Editing a post from

Code

http://i30.tinypic.com/50c8w.jpg

to

Code

[url=http://i30.tinypic.com/50c8w.jpg][color=#86A8AA]http://i30.tinypic.com/50c8w.jpg[/color][/url]

garnered a net loss of 2 minerals. Not sure if it added, then subtracted on edit, but there was a net loss of 2.

It should work now. Editing will now correctly reflect the change of minerals to your post. The problem resulted from the calculation script being passed two different versions of the post (parsed and unparsed) which was causing major mismatch issues.

While we're at it...

The "special" drop-down of the forum post features is missing the
[encasebox][encasebox]
BLAH
BLAH
BLAHBLAH
BLAH
BLAH
BLAHBLAH

http://www.staredit.net/
test

• test
  
• test
  
• test
  

²₃

---

[/encasebox]

Fixed the profile display issue. I may decide to tear out and replace the morass that is the clock/date display on SEN, but for the time being I patched it manually so "User's Time" should display correctly.

Nooo! I use [encase] for aesthetic purpose... anything within it is from me. I see exactly -no- reason why characters in encases shouldn't be counted.

Abusing [encase] to substitute for quotes should be punishable, while text in [encase] tags should still be awarded minerals, as occasionally I WILL want to use encase to add emphasis to a specific part of my post.

If formatting contributes, it should be kept that way. Arguably, the second of the following two examples is much, much better than the first, and should not be valued at the same.

>Abusing [encase] to substitute for quotes should be punishable, while text in [encase] tags should still be awarded minerals, as occasionally I WILL want to use encase to add emphasis to a specific part of my post.
Does that mean lazy quotes will be punishable too?

Lazy quotes?

>Lazy quotes?
aka greentext, quoting as it is done in plain text emails, etc...

I don't do it a lot, but it's a whole lot easier to copy/paste and not have to deal with quote bbcode, or quote boxes. In fact, it's a lot nicer than quote boxes, since often times you end up just putting something without referencing who they were anyway. If you do, it's an added bunch of work, especially when people like you have clan tags which aren't actually part of your name to copy/paste that into the quote tag. If you make use of the multi-quote stuff, it doesn't split up the quote for you; you still have to do that manually. Finally, if you're quoting a quote, there's 2 quote boxes now, and you have to get rid of one of them. Thus, lazy quotes.

Gratuitous abuse of lazy quotes would probably get you a fine, but like anything else if you do it once or twice nobody should care too much. All you'll gain is 2 or so minerals, which is trivial.

For some reason a few of the Null forums were included in the list of forums that give minerals for posts. I removed them, so now there shouldn't be any confusion there. If you're going to edit the minerals.php file or something, DTBK, I suggest re-downloading it from the server.

Quote from DevliN

For some reason a few of the Null forums were included in the list of forums that give minerals for posts. I removed them, so now there shouldn't be any confusion there. If you're going to edit the minerals.php file or something, DTBK, I suggest re-downloading it from the server.

What were these forums, and why is Null a Null-Mineral zone? SD and Technology, at the least, should receive some minerals...

What was removed were Serious Discussion, Technology, Games, and Media, Art & Literature. I too am a little confused?

I liked it when it actually said which forums gave minerals, but why was all the other forums killed off, I understand Null, but the other ones too?

The logic here is that minerals should only be awarded for SEN/StarCraft related posts. Seems to make sense.

Why remove minerals from forums that have the most meaning in the "other" section? Most people have things to say in other forums too. D:

Having minerals in non-SC forums results in topics like this getting posted in Serious Discussion instead of Null. Minerals are supposed to encourage site activity for forums relevant to topics on the main site, so encouraging off-topic discussion with mineral rewards may not be in our best interests.

In my opinion, minerals should be awarded to Serious Discussion, Technology, Media, Art & Literature, in order of decreasing minerals per post. Something like .1 multiplier could be used on MA&L, while .2 on Tech and .25 on SD would work...I don't post really ever in those forums, so I have nothing to gain or lose, but it seems a little fishy that SD, which has the strictest rules for posting on SEN (in theory), would receive no minerals just like our brand of 4-chan, Null.

EDIT:

Quote from Aristocrat

Having minerals in non-SC forums results in topics like this getting posted in Serious Discussion instead of Null. Minerals are supposed to encourage site activity for forums relevant to topics on the main site, so encouraging off-topic discussion with mineral rewards may not be in our best interests.

Null is more for stuff like contests, laid-back discussion, forum games, etc. That topic is of sufficient quality to merit SD, because he needs it, rather than the "SEN Math Contest" or whatever Null had going that was somewhat similar. The topic is more of a question-answer-response-better answer style, rather than question-answer-next question, etc. Payne's topic needed genuine help, and honestly I don't trust the Null-Lurkers like myself not to use subterranean spikes on the marines.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 21 2010, 12:48 am by poison_us.

I considered moving the topic, but it is a discussion and it is serious, and it's interesting. I'm confident I can move topics that shouldn't be in the SD to another area so that minerals don't accrue to posters of lame topics (assuming minerals will be given to SD).

The main argument here would be that Serious Discussion topics do not generate additional site visits; on the contrary, with the nature of those topics I would feel that they would dissuade people from staying with the community. After all, if we make the assumption that people who stumble upon SEN's forum - potential future returning visitors - are of the same quality as the average Blizzard official forum member, the serious and potentially offending nature of the discussions (Science versus religion, the legal designation of 2D drawings as child pornography, biblical criticism, etc.) will most likely drive people away. People tend to associate seriousness with a lack of "fun", even though they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

(I myself do not post much in SD, but this arises mainly from the fact that I feel no need to write up dissertations to share my opinion on controversial topics with others. Too little expected return for too much work, because people's views do not change overnight, especially not from a post on an internet forum.)

People don't find SEN by Googling "Time: is it infinite?". They find SEN by searching for StarCraft-related terms. A lot of us were probably referred here via search engine in the first place, and that isn't going to change any time soon. The more we discuss the game, the higher we rank in search engines, and the higher our site traffic will become. Minerals provide an incentive for members to do so, but the inability for the system to distinguish spam from useful contribution lends itself to abuse, as we have all seen.

No matter how you look at it, SEN still stands for StarEdit Network. We are a gaming website. Using a currency system from the same game. It would make sense to force people to contribute to the site in a way that actually pertains to the game our site's mission and premise are based on.