Where is Yates? You can thank his pestering for this....

[Xthrax]

Oh wow, this is awesome, thanks Verbal!

 

[v]Verbal[/v]

 

[Xthrax]

Also Des, that will be very hard. For instance people have written

 

'Why did you vote him' or 'Joke vote' or anything containing the word vote will pop up in the ctrl f. Best thing is old fashioned searching

[csarmi]

You could just make it so that unvoting isn't required to place a new vote. I always felt that was somewhat of an unnecessary step- like something added solely for the purposes of letting people "vote fail" on purpose.

 

I think using ctrl f to find "vote:" or the search feature to find the same will work pretty well.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now Des. My idea costs nothing and certainly would be helpful.

 

You're Mafia. Sure of it.

 

[V]Despo[/v]

 

...

BTW. When I was modding I been thinking about unvotes (cause they forced me to just ctrl-f ## instead of ##vote) but you can't get rid of them. For the very simple reason that people would have a good reason just to unvote (and not revote).

[Songstress]

Also Des, that will be very hard. For instance people have written

 

'Why did you vote him' or 'Joke vote' or anything containing the word vote will pop up in the ctrl f. Best thing is old fashioned searching

 

If you include the colon in the ctrl-F search, it won't find just the word "vote" written out in a normal sentence. 

[csarmi]

 

 

Also Des, that will be very hard. For instance people have written

 

'Why did you vote him' or 'Joke vote' or anything containing the word vote will pop up in the ctrl f. Best thing is old fashioned searching

If you include the colon in the ctrl-F search, it won't find just the word "vote" written out in a normal sentence.

True. But it wouldn't find unvote then (unless Verb modifies the unvote tag). Also...

 

"Despo is a good vote: he is skimming and arguing for the sake of arguing. He don't do that as town."

[csarmi]

Also Des has a good suggestion but my programming knowledge says it shouldn't be possible (or not easy). Basically, it'd be nice if our search didn't catch the votes inside quoted posts.

 

Now on some sites they even have an automatic votecount. Maybe someone there could help us with ideas on how that works (as that must ignore quote votes too).

[Songstress]

And since it's not bold and red, it will be really really obvious that it's not a vote. 

 

The unvote thing is a different story.  But since I don't ctrl-F to do my vote counts, I'm not as exercised about it as others may be.  I do mine the old fashioned way, scanning visually for the votes and unvotes - my only rule is that they stand out visually as an intended vote.  The bold red is super obvious, and easy enough to do with the new tags, so I'm among the happy campers.

[Niniel]

Why did I suddenly come to think about this scene? 

 

 

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

[unvote]

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

Ooh ooh I have an idea.... You could read the game and like count the votes and stuffs.

 

That's what I do even when I don't gotta. Works a treat.

[csarmi]

Ooh ooh I have an idea.... You could read the game and like count the votes and stuffs.

 

That's what I do even when I don't gotta. Works a treat.

You could co-mod maybe and do votecounts then.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

I comod for my Basel :) the rest if the time I'm busy doing other stuffs with him

 

but yes, everyone needs a comod to count IMO.

[WWWwombat]

Also Des has a good suggestion but my programming knowledge says it shouldn't be possible (or not easy). Basically, it'd be nice if our search didn't catch the votes inside quoted posts.

 

Now on some sites they even have an automatic votecount. Maybe someone there could help us with ideas on how that works (as that must ignore quote votes too).

 

Depends on what you're programming it into I think.  Idk if it would be easy to put it natively on the forum or not because I don't know that stuff, but I imagine it would be pretty easy if you were going to bother to make a votecounter.

 

I'm pretty sure the forum search function works on the raw text of the posts.  I know it does in some cases because I've used it to search for hex codes before.

 

If that's the case, then all you'd have to do is make a stack that you push every time a quote is opened and pop every time a quote is closed.  If the stack isn't empty, you're inside a quote.

[WWWwombat]

Can't get it to work myself. Don't really care that much tho.

[Darthe]

 

try the word vote with an : after it

Not good enough for two reasons:

 

1) it won't catch unvotes

2) the "vote:" sequence can appear naturally in flowing text

 

tbh I don't see this as much of an issue.  Then again, I don't require unvotes so I ignore them anyhow and as for the vote: I doubt it comes up often at all.  Still, you make fair points.  It somehow feels wrong to make people type [v] ##vote salami [/v] now though. That was just my little rigging to find votes quick before we had tags.

[csarmi]

Its not like Despo to disappear under pressure. I'm going to [unvote].

[hazelkrs1]

Its not like Despo to disappear under pressure. I'm going to [unvote].

Lol you miss mafia sooooooo much

[Red2111]

i still miss the glow button