|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 4, 2004 14:52:29 GMT
Any general comments you have to make about the site to go here please.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 4, 2004 14:54:39 GMT
N.B. Be sure to keep any comments in here relevant TO THE SITE, and criticism must be kept constructive otherwise posts shall be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jul 29, 2004 9:20:11 GMT
Good site all round, there's quite a few interesting debates and topics, but it does seem that the forum is quietly turning into a 1984 fansite. a third of the forum topics are now 1984 related, and many of the threads are littered with it too. Great book, half-decent film, horrifying concept, but is it really what the forum's about?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 29, 2004 23:46:12 GMT
I've merged the three Nineteen Eighty-Four boards into a single board, and the three sub-topics are now all threads in the one section. This not only makes it easier to navigate, it also makes the main menu look a bit tidier. The content of the threads is still as it was.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 30, 2004 11:11:51 GMT
Hi everyone, am still on holiday but decided to swing into check everything is alright. I approve of HStorm's decision to merge the 1984 boards into 1 as it looks a lot neater now. I look forward to coming home to broadband again (i'm in a library on a 56k atm!)
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Aug 8, 2004 19:15:08 GMT
1984 is a novel on sociology, which has a lot to do with politics. They're interlinked and so have become popular on the site.
Having said that, I shall endevour to prevent the site becoming the '1984 fan site'.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Aug 9, 2004 10:40:56 GMT
Goodo, as long as we're making some effort not to turn things into a 1984 fansite then I am fine with things.
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 12, 2005 8:59:08 GMT
Hey everybody, glad the site is back online. For some reason it won't load at home but hey, you've gotta love the college computers . Looking forward to more debate and scathing rows, Liquidus
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Sept 12, 2005 13:24:55 GMT
The site was never actually online, there were just connection problems with the forum on personal (non-LAN) computers in the Nuneaton area. All articles and pictures could still be viewed.
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 14, 2005 12:53:35 GMT
Hey, I'm not complaining. Just glad to be back, is all. I meant the actual forum, not the homepage . Liquidus PS. What do you mean, the site was never online?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 14, 2005 16:15:47 GMT
*Quietly* I think he meant "offline". Don't worry, old age affects people that way.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 15, 2005 11:57:14 GMT
Don't worry, old age affects people that way. At least we have an expert's opinion on the matter...
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 19, 2005 9:41:50 GMT
Dating the articles on the front page makes the site look, er, dated.
Also, the 1996 html stylings are not particularly attractive. The new version o fproboards is delctable though.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 20, 2005 10:16:08 GMT
Dating the articles on the front page makes the site look, er, dated. Well, several months ago I proposed a new article classification system and even drafted it but somewhere in between the draft and the HTML formatting the project went awry due to administrative distraction... (i.e. Critique couldn't be bothered *passes the buck*)
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 20, 2005 10:22:36 GMT
Perhaps the administratorators should have a monthly/quarterly website review meeting?
The minutes could be put up on the site and different admins could take responsibility for completing agreed actions.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 20, 2005 15:18:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 27, 2005 11:18:22 GMT
Can we please just remove everything from the word censor? It's either playing up or so badly programmed that it's not worth having. I cite examples such as 'Sthingyhorpe', and 'in these times of thingy' as showing it's failures.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 27, 2005 11:38:08 GMT
Nas, what the f**k**g f**k are you shitting on about? The cunting word filter works fine for me.
shit.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 27, 2005 11:39:52 GMT
OK, this just pisses me off. Why exactly is 'cunting' ok, but 'Scunthorpe' was deemed swearing?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 27, 2005 12:29:47 GMT
The reasons Modeski's swearing got through is because I have relaxed the word censor, almost all the words that were on it have been removed, use them wisely!
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 27, 2005 12:33:05 GMT
I shall exercise restraint btw, was just doing that to see what the filter would do
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 27, 2005 12:50:28 GMT
It doesn't effect me that much. 'Cocking' was never on the censor.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Nov 22, 2005 14:56:28 GMT
Congratulations to whom it may concern, the site has today gone past the 4,000 posts mark.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Nov 25, 2005 8:38:08 GMT
Wow, I hadn't noticed until you said that. It's pretty impressive really 4,000 posts and nearly 300 topics. We've now got almost two years worth of news and debate archived in this forum. Fantastic work everyone!
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 6, 2006 14:23:31 GMT
Another landmark reached today (or yesterday, seeing it was someone in Australia who started the thread); this forum now has 300 topics and counting.
|
|