrisy!

Whoever wiped mine out should out themselves, apologise and resign.

Lucena
24-05-2005, 05:12 PM
Thanks Baz, this is a sensible policy.



If I put all sorts of qualifiers and modifiers in the signature line then I would end up with a long diatribe that looks like the preamble to the Constitution, or even a Tolstoy quote. :rolleyes:

I prefer the brevity of the Sermon on the Mount . ;)


starter

I thought you should have stuck with "if you can't measure it you can't improve it" like you had before, but perhaps you wanted to sound more positive.

ursogr8
24-05-2005, 05:41 PM
I thought you should have stuck with "if you can't measure it you can't improve it" like you had before, but perhaps you wanted to sound more positive.
:hmm:
........ :ermm:
................... :suprised: :whatthe: :huh: :confused:
...................................... :eek: :shocked:



Doppler effect?



starter
:laugh:

Have a look VVV

eclectic
24-05-2005, 06:07 PM
;)

"e"

skip to my lou
25-05-2005, 10:35 AM
144.*? Coincidence?

antichrist
25-05-2005, 10:44 AM
since my post 11 on this thread which I was hoping for a sensible reply to, except for one all the following posts seem from madman -- do I have that a/effect on people?

EGOR
25-05-2005, 11:03 AM
since my post 11 on this thread which I was hoping for a sensible reply to, except for one all the following posts seem from madman -- do I have that a/effect on people?
Yes! ;)

antichrist
25-05-2005, 11:36 AM
Well I am going to invest in the psychotic drugs industry and then let myself run amok.

toyboy
26-06-2005, 01:12 PM
10 in total.

Only 10. Cool.

toyboy
26-06-2005, 08:27 PM
Only 10. Cool.

10 posts and still no private messages. :(

toyboy
26-06-2005, 08:52 PM
10 posts and still no private messages. :(

Works now. :)

brett
25-07-2005, 11:48 PM
Ahh now i get it :)

brett
26-07-2005, 12:26 AM
ah

I had the same problem.

Ok now!

brett
26-07-2005, 12:29 AM
actually.... i cant send a message... how many posts do u need for that?

brett
26-07-2005, 12:30 AM
why the need for posts before you can send a message?

brett
26-07-2005, 12:30 AM
14 posts and I still cant do it?

brett
26-07-2005, 12:31 AM
is 15 enough :)

Spiny Norman
26-07-2005, 07:16 AM
why the need for posts before you can send a message?

Helps stop bots I suppose...

Spiny Norman
26-07-2005, 07:17 AM
You should be able to send/receive ... I'll send you one now.

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2005, 04:47 PM
You should now be able to send PMs after 3 messages. We lowered the barrier because the UCJ situation leading to the 10 message rule no longer exists. We will raise it again if another case of people signing up hydras to send PMs occurs, but in the meantime it just seemed to be causing people to make too many silly posts to get their count up for PMs.

ElevatorEscapee
26-08-2005, 07:09 PM
You should now be able to send PMs after 3 messages. We lowered the barrier because the UCJ situation leading to the 10 message rule no longer exists. We will raise it again if another case of people signing up hydras to send PMs occurs, but in the meantime it just seemed to be causing people to make too many silly posts to get their count up for PMs.

Yay!

ElevatorEscapee
26-08-2005, 07:11 PM
One wonders if this theory will ever extend to stopping people from making too many silly posts just to make up enough posts to be able to access the Coffee Lounge... :lol

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2005, 07:12 PM
I don't know if anyone's tried that yet. It's really hardly worth the bother.

ElevatorEscapee
26-08-2005, 07:14 PM
I don't know if anyone's tried that yet. It's really hardly worth the bother.
lol Kevin! You are certainly on the ball tonight!

I will be sure to inform Mr EE that he shouldn't be attempting to multiple post, and respond to his own posts, just to get his own post count up! ;)

ElevatorEscapee
26-08-2005, 07:16 PM
Duly noted!

Apologies to all concerned... I have learned my lesson, and I most certainly won't try to sneak that one passed the mods again!

ElevatorEscapee
26-08-2005, 07:17 PM
See that you don't!

The mods here are very much on the ball... any attempt at trying to circumvent the posting regulations will see you very embarrassed indeed!

ElevatorEscapee
26-08-2005, 11:07 PM
See that you don't!

The mods here are very much on the ball... any attempt at trying to circumvent the posting regulations will see you very embarrassed indeed!

Good point, well made! I certainly shalln't be trying anything like that! ;)

Garvinator
27-08-2005, 12:01 AM
Good point, well made! I certainly shalln't be trying anything like that! ;)
are you trying to lose an argument with yourself :P

ElevatorEscapee
27-08-2005, 02:38 AM
are you trying to lose an argument with yourself :P
I agree!

ElevatorEscapee
27-08-2005, 02:40 AM
I agree!
I am afraid that I must respectfully disagree with everything the previous poster has said!

For if one is to lose an argument with one's self, surely, one is to also win the same argument!? :cool:

Garvinator
27-08-2005, 02:45 AM
I am afraid that I must respectfully disagree with everything the previous poster has said!

For if one is to lose an argument with one's self, surely, one is to also win the same argument!? :cool:
unless both of you are wrong :eek: :whistle:

ElevatorEscapee
22-12-2005, 09:32 PM
Given that the "major threat" to this has now long since passed, is there any chance of resetting the thingy so that people can at least receive private messages after posting, say, 1 post?

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2005, 03:01 PM
We don't intend any further relaxation at the moment. (It's currently 3 posts.) We have had issues with spammers spamming by PM in the past and also with Matt being banned on and off and threatening to start a UCJ Mark II I don't think it's wise to drop the barrier at this point.

PHAT
23-12-2005, 03:23 PM
...Matt being banned on and off and threatening to start a UCJ Mark II I don't think it's wise to drop the barrier at this point.

Barriers to free communication because big bad matty threatens to compete with the monopoly. You are a joke.

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2005, 06:12 PM
No, because big silly Matty has a track record of using the forum to spam for his puny failed attempts at competition.

PHAT
23-12-2005, 06:45 PM
No, because big silly Matty has a track record of using the forum to spam for his puny failed attempts at competition.

Better to have tried, failed and learned than to be lickspittle companyman like you.

Rincewind
23-12-2005, 07:38 PM
Better to have tried, failed and learned than to be lickspittle companyman like you.

A salient point is that spam (which is defined as electronic mail delivered to a large number of recipients and not knowlingly request by some or all of those recipients) is illegal under Australia's anti-spam legisation.

ursogr8
23-12-2005, 08:56 PM
A salient point is that spam (which is defined as electronic mail delivered to a large number of recipients and not knowlingly request by some or all of those recipients) is illegal under Australia's anti-spam legisation.

salient eh?

Convince me Baz that Matt succeeded in sending his 'come to UCJ' invitation to a large number of PM boxes. If your access to numbers demonstrates that Matt did indeed reach a large number of PM boxes then I will very surprised. I do presume you mean large in the context of the usual spam-types I get to my trevors@bluep.c*m.

Convince me Baz that what Matt was sending was in fact electronic mail in the usual external sense. If I remember correctly, he simply went used the PM function within this bb. Does the cat_and_dog ACT that you quote cover messages internal to a chat-board?

regards
starter

Rincewind
23-12-2005, 09:12 PM
Convince me Baz that Matt succeeded in sending his 'come to UCJ' invitation to a large number of PM boxes. If your access to numbers demonstrates that Matt did indeed reach a large number of PM boxes then I will very surprised. I do presume you mean large in the context of the usual spam-types I get to my trevors@bluep.c*m.

Large is a relalative term but it was clear to me that the PMs were indiscriminate.


Convince me Baz that what Matt was sending was in fact electronic mail in the usual external sense. If I remember correctly, he simply went used the PM function within this bb. Does the cat_and_dog ACT that you quote cover messages internal to a chat-board?

How are they not like electronic mail? The fact they the delivery area is specific doesn't stop them from being personally addressed mail and I would be suprised if a convincing argument could be made to the contrary. But please go ahead.

PHAT
24-12-2005, 06:53 AM
It was not indescrimnate. I sent to posters with whom I had had some contact in the form of posts exchanged. It was sent to about 100 or so - not by any standard a large number.

Spam? No.

End of discussion. :hand:

Rincewind
24-12-2005, 08:10 AM
It was not indescrimnate. I sent to posters with whom I had had some contact in the form of posts exchanged. It was sent to about 100 or so - not by any standard a large number.

Spam? No.

End of discussion. :hand:

Actually 100 or so is a large number since the PM facility is designed to send email to lists of up to 5 users. So unsolicited email to a large number of users, that equals spam.

If it makes you feel better you can take a ":hand:" as read at this point.

PHAT
24-12-2005, 08:35 AM
Actually 100 or so is a large number since the PM facility is designed to send email to lists of up to 5 users.

Don't be foolish. Yes, 100 is large number compared to 5, but the 5 is an arbitarily very small nimber. 100 is not large when I or anyone else sends PMs to a select group. So for the second time, this discussion is over :hand:

Rincewind
24-12-2005, 08:41 AM
Yes, 100 is large number ...

So for the second time, this discussion is over :hand:

I couldn't agree more.

PHAT
24-12-2005, 08:47 AM
I couldn't agree more.

Listen, I demand the right to have the last word. So, for the third and last time, this discussion is over :hand:

Rincewind
24-12-2005, 08:48 AM
Listen, I demand the right to have the last word. So, for the third and last time, this discussion is over :hand:

:P

Don't make me lock this thread.

ursogr8
24-12-2005, 01:15 PM
Large is a relalative term but it was clear to me that the PMs were indiscriminate.

Baz, I don't have any opinion on the size of your relatives, but if you wish to bring in family matters that is a private matter for which you have chosen an appropriate thread. ;)

But, to be honest, 100 equals about the number of recipients of the average erudite SHOUTS here; and you don't regard them as spam do you?

Interesting that you morph from 'large' to 'indiscriminate'. When bergil moved the criteria-goal_posts on the cricket thread you took him to task. Must be contagious.




How are they not like electronic mail? The fact they the delivery area is specific doesn't stop them from being personally addressed mail and I would be suprised if a convincing argument could be made to the contrary. But please go ahead.

Well, for a start, the sender (at chessch*t.org) is constrained to send fewer than 6 at a time, which is obviously not a constraint on the spammers who send to trevors@bluep.c*m. There is the first point of significant difference.

regards
starter

Rincewind
24-12-2005, 02:18 PM
Baz, I don't have any opinion on the size of your relatives, but if you wish to bring in family matters that is a private matter for which you have chosen an appropriate thread. ;)

But, to be honest, 100 equals about the number of recipients of the average erudite SHOUTS here; and you don't regard them as spam do you?

Interesting that you morph from 'large' to 'indiscriminate'. When bergil moved the criteria-goal_posts on the cricket thread you took him to task. Must be contagious.

Sot sure why you see yourself as the patron of lost causes but feel free to spruke about this as much as you want. Just don't expect too much attention.


Well, for a start, the sender (at chessch*t.org) is constrained to send fewer than 6 at a time, which is obviously not a constraint on the spammers who send to trevors@bluep.c*m. There is the first point of significant difference.

Efficiency doesn't seem to form part of the definition as far as I'm aware.