Recruitment EADD Needs YOU....!!! Another mod to join the ranks

[Sadie]

you can make a porch out of the box it came in.

I've seen it, it's of normal size. The PC that is. Legends are made of "other" things.

Believe it or not his PC is actually pretty up to scratch. However, internet service to the shitiest of places seems to be the problem. This will hopefully, in the not too distant future, not be a problem as he'll be moving to proper civilization.

 

[Ceres]

that's actually incorrect.

the site engineer already has the certificate but there's a concern that, even after the most recent server upgrade, we're going to suffer a performance hit resulting in a poor user experience by enabling https site-wide. the issue is currently under consideration.

and, for what it's worth, we've installed a number of vbulletin hacks and plug-ins along the way. the fact that you can't necessarily see them doesn't mean they're not there...

but don't let facts get in the way of your criticism

alasdair

I think you owe it to your users to provide them some transport security considering the nature of the forum. The certificate for bluelight.org should have been revoked by the way since it doesn't apply to the .ru domain. If it's the same cert you're talking about you've had a year and a half to contemplate your concern over provisioning resources for using ssl.

 

[Raasyvibe]

I think you owe it to your users to provide them some transport security considering the nature of the forum.

doesn't the anonymous forum go some way in achieving that? As for the rest of the forum, making it all https'd/encrypted/proxy'd whatever, I imagine would just make it look like a hive for illegal activity and put the site under more suspicion/concern for police.

 

[Ceres]

doesn't the anonymous forum go some way in achieving that?

no, it gives potentially vulnerable people a false sense of security.

As for the rest of the forum, making it all https'd/encrypted/proxy'd whatever, I imagine would just make it look like a hive for illegal activity and put the site under more suspicion/concern for police.

no, it wouldn't. Does it make facebook or amazon or any other site that uses ssl look like a hive of illegal activity?

 

[Raasyvibe]

no, it wouldn't. Does it make facebook or amazon or any other site that uses ssl look like a hive of illegal activity?

No, because both sites have strict policies against drugs or any illegal activity and work with the law enforcement. If BL was to go SSL it may have to follow facebook and also employ strict policies about facilitating drug chat. As it is, this site is very lax. It has it's share of "rules" and emphasises harm reduction etc... but people come on here blagging about what drugs they took last night and how cool effects were... I'd imagine employing stricter security would have to come with a more stringent policy towards discussion.

 

[Ceres]

you have no idea what you are talking about so leave it to alisdair or someone else to reply please.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Why ask me a question on it, if I'm not allowed to respond!? *sighs* sure I'll let someone else point out the obvious

 

[ScotchMist]

So... erm.... after that tidy segway from modding to site security I'll bring it back to.. Anyone want to mod? You're gonna end up with Josh if not, and Josh is a cunt..

 

[felix]

 

[ScotchMist]

 

[Josh]

You're gonna end up with Josh if not, and Josh is a cunt..

The man's not wrong

 

[ScotchMist]

You're gonna end up with Josh if not, and Josh is cunted on 2cb..

Fixed

 

[BecomingJulie]

Unless you have an appropriate browser extension installed, embedded videos will slow your browser down. Even some speed demon's overclocked gaming rig, with 16GB RAM / no SWAP, a high-end GPU and liquid cooling is going to slow down in the face of one embedded video clip too many. And that probably is not representative of a typical Bluelighter's setup. Wrapping videos with [nsfw] ..... [/nsfw] tags does not help, either; the browser still has to load the "not safe for work" content, then hide it.

It's technically no harder to write a browser extension that will convert a link to a YouTube video into an embed, than it is to write a "click-to-play" extension that replaces embedded YouTube videos with a simple image that must be clicked to download the actual video and begin playing.

Besides, I suspect the real complaint here is not "Waaaah! I have to click my mouse on a link just to watch a video clip! Not fair!", but "Waaaah! Other people have to click on a link to watch this really fantastic video clip I found, and they might not click on it at all! Not fair!"

 

[Ceres]

just set to flash to always ask before activating, problem solved, it takes 3 mouse clicks or something, not just on this site but for any site that uses flash because presumably the same people have the same complaint everywhere else on the internet. The real complaint here is that you have a video tag, but don't want anyone to use it because of as you say, a minority of the userbase have slow machines.

So by your logic, we all have to live in the 1990's because of a couple of people with slow computers, rather than asking that minority to do what they ought to anyway to improve their browsing experience.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

eadd logic

 

[Raasyvibe]

"Waaaah! Other people have to click on a link to watch this really fantastic video clip I found, and they might not click on it at all! Not fair!"

This. My browser handles the videos fine, but really don't want each thread clogged up with someone elses guff. When it's in a small link at least it's easy to ignore. But...those videos are so conspicuous and emphatic...

 

[Ceres]

I have never once seen you contribute anything remotely positive to the site raas. Why are you here?

 

[Raasyvibe]

I can't give an opinion without you bickering. I genuinely find the embeds annoying because they fill up the page with often unwanted material. Sorry u feel differently, but no attempt to be negative here.

 

[alasdairm]

ceres, with respect the lack of https hasn't stopped you participating here for 6 years and over 8000 posts.

we understand we need to seriously consider doing this. could we have done it sooner? sure.

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

no, it gives potentially vulnerable people a false sense of security.

you're implying something deceptive is happening. we're quite open about the lack of https. we're misleading anybody and people are quite able to take responsibility for their own choice.

alasdair