Scratch

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-23 11:39:45

a1130 wrote:
It's used to prevent spam, so I guess it should still stay...

DANG IT!!!!

6
60
60 s
60 se
60 sec
60 seco
60 secon
60 second
60 second r
60 second ru
60 second rul
60 second rule
60 second rul
60 second ru
60 second r
60 second
60 secon
60 sec
60 se
60 s
60
6

OK, never mind.

Yesh. 60 second rule sucks.

Stupidness wrote:
The following errors need to be corrected before the message can be posted:

* At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-23 11:40:53

Snowdrift wrote:
I'm currently on another forum and It has a 30 second rule.
30 seconds is enough time to find a thread, read it, then write a 15-60 word post.

Yeah! 30 seconds is PLENTY.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-23 11:42:48

mrdinosaur wrote:
I agree.

I second that.

The 60 Second Rule wrote:
The following errors need to be corrected before the message can be posted:

* At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

a1130 · 2011-07-23 14:56:39

I'm actually "half and half." The 60 second rule saved a LOT of time for the moderators, according to the Scratch Wiki. However, I think it could be shortened to 30 seconds. Or maybe 25.

I go on a different forum with a 30 second rule.

I also have another idea- a character limit, perhaps. Lets say, "at least 25 characters need to be in a post...?"

Or, you could keep the 60 second rule, but have a "stopwatch" next to the posting area, so you can monitor how long it took for your post instead of guessing or typing:

6
60
60 s
60 se
60 seco

etc.

Last edited by a1130 (2011-07-23 14:57:55)

scimonster · 2011-07-23 14:58:22

@a1130: No.
12 chars. ;P 37 with this.

a1130 · 2011-07-23 15:06:19

ElectricSparx, could you make a list of supporters for this?

4150, 1 |=1|\|15|-|3c| Y0|_||- 45(11 519 tongue

a1130 · 2011-07-23 15:07:48

scimonster wrote:
@a1130: No.
12 chars. ;P 37 with this.

That's better. big_smile

ARGH!!! Not the 60 second rule!!!
6
60
60 s
60 se
60 seco
60 secon
60 second
60 second r
60 second ru
60 second rul
60 second rule
60 second rul
60 second ru
60 second r
60 second
60 secon
60 seco
60 sec
60 se
60 s
60
6

imnotbob · 2011-07-23 16:02:42

ElectricSparx wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:

I'm not saying to get rid of it, I'm just saying they should change it to a 30 second rule.
(facepalm) it will make it WORSE, even 30 seconds less. then ppl will go "I HATE THE 30 SECOND RULE!!!!!"

look, 60 seconds isnt that long. its a minute. if its that annoying go play outside, watch TV, play a video game... sleep!
No, people will not hate it if it's a 30 second rule. 30 seconds is long enough to type up a post 1-2 sentences long.

and thirty MORE seconds is long enough to COMPLAIN, apparently!
its not that long. its a MINUTE. stop complaining

a1130 · 2011-07-23 18:03:24

imnotbob wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:
imnotbob wrote:

(facepalm) it will make it WORSE, even 30 seconds less. then ppl will go "I HATE THE 30 SECOND RULE!!!!!"

look, 60 seconds isnt that long. its a minute. if its that annoying go play outside, watch TV, play a video game... sleep!
No, people will not hate it if it's a 30 second rule. 30 seconds is long enough to type up a post 1-2 sentences long.
and thirty MORE seconds is long enough to COMPLAIN, apparently!
its not that long. its a MINUTE. stop complaining

Are you mad? 30 seconds is better than 60. 'Nuff said.

6
60
60 s
60 se
60 sec
60 seco
60 secon
60 second
60 second r
60 second ru
60 second rul
60 second rule
60 second rul
60 second ru
60 second r
60 second
60 secon
60 seco
60 sec
60 se
60 s
60
6

I'm just not happy about the fact that I have to keep typing this "60 second rule" triangle.

Chrischb · 2011-07-23 21:38:20

Shortening the 60 second rule for your own convenience will affect the trolls and spammers too, ya know? tongue You're supposed to hit it, otherwise it wouldn't be doing its job properly xD

Though yeah it can be annoying, yea

scimonster · 2011-07-23 23:59:38

a1130 wrote:
scimonster wrote:
@a1130: No.
12 chars. ;P 37 with this.
That's better.

I am so not suggesting we have a character limit!
Anyways, the spammers often have a full post of spam. D:

Stickman704 · 2011-07-24 14:35:13

agscratcher wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:
You only like it because you're not famous, so you don't have to reply to 10 comments or more.
You're famous? Never heard of you. :S

THIS! big_smile

60 second rule prevents spam. Spam clogs up fourms. Fourm loses users due to spam heaven. Spam heaven hurts scratch badly and decreases user intrest.

a1130 · 2011-07-24 16:21:49

scimonster wrote:
a1130 wrote:
scimonster wrote:
@a1130: No.
12 chars. ;P 37 with this.
That's better.
I am so not suggesting we have a character limit!
Anyways, the spammers often have a full post of spam. D:

What about a captcha? Like this:

"Enter the following characters"-

This can be a test to see if the user is a human or a spambot.

Anyone approve? smile

Last edited by a1130 (2011-07-24 16:25:30)

Chrischb · 2011-07-24 19:06:43

I thought everyone hated captchas... tongue

IMO the current system is okay, just add to your post or do something in another tab while you wait xP

EDIT: Or become a mod or something, then you get free pass tongue

Last edited by Chrischb (2011-07-24 19:07:14)

cheddargirl · 2011-07-24 19:24:05

a1130 wrote:
scimonster wrote:
a1130 wrote:

That's better.
I am so not suggesting we have a character limit!
Anyways, the spammers often have a full post of spam. D:
What about a captcha? Like this:

"Enter the following characters"-http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ymbols.gif

This can be a test to see if the user is a human or a spambot.

Anyone approve?

I would... but the problem is that we have more human spammers on Scratch than bot ones.

The 60 second rule can be annoying, but a lot of forums have a 60 second rule in place as a default for normal users for probably for similar [if not the same] reasons why it is in place here. I see little to no one complaining on other forums with that same rule, everyone else just waits until a few seconds have passed until the 60 second rule is finally lifted.

Unless it's the TBG forums where rapid posting might be an issue, a 60 second rule isn't so bad. Just take the time out to check out something else [like looking through a Scratch project! tongue ] to pass the few seconds that are left.

a1130 · 2011-07-24 20:30:20

Hasn't anybody read the sticky on this forum? You know, "Read This Before Suggesting Anything?" It said NOT to post suggestions about the 60 second rule. Even if it's annoying... no, we can't eliminate it.

soupoftomato · 2011-07-24 20:47:42

Im probably repeating what was said LONG ago, but nobody can convince them to change it. It does it's job and if it doesn't take you 60 second to write your post then you either type fast, or don't type enough.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-24 23:56:11

a1130 wrote:
I'm actually "half and half." The 60 second rule saved a LOT of time for the moderators, according to the Scratch Wiki. However, I think it could be shortened to 30 seconds. Or maybe 25.

I go on a different forum with a 30 second rule.

I also have another idea- a character limit, perhaps. Lets say, "at least 25 characters need to be in a post...?"

Or, you could keep the 60 second rule, but have a "stopwatch" next to the posting area, so you can monitor how long it took for your post instead of guessing or typing:

6
60
60 s
60 se
60 seco

etc.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-24 23:57:29

a1130 wrote:
ElectricSparx, could you make a list of supporters for this?

4150, 1 |=1|\|15|-|3c| Y0|_||- 45(11 519

I could do that. tongue MY 1337 IS UNSTOPPABLE! Bump up the Leetspeak topic, we need a forum for Leetspeakers!

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-24 23:58:58

a1130 wrote:
scimonster wrote:
@a1130: No.
12 chars. ;P 37 with this.
That's better.

ARGH!!! Not the 60 second rule!!!
6
60
60 s
60 se
60 seco
60 secon
60 second
60 second r
60 second ru
60 second rul
60 second rule
60 second rul
60 second ru
60 second r
60 second
60 secon
60 seco
60 sec
60 se
60 s
60
6

Yesh indeed.

Microsoft Sparx wrote:
The 60 second rule must die.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-25 00:00:13

imnotbob wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:
imnotbob wrote:

(facepalm) it will make it WORSE, even 30 seconds less. then ppl will go "I HATE THE 30 SECOND RULE!!!!!"

look, 60 seconds isnt that long. its a minute. if its that annoying go play outside, watch TV, play a video game... sleep!
No, people will not hate it if it's a 30 second rule. 30 seconds is long enough to type up a post 1-2 sentences long.
and thirty MORE seconds is long enough to COMPLAIN, apparently!
its not that long. its a MINUTE. stop complaining

Oh shut up. This topic has more supporters than haters.

Haters gonna hate, Supporters gonna support.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-25 00:01:44

a1130 wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:
No, people will not hate it if it's a 30 second rule. 30 seconds is long enough to type up a post 1-2 sentences long.
and thirty MORE seconds is long enough to COMPLAIN, apparently!
its not that long. its a MINUTE. stop complaining
Are you mad? 30 seconds is better than 60. 'Nuff said.

6
60
60 s
60 se
60 sec
60 seco
60 secon
60 second
60 second r
60 second ru
60 second rul
60 second rule
60 second rul
60 second ru
60 second r
60 second
60 secon
60 seco
60 sec
60 se
60 s
60
6

I'm just not happy about the fact that I have to keep typing this "60 second rule" triangle.

That must take 180 seconds. tongue Do what I do, quote the 60 second rule, it's worth a few lulz.

The following errors need to be corrected before the message can be posted:

* At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-25 00:03:21

Chrischb wrote:
Shortening the 60 second rule for your own convenience will affect the trolls and spammers too, ya know? You're supposed to hit it, otherwise it wouldn't be doing its job properly xD

Though yeah it can be annoying, yea

Oh come on, Chris, 30 seconds is long enough for us! Even like 40 seconds would do!

The following errors need to be corrected before the message can be posted:

* At least 60 seconds have to pass between posts. Please wait a little while and try posting again.

Come on, don't tell me you LIKE this thing?! (That'll be a good one.)

ElectricSparx · 2011-07-25 00:05:21

Chrischb wrote:
I thought everyone hated captchas...

IMO the current system is okay, just add to your post or do something in another tab while you wait xP

EDIT: Or become a mod or something, then you get free pass

Yeah, I wanna be a mod... tongue But I'm not 14. (Oh come on, Scratch Team, you should be at least 13 to be a mod! I'm turning 13 this January 9th!)

Musicstar888 · 2011-07-25 00:05:40

ElectricSparx wrote:
jfmlove6 wrote:
ElectricSparx wrote:

No, I want it lower. Like 30 seconds.
What I mean is, the rule used to be 600 seconds then after that they made it 360 seconds then they made it:

360 seconds for new scratchers
60 seconds for scratchers.

Besides, its not that long.
What I meant was: New Scratchers can have a 60 second rule, and Scratchers can have a 30 second rule.

New Scratchers obviously won't know the Scratch Forums well, but I don't think that we should make them wait any longer than us just because they're new. I mean, there could be Scratchers out there that have been around for a long time, and maybe they've spammed before. I don't really think that is fair. Everyone should have the amount of time to wait.

Scratch

archived forums

#126 2011-07-23 11:39:45

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

a1130 wrote:

Stupidness wrote:

#127 2011-07-23 11:40:53

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

Snowdrift wrote:

#128 2011-07-23 11:42:48

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

mrdinosaur wrote:

The 60 Second Rule wrote:

#129 2011-07-23 14:56:39

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#130 2011-07-23 14:58:22

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#131 2011-07-23 15:06:19

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#132 2011-07-23 15:07:48

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

scimonster wrote:

#133 2011-07-23 16:02:42

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

ElectricSparx wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

ElectricSparx wrote:

#134 2011-07-23 18:03:24

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

imnotbob wrote:

ElectricSparx wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

#135 2011-07-23 21:38:20

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#136 2011-07-23 23:59:38

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

a1130 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

#137 2011-07-24 14:35:13

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

agscratcher wrote:

ElectricSparx wrote:

#138 2011-07-24 16:21:49

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

scimonster wrote:

a1130 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

#139 2011-07-24 19:06:43

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#140 2011-07-24 19:24:05

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

a1130 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

a1130 wrote:

#141 2011-07-24 20:30:20

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#142 2011-07-24 20:47:42

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

#143 2011-07-24 23:56:11

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

a1130 wrote:

#144 2011-07-24 23:57:29

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

a1130 wrote:

#145 2011-07-24 23:58:58

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

a1130 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Microsoft Sparx wrote:

#146 2011-07-25 00:00:13

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

imnotbob wrote:

ElectricSparx wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

#147 2011-07-25 00:01:44

Re: The 60 second rule SUCKS.

a1130 wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

ElectricSparx wrote:

#148 2011-07-25 00:03:21