Shall we update Talkchess' software?

[casaschi]

That is a MyBB board. Something that was discarded about two years ago as an alternative to this.

It might be constructive to the discussion to share the reasons why you discarded this solution two years ago.

We know that when this was discarded the forum software was not as old as it is now, the alternatives were not as good and the membership itself has evolved - no doubt at least slightly more progressive with the times. So I don't see how rehashing what happened years ago can be constructive.

I just meant that , when discussing the pro/cons of changing the forum platform it would help to quote specific issues and improvement rather than making general statements like "[it] was discarded about two years ago" or "the forum software was not as old as it is now" or "the alternatives were not as good". Statements that might be true but would be more constructive if the actual details were shared: for instance, being old is not a reason good enough by itself for a replacement if the new does not bring something actually better.

You used the question, "would it be constructive", and the answer is no. It's very clear what the forum wants and a vote has already been taken. Some things are clear destructive and some things are constructive. Now I don't believe you are purposely setting out to "destroy" but it's a common tactic for some to tear down by making similar suggestion under the guise of "being careful" or not jumping the gun. That is a marvelously effective tactic because you can almost never say no to someone who suggests something that superficially sounds reasonable but is really a blocking tactic. They can almost keep that up forever. Probably the most used example of this is the tactic to "table the discussion for the next meeting so that we can think about it some more." That almost always works because it sounds like a reasonable suggestion but is often a friendly way to say no. If someone rejects the idea you can just claim they are pushing ahead without due consideration (since you are basically defining what due consideration is.) It's never unreasonable to "think more."

Please don't be offended, I do not think you are doing this and I think you have the best of intentions. I may be over-reacting because I have dealt with this kind of tactic all my life - conservative people try to make you jump through hoops without lifting a finger themselves. However you can see that these tactics, even when well-meaning has the opposite effect. You start with an 82% vote in favor and then make a suggestion that could possibly invalidate that vote out of superstition or perhaps somehow manage to get it over-turned.

So I appreciate the suggestion, but I personally believe that it would be destructive. Would such a suggestion be constructive if it were made concerning the presidential elections? What if someone said, "maybe we should take another look at how people voted 8 or 12 years ago and why they voted that way." It might be a good idea BEFORE the elections but not after them. This is not as important but the same principle applies. It's constructive if it can make people think and provide useful information but it's destructive it is more likely to cause even more divisions between us.

Look, this thread is about the opportunity or not to update the forum software. Still, I can't read anything in your rant that relates to the issue. And nothing that explains why an upgrade would be beneficial or not, that ultimately should be the subject of the discussion.

[JuLieN]

And nothing that explains why an upgrade would be beneficial or no

The whole thread is answering this question, Paolo. Starting with the first post.

[Don]

That is a MyBB board. Something that was discarded about two years ago as an alternative to this.

It might be constructive to the discussion to share the reasons why you discarded this solution two years ago.

We know that when this was discarded the forum software was not as old as it is now, the alternatives were not as good and the membership itself has evolved - no doubt at least slightly more progressive with the times. So I don't see how rehashing what happened years ago can be constructive.

I just meant that , when discussing the pro/cons of changing the forum platform it would help to quote specific issues and improvement rather than making general statements like "[it] was discarded about two years ago" or "the forum software was not as old as it is now" or "the alternatives were not as good". Statements that might be true but would be more constructive if the actual details were shared: for instance, being old is not a reason good enough by itself for a replacement if the new does not bring something actually better.

You used the question, "would it be constructive", and the answer is no. It's very clear what the forum wants and a vote has already been taken. Some things are clear destructive and some things are constructive. Now I don't believe you are purposely setting out to "destroy" but it's a common tactic for some to tear down by making similar suggestion under the guise of "being careful" or not jumping the gun. That is a marvelously effective tactic because you can almost never say no to someone who suggests something that superficially sounds reasonable but is really a blocking tactic. They can almost keep that up forever. Probably the most used example of this is the tactic to "table the discussion for the next meeting so that we can think about it some more." That almost always works because it sounds like a reasonable suggestion but is often a friendly way to say no. If someone rejects the idea you can just claim they are pushing ahead without due consideration (since you are basically defining what due consideration is.) It's never unreasonable to "think more."

Please don't be offended, I do not think you are doing this and I think you have the best of intentions. I may be over-reacting because I have dealt with this kind of tactic all my life - conservative people try to make you jump through hoops without lifting a finger themselves. However you can see that these tactics, even when well-meaning has the opposite effect. You start with an 82% vote in favor and then make a suggestion that could possibly invalidate that vote out of superstition or perhaps somehow manage to get it over-turned.

So I appreciate the suggestion, but I personally believe that it would be destructive. Would such a suggestion be constructive if it were made concerning the presidential elections? What if someone said, "maybe we should take another look at how people voted 8 or 12 years ago and why they voted that way." It might be a good idea BEFORE the elections but not after them. This is not as important but the same principle applies. It's constructive if it can make people think and provide useful information but it's destructive it is more likely to cause even more divisions between us.

Look, this thread is about the opportunity or not to update the forum software. Still, I can't read anything in your rant that relates to the issue. And nothing that explains why an upgrade would be beneficial or not, that ultimately should be the subject of the discussion.

Did your post make any points about why an upgrade would be beneficial or not? No, it was just an appeal to go back to the old reasons why we shouldn't upgrade.

Instead of debating the wisdom of digging up the past, if you really think it is important then just do it. You don't need anyone's permission. Is this something you wanted to do or just something you wanted other people to do?

[Don]

That is a MyBB board. Something that was discarded about two years ago as an alternative to this.

It might be constructive to the discussion to share the reasons why you discarded this solution two years ago.

We know that when this was discarded the forum software was not as old as it is now, the alternatives were not as good and the membership itself has evolved - no doubt at least slightly more progressive with the times. So I don't see how rehashing what happened years ago can be constructive.

I just meant that , when discussing the pro/cons of changing the forum platform it would help to quote specific issues and improvement rather than making general statements like "[it] was discarded about two years ago" or "the forum software was not as old as it is now" or "the alternatives were not as good". Statements that might be true but would be more constructive if the actual details were shared: for instance, being old is not a reason good enough by itself for a replacement if the new does not bring something actually better.

You used the question, "would it be constructive", and the answer is no. It's very clear what the forum wants and a vote has already been taken. Some things are clear destructive and some things are constructive. Now I don't believe you are purposely setting out to "destroy" but it's a common tactic for some to tear down by making similar suggestion under the guise of "being careful" or not jumping the gun. That is a marvelously effective tactic because you can almost never say no to someone who suggests something that superficially sounds reasonable but is really a blocking tactic. They can almost keep that up forever. Probably the most used example of this is the tactic to "table the discussion for the next meeting so that we can think about it some more." That almost always works because it sounds like a reasonable suggestion but is often a friendly way to say no. If someone rejects the idea you can just claim they are pushing ahead without due consideration (since you are basically defining what due consideration is.) It's never unreasonable to "think more."

Please don't be offended, I do not think you are doing this and I think you have the best of intentions. I may be over-reacting because I have dealt with this kind of tactic all my life - conservative people try to make you jump through hoops without lifting a finger themselves. However you can see that these tactics, even when well-meaning has the opposite effect. You start with an 82% vote in favor and then make a suggestion that could possibly invalidate that vote out of superstition or perhaps somehow manage to get it over-turned.

So I appreciate the suggestion, but I personally believe that it would be destructive. Would such a suggestion be constructive if it were made concerning the presidential elections? What if someone said, "maybe we should take another look at how people voted 8 or 12 years ago and why they voted that way." It might be a good idea BEFORE the elections but not after them. This is not as important but the same principle applies. It's constructive if it can make people think and provide useful information but it's destructive it is more likely to cause even more divisions between us.

Look, this thread is about the opportunity or not to update the forum software. Still, I can't read anything in your rant that relates to the issue. And nothing that explains why an upgrade would be beneficial or not, that ultimately should be the subject of the discussion.

Ok I apologize. I was a bit snippy with you.

Let's start over:

It might be constructive to the discussion to share the reasons why you discarded this solution two years ago.

Here is what happened. We took a vote on whether to change and as a result of the vote the change did not happen. I don't remember which side got the majority of votes but it had already been decided before voting that we would not change unless the vote was substantially in favor of making the change and it wasn't.

Almost to the person the only issue was thread view. Too many people did not want to give that up. I think what happened then is almost identical to what is happening now, the only difference is that a strong majority is now in favor of making a change. The vote was highly positive even before we learned that we would not have to sacrifice the thread view.

You used the word "you" implying that you were not involved but the decision was made as a group so you could have been if you had been around. Even though the administrators have the right to upgrade their software without our permission they called for a vote which was a kindness to us.

I was snippy with you because I did not see any point in reviewing this and I did not consider that you did not already know the details. I guess the short answer is that we did not have an overwhelming number of votes in favor.

It's still public if you want to review these facts. I don't remember the time period, some are saying about 2 years ago but I don't really know.

There were more heated arguments about this then than there is now - and that is a big part of why I did not feel it was the most "constructive" use of our time to dig up these old debates.

I apologize for the rant.

Don

[Christopher Conkie]

That is a MyBB board. Something that was discarded about two years ago as an alternative to this.

It might be constructive to the discussion to share the reasons why you discarded this solution two years ago.

We know that when this was discarded the forum software was not as old as it is now, the alternatives were not as good and the membership itself has evolved - no doubt at least slightly more progressive with the times. So I don't see how rehashing what happened years ago can be constructive.

I just meant that , when discussing the pro/cons of changing the forum platform it would help to quote specific issues and improvement rather than making general statements like "[it] was discarded about two years ago" or "the forum software was not as old as it is now" or "the alternatives were not as good". Statements that might be true but would be more constructive if the actual details were shared: for instance, being old is not a reason good enough by itself for a replacement if the new does not bring something actually better.

You used the question, "would it be constructive", and the answer is no. It's very clear what the forum wants and a vote has already been taken. Some things are clear destructive and some things are constructive. Now I don't believe you are purposely setting out to "destroy" but it's a common tactic for some to tear down by making similar suggestion under the guise of "being careful" or not jumping the gun. That is a marvelously effective tactic because you can almost never say no to someone who suggests something that superficially sounds reasonable but is really a blocking tactic. They can almost keep that up forever. Probably the most used example of this is the tactic to "table the discussion for the next meeting so that we can think about it some more." That almost always works because it sounds like a reasonable suggestion but is often a friendly way to say no. If someone rejects the idea you can just claim they are pushing ahead without due consideration (since you are basically defining what due consideration is.) It's never unreasonable to "think more."

Please don't be offended, I do not think you are doing this and I think you have the best of intentions. I may be over-reacting because I have dealt with this kind of tactic all my life - conservative people try to make you jump through hoops without lifting a finger themselves. However you can see that these tactics, even when well-meaning has the opposite effect. You start with an 82% vote in favor and then make a suggestion that could possibly invalidate that vote out of superstition or perhaps somehow manage to get it over-turned.

So I appreciate the suggestion, but I personally believe that it would be destructive. Would such a suggestion be constructive if it were made concerning the presidential elections? What if someone said, "maybe we should take another look at how people voted 8 or 12 years ago and why they voted that way." It might be a good idea BEFORE the elections but not after them. This is not as important but the same principle applies. It's constructive if it can make people think and provide useful information but it's destructive it is more likely to cause even more divisions between us.

Look, this thread is about the opportunity or not to update the forum software. Still, I can't read anything in your rant that relates to the issue. And nothing that explains why an upgrade would be beneficial or not, that ultimately should be the subject of the discussion.

Ok I apologize. I was a bit snippy with you.

Let's start over:

It might be constructive to the discussion to share the reasons why you discarded this solution two years ago.

Here is what happened. We took a vote on whether to change and as a result of the vote the change did not happen. I don't remember which side got the majority of votes but it had already been decided before voting that we would not change unless the vote was substantially in favor of making the change and it wasn't.

Almost to the person the only issue was thread view. Too many people did not want to give that up. I think what happened then is almost identical to what is happening now, the only difference is that a strong majority is now in favor of making a change. The vote was highly positive even before we learned that we would not have to sacrifice the thread view.

You used the word "you" implying that you were not involved but the decision was made as a group so you could have been if you had been around. Even though the administrators have the right to upgrade their software without our permission they called for a vote which was a kindness to us.

I was snippy with you because I did not see any point in reviewing this and I did not consider that you did not already know the details. I guess the short answer is that we did not have an overwhelming number of votes in favor.

It's still public if you want to review these facts. I don't remember the time period, some are saying about 2 years ago but I don't really know.

There were more heated arguments about this then than there is now - and that is a big part of why I did not feel it was the most "constructive" use of our time to dig up these old debates.

I apologize for the rant.

Don

Please look at this Don (and everyone else).

Based on what Sam (no one mentions him but I have, just so you know how useful a poll is) has to work with.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... ware_(PHP)

These are the choices and the features section is important so take a look (scroll down).

We need a threaded and flat forum, that is free and lends itself to import. That is very easy to update (without the need for modification each time we do).

If I had my way (and the desire....which I do not), I would modify phpBB3 to be a threaded forum as I did when I helped with the mobythreads (between 1.18 and 1.2.1a) that you now look at.

I have a version of mobythreads far beyond what you look at currently here (and Sam already knows this as he has seen it with his own eyes). The problem is.....it is based on phpBB2 not phpBB3. Its enhancements include security. It cannot be hacked in other words as much as an up to date phpBB3 board.

Feature wise? No. No improvement in features unless you call a flash clock a feature. The point was to make a secure moby and nothing else. PhpBB3 is the most secure forum software and so I followed their cycle.....but for phpBB2 and moby.

If you want to know why you have not been hacked consider that phpBB2 is perfectly safe (after all Shredder 5 is still 2000+ elo and the rest today) but that it does not cater for those smiley facebook twits who think that their phone is not a phone but for being a complete fanny in a pub.

Trust me that if you use a phone to read this forum you are probably not "as out and about" as you think you are.

What they probably need is a couple of tin cans and a bit of string instead. The cans to pray for money from passers by and the string to hang themselves by when they get nothing.

That said.....I do admire progress and so I propose that we update phpBB3 to be a threaded forum.

Should be easy for people who make polls like Julien.

What do you think Keith? Should we enrol "him?



Hahaha.....hell may freeze over first......but not at the rate the icecaps are melting.



Chris

[K I Hyams]

Please look at this Don (and everyone else).

Based on what Sam (no one mentions him but I have, just so you know how useful a poll is) has to work with.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... ware_(PHP)

These are the choices and the features section is important so take a look (scroll down).

We need a threaded and flat forum, that is free and lends itself to import. That is very easy to update (without the need for modification each time we do).

If I had my way (and the desire....which I do not), I would modify phpBB3 to be a threaded forum as I did when I helped with the mobythreads (between 1.18 and 1.2.1a) that you now look at.

I have a version of mobythreads far beyond what you look at currently here (and Sam already knows this as he has seen it with his own eyes). The problem is.....it is based on phpBB2 not phpBB3. Its enhancements include security. It cannot be hacked in other words as much as an up to date phpBB3 board.

Feature wise? No. No improvement in features unless you call a flash clock a feature. The point was to make a secure moby and nothing else. PhpBB3 is the most secure forum software and so I followed their cycle.....but for phpBB2 and moby.

If you want to know why you have not been hacked consider that phpBB2 is perfectly safe (after all Shredder 5 is still 2000+ elo and the rest today) but that it does not cater for those smiley facebook twits who think that their phone is not a phone but for being a complete fanny in a pub.

Trust me that if you use a phone to read this forum you are probably not "as out and about" as you think you are.

What they probably need is a couple of tin cans and a bit of string instead. The cans to pray for money from passers by and the string to hang themselves by when they get nothing.

That said.....I do admire progress and so I propose that we update phpBB3 to be a threaded forum.

Should be easy for people who make polls like Julien.

What do you think Keith? Should we enrol "him?



Hahaha.....hell may freeze over first......but not at the rate the icecaps are melting.



Chris

I was going to ask you to come back into this thread to expand upon your views but after Don shouted at me and after I saw the way in which he savaged Paulo Casaschi, for expressing a similar sentiment, I was much too scared.

Now that you are back, I can point you to the video referenced below. You may be able to get by without sub-titles. Either way, I think that it will appeal to your sense of humour.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/dYslhL71k1M?rel=0

[Don]

Please look at this Don (and everyone else).

Based on what Sam (no one mentions him but I have, just so you know how useful a poll is) has to work with.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... ware_(PHP)

These are the choices and the features section is important so take a look (scroll down).

We need a threaded and flat forum, that is free and lends itself to import. That is very easy to update (without the need for modification each time we do).

If I had my way (and the desire....which I do not), I would modify phpBB3 to be a threaded forum as I did when I helped with the mobythreads (between 1.18 and 1.2.1a) that you now look at.

I have a version of mobythreads far beyond what you look at currently here (and Sam already knows this as he has seen it with his own eyes). The problem is.....it is based on phpBB2 not phpBB3. Its enhancements include security. It cannot be hacked in other words as much as an up to date phpBB3 board.

Feature wise? No. No improvement in features unless you call a flash clock a feature. The point was to make a secure moby and nothing else. PhpBB3 is the most secure forum software and so I followed their cycle.....but for phpBB2 and moby.

If you want to know why you have not been hacked consider that phpBB2 is perfectly safe (after all Shredder 5 is still 2000+ elo and the rest today) but that it does not cater for those smiley facebook twits who think that their phone is not a phone but for being a complete fanny in a pub.

Trust me that if you use a phone to read this forum you are probably not "as out and about" as you think you are.

I agree with this 100%. People are always in a rush to support the latest fads but it takes time to know if a fad is really anything more than just that. So at least for me the support for tablets and phones is way down on the list of priorities. Still, it's useful as a tie-breaker features.

What they probably need is a couple of tin cans and a bit of string instead. The cans to pray for money from passers by and the string to hang themselves by when they get nothing.

That said.....I do admire progress and so I propose that we update phpBB3 to be a threaded forum.

Should be easy for people who make polls like Julien.

What do you think Keith? Should we enrol "him?



Hahaha.....hell may freeze over first......but not at the rate the icecaps are melting.



Chris

The point is that we do have options and until you pointed that out to us we were flying a bit blind.

It's my understanding that you have contributed a lot of your software engineering expertise to improving our forum software so I hope anything you say is given more than the usual weight.

[Rein Halbersma]

Nice video by Joel Spolsky on The Science of Communities Behind Software
http://vimeo.com/68200924

Interesting stories about how the culture of a community is subtly influenced by the behavior of software (claiming that the flamewars on Usenet were caused by the default quoting behavior).

[Marek Soszynski]

Nice video by Joel Spolsky on The Science of Communities Behind Software
http://vimeo.com/68200924

Interesting stories about how the culture of a community is subtly influenced by the behavior of software (claiming that the flamewars on Usenet were caused by the default quoting behavior).

Here's his site on chess: http://chess.stackexchange.com/

[Steve Maughan]

A vote if 84% is overwhelming! I'd call it a mandate.

So what's stopping the update?

Steve