Is there anyway to to enforce a limit on how many posts a user can make per day, per week, etc.?
BRO I READ 1984 AND THIS IS HOW IT STARTS.
GO AWAY THOUGHT POLICE
We can always apply this limit to mugwump only.
...and maybe to spam bots later :D
I was about to not even dignify such utter bullshit but there is something to address here. Of course Mukor is absolutely right but it goes beyond that: this is a forum, a place to exchange and discuss ideas. The fact that a handful of sad excuses for human beings persistently turn everything I say into dragging moronic OT feuds is not my responsibility and I certainly won't take the fall for it. Is this clear enough?
What I've said since I'm back may not be to the liking of some but it is relevant, for the most part. That's what I meant when I said I'd be less chatty (well, besides effectively being less present on week days): more on topic, less digressive than I used to be.
And please, cut me some slack, will you? I'm excited to be back after so long despite the toxic people, it's the weekend so I have time and there's a lot for me to catch up. Don't worry, my logorrhoea will tone down. Case closed.
Small amount of brownie points awarded to mugwump for the use of logorrhoea
Yes, I do have some vocabulary that exceeds monosyllables. To be fair, I had to check the english spelling before posting, though...
Errrrr What Does #2209 Refer To??
I think a MINIMUM posting limit would be better. It's good to have action and a vibe going on on this forum, hype for Quake, it's user content, it's contemporary games and modern games from the perspective of all of us who appreciate the Quake "perspective" on gaming.
I don't think a minimum posting limit would work.
I don't know if I could could up with enough to say.
If there was a minimum posting limit that is.
Action and vibe is good and more perspectives are good.
So is hype for Quake. I didn't mean to leave that out.
Instead of banning Rick, we ban dumb ideas?
Interestingly though, if Shambler had spread their 5618 posts relatively evenly over the past 14-and-a-bit years they've spent on the site, they would survive the minimum post ban! Assuming that the ban was "Post once per day or else!".
So would I, actually...
Been away from my main computer for about a month or two, and when I wanted to see what I had missed at func I found myself logged out, and when I wanted to log back in I got this warning in Firefox (and my OS is up to date, including Firefox):
This connection is not secure. Logins entered here could be compromised
So far I've got this warning only here. And I'm scared to log back in now. Should I be?
I get that warning every time I try to login with 1Password.
It's a new warning in Firefox, but nothing has actually changed -- func doesn't use https so passwords are not sent encrypted over the Internet. This has been true since the beginning. However, the password is only sent once and then func uses a cookie to keep you logged in. The contents of the cookie are hashed. Long story short, this is not a super secure website so don't use the same password here as your bank account etc.
func doesn't use https
Any specific reason why not?
HTTPS Is More Work
It used to cost money to get a HTTPS certificate, although services like Let's Encrypt seem to have done away with that hurdle. Still, it's another thing about the site that has to be maintained and set up...
there's a bug with creating new user accounts since the server upgrade. (gives an error and fails.) I'm investigating it now.
^^^^ That Was Me