SuprBay: Requests fulfilled tag

[Loke]

Is it possible to have a tag or such for fulfilled or rather unfulfilled requests - perhaps just have the thread closed?


Perhaps more requests would be fulfilled if there was a way to not having to browse through all request-threads...

---

Would it be possible and a viable solution if i.e. the original poster was granted permission to lock/close his/hers request-thread, when it has been fulfilled?

My reason for pursuing this is, that I've been served extraordinary well here (thanks, propbay2 and workerbee) and would like to reciprocate and try to contribute - but the amount of request are a a bit overwhelming to me.

[contrail]

Sounds good. I only think that we should leave each request open so that if in any case someone has an issue or a newer version the thread can receive an update or assistance they need.

[Loke]

I am sorry, but if thread-closing by the original poster is the only way to have a meaningful way to differ between fulfilled and unfulfilled request, then I could accept the thread to be closed. The advantage would IMHO by far outweigh the disadvantage, don't you think? If the request has been fulfilled to the original posters satisfaction, then I fail to see any issues or such incidents occur; where a newer version, or an update or assistance would be required. Such incidents probably would warrant a new thread to be opened anyways. I get what you mean, but have you ever experienced, that anyone has posted in such manner on a fulfilled request - at least to an extent, that is would outweigh the sheer benefit of making request status identifiable, and as such much less overwhelming to everyone? The hopeful goal of my suggestion is to get a better overview of requests, and by that easing the task for potential fulfiller's - and perhaps get many more of our requests fulfilled.

[Sid]

If the request has been fulfilled to the original posters satisfaction, then I fail to see any issues or such incidents occur;

There is nothing to stop people acknowledging their satisfaction now. The issue is that they rarely bother.

Adding yet another tool for them to not use won't significantly change anything.

[Loke]

You are most probably and unfortunately right, Sid. I am admittedly a proud and hopeful idealist, who never really understood why so many folks wouldn't even bother to give thanks to their own request-fulfiller. Common ethics and a minimum of good manners are obviously nonexistent, or at least not prevalent enough to ensure a minimum of grateful behavior (from the Quick-Fix generation), - and the reputation-system seemingly isn't enticement enough to make a dent in that attitude.

How about making the fulfiller close the the thread, then? They've already spent time and energy on fulfilling the request and therefore will be more reliable to lock or close the thread. If the original poster then could unlock it again, then they would have to get their finger out from you-know-where to do so. And the unlock feature could depend on them giving a somewhat lengthy reason for doing so.

That said, would it be possible - or from your point of view; even desirable - to enable original posters to close/lock their own threads? Is it possible to enable a view excluding locked threads? Would the tag have to be a prefix? Or, could it be done with another (search able) tag - perhaps added by the fulfiller and removable by the requester (if not correctly fulfilled)? Please excuse me for relentless pursuing this, but if there's something that can be done, then I feel obliged to follow up and not give up. I am new here. My old user (same name) was deleted for what must have been due to no or expired activity. But I've been "caresharing" since I was node in the old Fidonet days.

---

Perhaps the fulfiller could earn some fractions of Reputation points by each request fulfilled, and if (s)he closes the thread without really having fulfilled the request, then they could be reported by the original poster, and the fulfiller would be deducted and instead "earn" a rise in their Warning Level. Only disadvantage would be, that mods in theory could be overwhelmed with reports (yet those who does either fake reports and/or fake fulfillments would deserve a slapping, and in the end be entirely rooted out in this proces - to everyones benefit).

No comments, anyone?

[Sid]

How about making the fulfiller close the the thread, then?

So when you ask for a steak contrail can give you a sausage because "meat is meat" as far as he is conserned, or give you a bowl of hummus because "meat is murder", or give you a rubik's cube because he thinks that's funny or that you have been asking for too much, and then block anyone else from helping you?

No.

That said, would it be possible - or from your point of view; even desirable - to enable original posters to close/lock their own threads?

Possible? Yes. Desirable? No. That's why we don't allow it.

I see no valid reason to allow any member to prevent any other member from posting.

Please excuse me for relentless pursuing this,

You're excused.

But it's not a suggestion there is even the slightest chance we are going to implement so please excuse me from ignoring this thread from now on.

[Loke]

Sid, I think you must have overlooked this part:

"Perhaps the fulfiller could earn some fractions of Reputation points by each request fulfilled, and if (s)he closes the thread without really having fulfilled the request, then they could be reported by the original poster, and the fulfiller would be deducted and instead "earn" a rise in their Warning Level. Only disadvantage would be, that mods in theory could be overwhelmed with reports (yet those who does either fake reports and/or fake fulfillments would deserve a slapping, and in the end be entirely rooted out in this proces - to everyones benefit)."

---

So I am on your ignore-list now, Sid? (You cannot send messages to Sid because you're on their ignore list.)

Well, the very part that you say you haven't overlooked are invalidating your arguments, whence my post.

"Less than worthless", and "trying to be polite"... Seems to me that you are the one who doesn't bother...

I didn't overlook anything, I just consider the idea to be less than worthless and I was trying to be polite.

Sid, I think you must have triggered to soon and overlooked this part, please don't ignore the thread an suggestion:

[Moe]

MyBB doesn't work that way, and no one is going to invest the effort to hack that kind of functionality in.


Furthermore, you shouldn't be trying to message any of the moderators to discuss what belongs in this (or any) thread.

[Loke]

Ok, I will now seize pursuing this suggestion...

Yet, Sid said that it was indeed possible: "Possible? Yes" and I was not aware that it would take an entire "hack" of myBBS to implement something like what I have suggested. Thank you for informing me.

I merely tried to contribute, hoping that my suggestion would trigger a solution from someone knowledgeable in MyBBS adminstration/coding - not to trigger unsubstantiated and demeaning remarks.

And, why shouldn't I politely and constructively privately message a moderator, when they obviously have misunderstood, or chosen to ignore suggestions; and an entire thread - based on invalid grounds?

[Moe]

Yet, Sid said that it was indeed possible: "Possible? Yes" and I was not aware that it would take an entire "hack" of myBBS to implement something like what I have suggested. Thank you for informing me.

He wasn't wrong. It is possible. Just not something that would provide any kind of return for the time investment.

And, why shouldn't I politely and constructively privately message a moderator, when they obviously have misunderstood, or chosen to ignore suggestions; and an entire thread - based on invalid grounds?

Because there is nothing there that needs saying privately that can't be said publicly. Regardless of the reason, once someone chooses to leave a discussion, it shouldn't follow them to their inbox.