Ship of Fools: 120 seconds????

Thread: 120 seconds???? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030860

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

This;

quote:
Sorry, but we cannot process your request. The board administrator has determined that at least 120 seconds is the minimum time it takes to write a meaningful contribution.

I got that when I pressed the 'send' button on a PM which took me a heck of a lot longer than 120 secs to write - given I was doing it bit by bit while also watching a TV programme over the last hour. Not to mention that rather than a board post this was a PM where one would have thought a short response could actually be thoroughly meaningful.

This is not the first time I've had this response when it seemed wildly inappropriate.

Any idea from Hosts/Admin what is going on here.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The software doesn't distinguish between different types of messages - so both private and public messages are subject to the same flood control restriction.

As to why it kicks in when the time since last post is significantly more than two minutes, I haven't a clue. It's one of those quirks of the software.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

If I write anything long for the Ship, I do it in Word first so I don't run the risk of losing it all through an upload glitch.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Me too Eutychus; but this wasn't that long a message, just that writing it was spread over a long period - which had me wondering how on earth the Ship could be imposing a 120-sec rule on it.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Have mercy on the poor Ship's software. Everyone knows time slows down when doing something unpleasant.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

That happened to me, too, a couple times-/ I was getting flood control messages when I made my first post of the day. When O asked how the system worked, Erin said something about possible glitches in the way the system was reading ISP address that were similar.

What RooK said, pretty much.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

A little mortified to spoil a good thread. I posted got the 120 seconds message, waited and posted again. The same message so waited for longer and posted again. Then saw two messages posted so deleted one and posted an explanation. Ended up with four posts.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Mary Louise, if you wait out the time and click on the reload button it will probably tell you that the board has already used your submission - saving you the apparent need to repost.

It just happened again; this time to a message which had definitely taken several minutes to write, but only a few seconds to post because I composed it offline and pasted it in. Apparently the Ship system can't tell the difference between taking only a few seconds to write, or taking several minutes to write and then posting it more-or-less instantaneously!

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Apparently the Ship system can't tell the difference between taking only a few seconds to write, or taking several minutes to write and then posting it more-or-less instantaneously!

No, Steve, it can't. And that's the whole point - to minimize the harm inflicted by the rapid posting of a malicious spam bot.

Did you honestly think that we have the required delay specifically to inconvenience regular posters? Well, I might, perhaps. But most of the Crew are actually rather pleasant and kind.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Pfft.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Rook;

quote:
No, Steve, it can't. And that's the whole point - to minimize the harm inflicted by the rapid posting of a malicious spam bot.

Point taken; and if I hadn't been concentrating more on the content of my posts I'd have realised that one myself. But my original query is more about occasions when I've definitely taken longer than the 120 seconds and have still got that response.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Rook;

quote:
No, Steve, it can't. And that's the whole point - to minimize the harm inflicted by the rapid posting of a malicious spam bot.
Point taken; and if I hadn't been concentrating more on the content of my posts I'd have realised that one myself. But my original query is more about occasions when I've definitely taken longer than the 120 seconds and have still got that response.

Me too. Shit happens. It ain't personal.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
to minimize the harm inflicted by the rapid posting of a malicious spam bot

O Rly.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yes, really.

And, we have more than one example (ie: not the event I think you're referencing). It was only a few weeks ago that I last blocked a spammer, though it is much less problematic than 10 years ago.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Also: totally Pyx_e's fault. Because that's a hilarious joke to perpetuate.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I could do it again. But my next ban will be forever so. They tried to make repost but I said no no no.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

I think I had a brain aneurism forcing myself not to alter your post into something truly awful, setting me up for a hy∙lar∙ee∙ous response.

Alas. I didn't need those brain cells any more anyway. They just interfered with my parenting.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Less of a software quirk and more of a feature. [Big Grin]

Tubbs

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I could do it again. But my next ban will be forever so.

So, how many bans are allowed before resurrection is not allowed? My exhaustive search of 30 sec. didn't reveal this info. Not that this is a goal, I've managed not to be banned even once. Yet.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, how many bans are allowed before resurrection is not allowed?

Quantitatively, most bans are final and without any resurrections. But resurrections are possible and do happen very occasionally. The vast majority of those are one-time deals, with the condition that they're officially working on borrowed time and that the tolerance threshold for problems is extremely low going forward. However, the record so far is 8 resurrections. Bet you can't guess who.

quote:
I've managed not to be banned even once.

Chicken?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
I've managed not to be banned even once.
Chicken?

Actually, no, I simply do not see the need for the PTB to quite for me.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0