What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?

[Argus]

Hi

You could add subforums for other languages: ex: français, espanol, arabic, etc....

You would need moderators in these langages.

It would allow people that doesn't speak english to discuss Canada subjects too.

It's an idea, if it's feasible ....

It would only be feasible if there were a substantial number of people in a given language here who wanted to discuss things in that language, and if we had moderators who understood the language.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Argus

[GostHacked]

You will find that most forums that ban trolls, don't actually accomplish that task. The troll simply takes on a new alias.

Posting styles remain even with a new moniker, and with the low number of participants would not be hard to filter out.

[jbg]

It would only be feasible if there were a substantial number of people in a given language here who wanted to discuss things in that language, and if we had moderators who understood the language.

(1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where

(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or

(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.

Perhaps we adopt the rule that a subforum could be in another language where "there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language."

Edited August 23, 2016 by jbg

[cybercoma]

This website is not an "institution of the Parliament or Government of Canada."

[bush_cheney2004]

Nice to see that the forum engine graphics compression and resizing plug-in has been deployed....hope it didn't cost too much.

Good job !

[cybercoma]

Nice to see that the forum engine graphics compression and resizing plug-in has been deployed....hope it didn't cost too much.

Good job !

It's complete trash. Take your post on the F-35 for instance. The image is a perfectly acceptable size for embedding in a forum post. However now, I have to click on an absurdly tiny thumbnail, which opens an entirely new tab. I have to leave the forum to view the image, then come back to the forum to continue the discussion.

​Mods, your policy on images and videos needs to be revised. You should have a discussion with forum members about what we believe are reasonable rules and guidelines for the site. You're literally making the forum a pain in the ass.

Edited August 23, 2016 by cybercoma

[?Impact]

​Mods, your policy on images and videos needs to be revised.

Let's go back to 80's newsgroups where you could embed images by uuencoding them.

[Charles Anthony]

This is just a trial run. The intention being to simplify the policy on images to permit them everywhere in the forum.

Mod staff are not in agreement yet on whether any change is warranted.

The size of the thumbnail can be customized bigger or smaller. It has just now been increased.

Mods, your policy on images and videos needs to be revised.

What do you recommend?

[cybercoma]

This is just a trial run. The intention being to simplify the policy on images to permit them everywhere in the forum.

Mod staff are not in agreement yet on whether any change is warranted.

The size of the thumbnail can be customized bigger or smaller. It has just now been increased.

What do you recommend?

I don't have time to make a suggested policy at the moment but I will come back to this on the weekend and give you my thoughts.

[Charles Anthony]

I don't have time to make a suggested policy at the moment but I will come back to this on the weekend and give you my thoughts.

Here is a poll.

[cybercoma]

Okay. I have some time now.

​Images and videos both should be allowed embedded everywhere, so people don't have to surf away from the forum or open new tabs to view content.

However, there should be guidelines for their use.

1) Images and videos must be ​​on topic and be used to elaborate on an argument or topic. Posts that are off topic, especially those with images should be removed.

2) Images and video thumbnails must not contain any NSFW/NSFL material. Anyone who posts completely off topic porn and gore on the forum should have their post removed and they should immediately receive a suspension without warning. The only exception is if the image/video host changes the file. It's up to the moderators to communicate with the person committing the infraction.

Any video or image that is ​on-topic​ but includes NSFW/NSFL content should not be embedded. Instead the member should post a link to the content with a clear warning about the NSFW/NSFL content though I would be fine with the moderators consider this completely off limits, even if it is on topic to a given discussion.

​3) The moderators should implement a thumbnail system; however, the thumbnails should be roughly as large as the post window in width and about half the height. Tiny thumbnails are hard to see and it's no better than linking. You still have to open a new tab to view the content. The thumbnail mod is only necessary to stop people from posting images that break the templates.

4) If someone posts an embedded video for reference, they should provide a timestamp if the video is any longer than 5 minutes. Ain't nobody got time to watch your 2 hour documentary. If you're using a video to support a point, then cite what part of that video we're supposed to be watching. Any videos longer than 5 minutes that are not timestamped should be met with a message from the mods, asking the poster to provide a timestamp. If they don't have a timestamp and just want someone to watch a 2 hour documentary, the video should be removed and replaced with its title and a link instead. You wouldn't tell someone to read a 400 page report, then copy and paste all 400 pages to the forum. You shouldn't post a 2 hour video to the forum expecting people to watch it here either.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't like how less threads are being made because people are using the status updates to post about issues instead of making a new thread about it.

Maybe one of the issues is that there's all these rules that need to be followed when the OP creates a thread so it's just less bothersome to do it in the status updates. Just let people discuss things naturally instead of being anal about this or that.

Like, if I want to make a thread about the burkini ban in France, the OP could be as simple as:

"Burkini ban in France. I think it's dumb, what about you?" That's enough to start discussion because people will obviously know what the OP is talking about. A link wouldn't hurt but since it's all over the news is it necessary?

Edited August 27, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

Disable the status feature.

[Argus]

I don't like how less threads are being made because people are using the status updates to post about issues instead of making a new thread about it.

If there's something in a status update you want to talk about more then nothing stops you from posting it into the proper topic forum and inviting discussion.

[GostHacked]

I don't like how less threads are being made because people are using the status updates to post about issues instead of making a new thread about it.

I've made similar complaints about it. I would prefer it gone to generate more thread traffic.

[bush_cheney2004]

If there's something in a status update you want to talk about more then nothing stops you from posting it into the proper topic forum and inviting discussion.

True...those who want a dedicated thread instead should make the commitment they demand instead of trying to shut down status updates.

Status updates are like tiny MAD Magazine margin cartoons; nobody is forced to read them.

[Charles Anthony]

Status updates are like tiny MAD Magazine margin cartoons; nobody is forced to read them.

Indeed.

Folks have to squint or otherwise go out of their own way to read them.

"Burkini ban in France. I think it's dumb, what about you?" That's enough to start discussion because people will obviously know what the OP is talking about. A link wouldn't hurt but since it's all over the news is it necessary?

Your fellow forum members will answer that for you in due course. Some of the posting patterns here are like clockwork.

If your OP provokes a series of requests for sources, you set your discussion up to be clutter.

A link in the OP is not always necessary but I have to ask: What do you want? Do you want a fruitful discussion?

[WestCoastRunner]

I've made similar complaints about it. I would prefer it gone to generate more thread traffic.

Agree. It's a lazy and cowardly way to voice an opinion with no facts or thought put into them. I think more threads would be started. Folks like to voice their opinion and if status updates weren't available more thought would be put into starting up new threads with more variety and attracting more active posters.

[WestCoastRunner]

Status updates are like tiny MAD Magazine margin cartoons; nobody is forced to read them.

Comparing status updates to MAD is a great insult to them.

[Moonlight Graham]

Folks have to squint or otherwise go out of their own way to read them.

Seriously? They're plastered on the main page of the forum.

Meanwhile, the link to the rules is in small light-grey font tucked away at the bottom of the page.

[bush_cheney2004]

Any member not wishing to view Status Updates can simply close the object by clicking "X" next to the title > Recent Status Updates.

See how easy that is ?

[GostHacked]

I would suggest a poll for the status updates.

It's used for trolling and other shit and needs to be gone.

I vote to remove the status update sidebar.

[capricorn]

I like to read status updates. Many are humorous and this site can use a good dose of funny once in a while.

[dialamah]

I like status updates. I say keep'em. If people want to expand an update into a topic, they can.

[cybercoma]

Since Greg is updating the forum, I have a request.

Can you modify the "Edited by" coding so that it only shows up after someone else has already replied to the thread? When you click submit and then notice typos or you want to clarify language, it shouldn't display the "edited by" message when no one has even replied the post yet. If you can't do it this way, at least have a timer where it doesn't come up unless the post has been edited more than two minutes later or something.