Ship of Fools: 120 secons rule and sub standard effort

Thread: 120 secons rule and sub standard effort Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003428

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I prepared a long reply a thread of 238 words in Word. I copied it and pasted it on the thread. I was mighty pissed off it couldn’t be posted because I had taken less than 120 seconds to write it, when I had taken more than 10 minutes. I was particularly fed up to be told my considered response to a difficult text was a “sub-standard effort

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think you're misunderstanding. If you've posted one thing, you can't post another within the time. The simple solution is to take a bit more time between posts. Make a cup of tea or something.

The bit about substandard posts is just supposed to be slight humour, don't let it worry you. Nobody really knows how long you've taken typing a response in Word.

[ 30. March 2017, 10:39: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The software has no way of judging the merits of a post, else some would have far lower post counts.

What?! No, not me. All of my posts are pearls, I tell you pearls!

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

It is unclear what exactly happened here, but there are 2 possibilities.

1) That you pasted your post within 120 seconds of having making some other contribution somewhere else on the Ship. This is an intentional function of the Ship software to reduce the potential harm from spammers.

2) That you did absolutely nothing on the Ship previous to the post but still tripped the anti-spam limiter because of some glitch - which is entirely possible. If this is the case, then we apologize for the inconvenience but there is not much we can do about it.

Regardless of those two circumstances, you appear to be somewhat bothered by the snark included in the error message. Please consider the gross arbitrariness of the message - there is no mechanism to distinguish anything about the Shipmate posting or any content of the post. To take it personally misses the joking camaraderie of the intent, which is part of a long history of Admins sneaking in funny¹ messages in random corners of the Ship software.

¹ Funny? HILARIOUS. Laugh, damn you.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Third possibility because I am guilty of this. That is accidentally pressing the post button twice in short succession while attempting to post. When you do that the software both posts your post to the thread and then because it has just done that tells you you are posting to soon.

Having a mild intermittent tremor can sometimes be irritating with the touch sensitive modern machines.

Jengie

[ 30. March 2017, 21:01: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Sometimes, the Ship's system thinks that a 10 minute gap is under 120 seconds. It's not killed me yet and is unlikely to do so in the future. Really, it's just one of those things.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

2) That you did absolutely nothing on the Ship previous to the post but still tripped the anti-spam limiter because of some glitch - which is entirely possible. If this is the case, then we apologize for the inconvenience but there is not much we can do about it.[/i]

Thank you for the apology, RooK. I had not posted anything previously that day,

However the message did not say “There must be 120 seconds between posts”. It said “The board administrator has determined that at least 120 seconds is the minimum time it takes to write a meaningful contribution”, which seems to say you must spend 120 seconds posting.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

I find the problem compounded when I post at lunchtime.
Or at least, I think I do.

Vale Douglas Adams.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
However the message did not say “There must be 120 seconds between posts”. It said “The board administrator has determined that at least 120 seconds is the minimum time it takes to write a meaningful contribution”, which seems to say you must spend 120 seconds posting.

They are semantically identical, and I can assure you that regardless of the actual text in the warning that the fundamental function is a cookie timer in the software that must count >120 seconds between Shipmate submissions. Glitches notwithstanding.

If you would like some more objective proof of the disconnect between the function and the snarky wording of the message, I could change it to something like "We require that you perform one complete rendition of 'do the hokey-pokey' between posts." Would that help?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

No need. I'll know in future.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

If you would like some more objective proof of the disconnect between the function and the snarky wording of the message, I could change it to something like "We require that you perform one complete rendition of 'do the hokey-pokey' between posts." Would that help?

Yes! Do it! Do it! And make it turn on the poster's webcam whilst they are dancing! The Ship could make a fortune off the hits.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RooK:
[qb]Yes! Do it! Do it! And make it turn on the poster's webcam whilst they are dancing! The Ship could make a fortune off the hits.

I am so glad that I've covered the camera lens on my computer!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
[QUOTE]They are semantically identical, help?

ie. Ambiguous

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

If you would like some more objective proof of the disconnect between the function and the snarky wording of the message, I could change it to something like "We require that you perform one complete rendition of 'do the hokey-pokey' between posts." Would that help?
Yes! Do it! Do it! And make it turn on the poster's webcam whilst they are dancing! The Ship could make a fortune off the hits.

Aw, now I want my flood control back.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

If you would like some more objective proof of the disconnect between the function and the snarky wording of the message, I could change it to something like "We require that you perform one complete rendition of 'do the hokey-pokey' between posts." Would that help?
Yes! Do it! Do it! And make it turn on the poster's webcam whilst they are dancing! The Ship could make a fortune off the hits.
Aw, now I want my flood control back.

The admins and hosts could their hokey-cokey dances filmed and those played during the 120 seconds.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

I just hit flood control.
Noice.

quote:
We require that you perform one complete performance of "Do The Hokey-Pokey" between all submissions. (Make sure it takes at least 120 seconds).

Use your back button with whatever extremity is not currently "OUT" to return to the previous page. Or use your browser's reload button.

And that's what it's all about.

» Please use your browser's back button to return, unless you got this because of flood control, in which case the back button will just try to screw with you. Sorry about that.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

[Overused]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I just hit flood control.
Noice.

quote:
We require that you perform one complete performance of "Do The Hokey-Pokey" between all submissions. (Make sure it takes at least 120 seconds).

Use your back button with whatever extremity is not currently "OUT" to return to the previous page. Or use your browser's reload button.

And that's what it's all about.

» Please use your browser's back button to return, unless you got this because of flood control, in which case the back button will just try to screw with you. Sorry about that.

Which removes both the ambiguity and the snark. Thank you.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Someone's gonna bitch about "pokey" though, just wait.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Someone's gonna bitch about "pokey" though, just wait.

No, no -- he got it right! "Pokey" not "Cokey"!

[Razz]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Someone's gonna bitch about "pokey" though, just wait.
No, no -- he got it right! "Pokey" not "Cokey"!

Yanks.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Though the song has been on the isle for longer than it has been in America, it has had so many variations of the silly bits that one cannot be said to be more correct.

Though, on Wikipedia, hokey pokey is redirected...

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though the song has been on the isle for longer than it has been in America, it has had so many variations of the silly bits that one cannot be said to be more correct.

Though, on Wikipedia, hokey pokey is redirected...

Silly? Silly? They are deeply meaningful Freudian allusions bedded in an unsuspecting text, alerting initiati to an ouvre of deep sublinguistic discourse and potential propagative perambulations.

Keep up. [Disappointed]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

"perform one complete performance" - did I even proofread that? And I had no idea the back button instruction was redundant.

Man, I've got to tell you, it's really a pain in the ass not being subjected to flood control.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I think Wiki got it wrong as it says that it's known as the Hokey Pokey here, whereas any dinkum Kiwi knows Hokey Pokey is an ice cream flavour - the best there is.

Huia

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Please can we have an easier dance*? I'm too Feak and Weeble now to even think about doing the Hokey-Cokey-Pokey-Wokey-Okey-Dokey or whatever...

[Overused]

*Possibly a nice, easy Pavane?

IJ

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm feeling discriminated against. I'm being told to push the "back" button with an appendage that is not "out" at the moment, and being female, I have one fewer appendage to use... [Waterworks]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm feeling discriminated against. I'm being told to push the "back" button with an appendage that is not "out" at the moment, and being female, I have one fewer appendage to use...

As someone who has the appendage that I think you are referring to can I just say - ewww.

Thank you.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I live to serve. [Two face]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I live to serve.

I think that mr cheesy was talking of an appendage used for a very different kind of serving

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

If you don't mind, I'd rather we stop talking about my appendage.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Your appendage is fair game, seeing as how you, um, brought it up in the first place.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Don't worry mr cheesy, this tangent will be suitably - indeed, not to labour the point, commensurately - short.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I've noticed that in the last week or so, the 120 seconds is becoming very close to what my watch says, rather than anywhere up to a half hour it used occupy before. Was this deliberate, something done by the computer on its own, or is it just the northern hemisphere emerging from hibernation?

[ 10. April 2017, 22:11: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I'm still suffering occasionally the situation where I have taken way over 120 seconds writing my reply in the on-Ship box (as opposed to composing off-line and pasting in), and I still get the 120 seconds message....

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Steve, while composing are you navigating around the Ship elsewhere? Just a guess but she's a fussy old vessel.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still suffering occasionally the situation where I have taken way over 120 seconds writing my reply in the on-Ship box (as opposed to composing off-line and pasting in), and I still get the 120 seconds message....

It's A Sign.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's A Sign.

No, no, this is not possible because it has happened to me as well.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

What I have noticed is that the 120 sec warning screen can appear to lock well more than 2 minutes, but if you hit back and Add Reply, the post will go through.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Steve, while composing are you navigating around the Ship elsewhere? Just a guess but she's a fussy old vessel.

You may be right; I do often check back into the thread I'm commenting on and then add more to my own post. So perhaps I need to allow, rather than the 120 sec for my post, 120 sec from last time I looked elsewhere. Thanks Sioni....

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0