cybercoma Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Text-to-Voice and Voice-to-TextI want to see a plugin that facilitates text-to-voice and voice-to-text conversion in the forum.Folks could surf blind by listening and tabbing through the forums. Folks could read their response into their favorite electronic device and the software would convert their voice to text. The post would have to be reviewed by the poster before submitting.Folks could assign digitized voices to members of the forum by selecting from a bank of cartoony voices or by importing their own. The option to hear the original vocal submission would be available too at the discretion of whoever submitted the post.This is already possible through third party software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 I would like to see members have the ability to create draft versions of their posts which would only be visible to themselves until the member chose to post it live. This feature would permit the member to edit or to add to the post while the rest of the membership carried on the discussion. The time stamp would be based on the time at which the post was made visible to the public. There would be no "Edited by ChA, Tomorrow, 12:34 PM." by line at the bottom unless the poster decided to re-edited after going live. This is already possible through third party software. Citation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 bring moderated enforcement of proper quoting. Presently, and in the past, a varied and most significant minority of MLW members have chosen to follow a rather limiting quoting practice, one that purposely removes a MLW member's name from a quote. The practice is obviously counter-productive to meaningful and continued discussion given 3 related implications of that purposeful removal of a member's name from a quote; that quotation practice affords: - no immediate/direct understanding of the member being replied to - no ready opportunity to check on the complete posted content being replied to, say for context purposes - no opportunity to have a quote notification sent directly to the member being replied to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 I would like to see members have the ability to create draft versions of their posts which would only be visible to themselves until the member chose to post it live. This feature would permit the member to edit or to add to the post while the rest of the membership carried on the discussion. The time stamp would be based on the time at which the post was made visible to the public. There would be no "Edited by ChA, Tomorrow, 12:34 PM." by line at the bottom unless the poster decided to re-edited after going live. Citation? The draft version is already there when you start to make a reply. Like I just did here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 24, 2016 Report Share Posted January 24, 2016 I really find it odd that the mods are complaining about how the content is formatted and displayed on MLW. While we have other members who clutter up the threads with garbage trolling. What is the real reason this is happening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Rather than avatars, there should just be a constantly changing random number. If you're never quite sure who you're talking to, you just talk about what you're supposed to be talking about. Genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 I have a problem with posts that attack women and abortions in the status updates but yet they shy away from defending those beliefs. I will continue to call out these posters but this is my main concern about status updates. There is no recourse to call out these inflammatory posts. I try and start a new thread about the issues but the instigator hides behind the status updates. It seems to be a cop out but I'm not sure how to hold these posters accountable to their updates. I take everything posted on this site as game for legitimate debate. If we don't hold status updates as legitimate opinions, what's the point of status updates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Rather than avatars, there should just be a constantly changing random number. If you're never quite sure who you're talking to, you just talk about what you're supposed to be talking about. Genius. That is a pretty good idea especially since most everyone is attempting to be anonymous anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 2, 2016 Report Share Posted April 2, 2016 Have any of the idea which have been suggested here caused the powers that be to consider implementation? Even some of the easier ones, like a group dedicated to political cartoons, say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 Near the bottom of the main forum page is a short list of the most recent visitors. There are several meaningless entries in that list that could be eliminated in order to get a better picture of who is around. Then the extra space for the list could be put to better use. #1 - The first entry in the list almost always appears to be myself. I guess depending on how the software is written (multi-threading) it could be later in the list or always first. The point is that is a wasted entry, because I know I am around. It is like when standing in a group, I see the faces of those I am talking to but I don't need a mirror in order to know that I am part of the group. #2 - It seems like the search engine robots are always high up in this lists. I generally see Yahoo, Bing, & Google; but there could be others. This is to be expected, because they are trying to keep their database up to date. I don't however need to know that they are there. Getting back to my group analogy above, I want to know who is in the group I am conversing with. If I want to look around the larger room and see who is there, and take my attention away from my group - kinda rude, then I can click on the expanded list. I don't know if there is any aging of the list, my main interest would be real people within several minutes (i.e. likely to still be hanging around). If the list does go beyond a certain threshold (e.g. 10 minutes), then perhaps something to delineate it (ie. a vertical bar instead of a comma) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 18, 2016 Report Share Posted May 18, 2016 I wonder if one can have a debate on a certain member to get other opinions on what this certain member has said in the past or present and to have that certain member explain why they have the response or thoughts they have. Would this be allowed or would one get a warning and a vacation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2016 Report Share Posted May 18, 2016 I wonder if one can have a debate on a certain member to get other opinions on what this certain member has said in the past or present and to have that certain member explain why they have the response or thoughts they have. Would this be allowed or would one get a warning and a vacation? Would the certain member be included in the debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 19, 2016 Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 Would the certain member be included in the debate? Yes of course and they should be. Just want to know how other feels about some of the comments the person makes and if that person feels threaten on here or if there is another problem or are they just mean? I not attacking the person just trying to understand why they say the things they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted May 19, 2016 Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 Would this be allowed or would one get a warning and a vacation? It seems you can get what you want just by making sure your writing is polite and clear. However, I am not exactly certain what you want. I will post an example of such a thread to illustrate my understanding of your request. Reading Minds: Is this what Topaz wants? Please comment! Please review it and state whether I understand your request correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Post whatever you want so long as it follows the forum rules. No, we are not going suspend you for trying this idea out. If you are not sure how to make whatever-you-want compatible with the forum rules, no problem! Just post whatever you want and delete the name of the member. In its stead, just ask: "Any mind readers out there? I need help! Can somebody explain the meaning/motivation behind this post? By the way, the member who posted it is welcome to explain too. Thanks!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 (edited) Posters who deliberately detract from the OP, or who refuses to respond to a direct challenge when confronted with the issue of the topic, and instead, make light or make fun of a serious topic, must be heavily penalized. Posters who keep insisting to simply give their opinion in serious topics, and who refuses to give any credible support for their opinion should also be penalized. It's one thing to make fun of a topic and be able to back that up with something credible....but it's another, when you have nothing to support it (especially when you're being challenged to do so). Some even resort to personal attack in trying to discredit the poster. Telling someone they don't know "how science works," and yet he refuses to rise to the challenge of addressing the real issue, is not only trolling but also making insults that has no basis at all! It's just pure name-calling in a so-called "civilised" manner. It's not only disrespectful to all those who are seriously interested in the topic (issue at hand).....but it's a major turn-off that eventually affect the whole forum. Especially so when you keep seeing the same posters all over the board doing the same things to topics/posters that they don't agree with (and which they can't tackle head-on). That's one of the factors that results in low-traffic for the whole board! Edited May 21, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 Posters who deliberately detract from the OP, or who refuses to respond to a direct challenge when confronted with the issue of the topic, and instead, make light or make fun of a serious topic, must be heavily penalized. Posters who keep insisting to simply give their opinion in serious topics, and who refuses to give any credible support for their opinion should also be penalized. good for you in trying to get out in front... what kind of penalization... (heavy) penalization... are you proposing for yourself? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 accurate thread titles that properly align with the OP; for example... since it's the thread that just won't die, the thread titled "300,000 more refugees coming to Canada". Immediately upon the false/incorrect titled thread coming forward, the correcting distinction was offered to the OP: the title should read/reference "immigrants rather than refugees". . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 Posters who deliberately detract from the OP, or who refuses to respond to a direct challenge when confronted with the issue of the topic, and instead, make light or make fun of a serious topic, must be heavily penalized.We recommend that you ignore any posts that you perceive to be trolling.Posters who keep insisting to simply give their opinion in serious topics, and who refuses to give any credible support for their opinion should also be penalized.Absolutely not.It's one thing to make fun of a topic and be able to back that up with something credible....but it's another, when you have nothing to support it (especially when you're being challenged to do so).We encourage you to ignore such posts.Some even resort to personal attack in trying to discredit the poster. Telling someone they don't know "how science works," and yet he refuses to rise to the challenge of addressing the real issue, is not only trolling but also making insults that has no basis at all! It's just pure name-calling in a so-called "civilised" manner. We encourage you to Report and ignore such posts. accurate thread titles that properly align with the OP; for example... since it's the thread that just won't die, the thread titled "300,000 more refugees coming to Canada". Immediately upon the false/incorrect titled thread coming forward, the correcting distinction was offered to the OP: the title should read/reference "immigrants rather than refugees". . Start a new thread with an accurate title yourself. Carry on the discussion in the new thread. Let the old thread die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 Start a new thread with an accurate title yourself. Carry on the discussion in the new thread. Let the old thread die. so... thread titles can be wholly inaccurate representations of the thread OP... and wholly inaccurate/false in themselves? as I said, immediately after the thread initiated, a few MLW members pointed out the inaccuracy to the thread originator; however, that member apparently did not care his thread title was false/inaccurate. 23 pages now, still "going strong"... . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 23, 2016 Report Share Posted May 23, 2016 HAhahahahah report and ignore .. that's working out quite well.. /sarcasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 This is really annoying and I'm not sure why no one has listed it yet. When I'm signed in on my iPhone and I click on a topic I am not brought to the latest post. I have to repeatedly click next until I get so annoyed that I have to log off in order to go to the latest post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 This is really annoying and I'm not sure why no one has listed it yet. When I'm signed in on my iPhone and I click on a topic I am not brought to the latest post. I have to repeatedly click next until I get so annoyed that I have to log off in order to go to the latest post. You're supposed to click on the blue circle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 You're supposed to click on the blue circle. Doesn't work for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) The same people freely troll, and/or try to derail discussions. Refer to this latest example of incredible stupidity..... post # 188. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25798-god-of-the-bible-is-the-creator/page-13#entry1167824 and the referenced article (which he tweaked). http://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures/ He was being blatantly dishonest, too. He took the effort and the time to re-format it, to make it look similar to my format. And then...... He falsely attributed his own formatting to that of the site's he was referencing. This is like the other side of the coin for citation - a DELIBERATE false depiction of a site's product! Fortunately, no stupid statements were added to it. If he thinks what I posted is a copy/paste or a statement without citation, then he should report it......and if he wants to discuss it, he should've posted it in the related thread that's already existing in Question section! He knows about the thread in the Question section - he's active in it! http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25819-a-question-on-cross-posting/ Anyway...... His, are the kind of unbelievably ignorant, dishonest, and trolling posts that really hurt discussion boards! Edited June 19, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.