This is the archive of the old Colorless! Go to the new Colorless →

New Developer, Lost Mod, Nearing the Final Stretch (Thread) - Page 3

@NGH The point is to get a more accurate count of how many active users we really have, and not have a bunch of crap left over on the servers for people who aren't returning. I don't think anyone would sensibly be offended.

Why is there a dik-dik in the advertising bar?

Mairu the Messenger says,
"That concept has been suggested by friendly neighborhood terrorist,DC,for ages, and he approves of its implementation. oh, and that he is glad that the resistance by the other staff members has finally been dropped."


@TrevInc - Couldn't that be accomplished by adding an 'Active' column to the users table and populate it with 1 or 0 based on this 3 month activity period?

One of my concerns is that people will attempt to impersonate a user by creating an account under their name on the new site. There are always going to be people who try to steal information from other users. Someone could easily exploit the trust given to certain user names by other members in the community.

Imagine a situation where you and your cousin are both members of Colorless... but you rarely talk to your cousin other than via the Internet. If your cousin is inactive for 3 months... but then someone looking to steal info creates an account and impersonates them... you would have no reason to doubt that this person... was actually your cousin. Especially if you didn't participate in the conversation in this thread. You would simply be excited that they were back on Colorless. Then... a seemingly harmless question over private message such as.... "Hey, what was your address again? My Mom wanted to bake some cookies for you guys" could end up being big trouble for the person being duped...

People are going to place more trust in this site because of the fact that it is fairly well established with many users and therefore will likely feel no concern sharing such info via PM. I understand that an element of personal responsibility comes into play at some point, and I also understand the desire to 'clean house'. But in my opinion, this is like introducing a security flaw to the site.

@Fieyr You raise a very good point and honestly, yes, I can see it happen. Imagine all the major suck if someone made a fake account of an older user then turned out to not be them.

@Gargron @TrevInc I know that when you deleted your account Gar that all your posts disappeared with it. The idea that there will be holes in the board is just awful. Hell, the oldfag thread was made by @anon and we haven't seen him for a long time. So that would disappear too? Even though he's gone, he's very much still a part of Colorless and I've seen his name brought up plenty of times, as well as his threads referred to. Add that to the fact that not all the users who haven't been on recently, being forced to make a new thread, would lose all their data and whatnot when we switch over. They come back on, where's my account? Where are the threads I made? Where are my posts and post count? I just think to remove all the inactive members would be a bad choice personally.

@TalTal19: You got something against dik-dik?

@Fieyr: I see where you're going with this. I'd suggest having a more dependable method of contact than this forum, though. :x

@TrevInc - The problem isn't me though, it's all the users who WILL think of this as a dependable method of contact. Unless you can communicate the fact that it's not to everyone and be certain that they will actually pay attention, then great. But obviously, that's impossible. 22k users after all...

@Gargron - I suggest, as an alternate solution, to keep the 2 users tables separate... then do a db lookup on the old users table during registration and give people the option to reactivate their account (assuming they can log in with their old credentials). If they can prove that they own their account by logging in with their credentials, that row in the old table gets copied to the new users table. That way... your new users table is nice and clean and has an accurate count of users.

Possible? Yes, no, maybeso?

And maybe all their data doesn't get ported (assuming that's exceedingly difficult). That can be the price for not logging in for the past 3 months, but allowing people to register under other people's usernames is dangerous in my opinion. You should at least be preventing that.


Also... I am part of the current secret resistance that wants to dethrone Momo led by Lady and other person whos name I forgot... Mu's friend?

That is actually a fantastic idea. I'd love to have something like this, as I really cannot see any downside. Naturally, I'd still like banned users to be purged, just for the sake of cleanliness.

Even so, it is quite a bass-ackwards situation that you are describing. I would like the db purged mostly for the fact that, 99% of the time, these people will not be returning. For the sake of simplicity/speed/ease of development, it's a good idea to purge such users. Even those that do return will, more likely than not, hardly stick around and just sit on chat complaining about how things have changed, how they hate the new users, etc.

I see no harm in making them sign up one more time, save for the quite unlikely situation you have described. While we should try to prevent such things from happening, we shouldn't make sacrifices for the sake of protecting such fringe cases from themselves.

Either way, I will be discussing the viability of your suggestion with the staff, and hope to implement it. I just cannot say I care too much for the reasoning behind it, or the drawbacks.

Operation Lady Queen x Nullpo [OTP]

@acostoss - Pffft, you sound surprised that I had a fantastic idea ^_^ but yes, thank you.

As far as banned users being purged though, how do you guys plan on keeping up with banned IPs? If these users are purged, what is to stop them from registering at the new site (aside from getting a new IP)?

If the tables are kept separate, you could do a lookup on the old users table using the IP address of the person registering. In other words... make sure bans carry forward to the new site. However, you still get to keep the new users table clean because, since they're banned, you're not going to allow them to register and therefore a new row doesn't need to be added to the new users table. That way, you get to keep your "simplicity/speed/ease of development" within the new users table. The old table would remain static except for occasional deleting of users who reactivate their account and adding them to the new table during the registration/reactivation process.

Here's my thinking.

1) Copy oldusers to newusers where recentActivity = true
2) Delete from oldusers where recentActivity = true (for old table cleanliness)

At this point oldusers should only contain inactive/banned users and newusers should contain active/not banned users. In other words, no duplicate users between tables.

3) If a user tries to register, first check against the old users table to prevent banned users from registering. If user is not banned, copy their credentials to the new users table and delete them from the old (reactivation)

I'm against any outright purging for the reasons I mention above but also to prevent shitstorms from old banned users re-registering.

Finally, as far as my fringe case. I admit that's an unlikely scenario... however I think it's good practice to code such that you try to prevent both seen and unforeseen scenarios. There might be some far more likely scenario that could be just as dangerous for users that we're not considering that could be prevented using this approach.

As always, just trying to keep our users safe and happy.

fucking dumbass

long live the new mod.

I'm planning to bring the people who tried and didn't do that Operation Fuck Colorless back, and try to do it again. Will I get banned?


@wanderlust How about operation "Fuck wanderlust Over"? I think many would gladly participate, no offence :)

what fieyr said.

the only reason why i made guardian3 on the new site was to destroy any chances of someone impersonating me on the new site, which i do not intend to use.

sup ppl im new here so i guess i would be known as The noob lolz

[Deleted Posts between @Gargron and @Wanderlust]

Let us not start insulting eachother, please.

You are on the old site. New site is here:

The site has been updated on the 24th December 2011. Please go there when you are finished with the archives.

  • 481,435 posts
  • 2,075 threads
  • 23,121 users