[Decision] Wub Sensor Smiley Alternate

[Lord Condormanius]

Oppose. This is entirely unnecessary.

[Gaius Baltar]

With reference to the previous discussion regarding the 28 day term after the previous bill, I request that this Decision be moved to CVRIA vote, having the required support and having been discussed for the appropriate period of time.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

With reference to the previous discussion regarding the 28 day term after the previous bill, I request that this Decision be moved to CVRIA vote, having the required support and having been discussed for the appropriate period of time.

Looks like you need to PM the Curator, Gaius. He seems to be out of town.

[Каие]

Yeah my bill goes on hold for 28 days, I forgot about this one. You've been very patient Gauis!

[Mímirswell]

As this bill has essentially been vetoed (The two Tech Administrators saying that have no plans to implement it); why should it go to a vote?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

As this bill has essentially been vetoed (The two Tech Administrators saying that have no plans to implement it); why should it go to a vote?

It hasn't been vetoed, they only answered to Farnan's question.

Is there a way so it just inserts a random smiley?

-->

No.

-->

It would probably be possible, but too much of a bother.

I think the proposal still stands as it aims to change the current wub smiley to the clown smiley, and maybe use other censors too.

[Mímirswell]

Hence the use of the term "essentially". This requires Tech Staff to implement and you have the two lead members of Tech Staff saying they don't want to bother with it. It's not an official veto but the overall effect is the same.

[Каие]

Because there is this thing called democratic integrity? You have to have a reason to block something completely harmless, and where did they say that exactly?

[Mímirswell]

Technical staff has limited time. To implement random smiley usage is not an effective use of their time. It has nothing to do with democratic integrity but reality.

[Каие]

The only thing they need to do is replace the current one with another one.

edit: d'oh! I just saw the OP again, ''used interchangeably'' OK I get it now.

[Mímirswell]

The only thing they need to do is replace the current one with another one.

edit: d'oh! I just saw the OP again, ''used interchangeably'' OK I get it now.

Right. Simple replacement is something else entirely; this requires an actual effort on Tech Staff's part to write/modify a script to allow for randomness or waste time with switching it out on a random interval.

[Каие]

Yeah I realised my mistake now!

[Simetrical]

The way it currently works is basically

preg_replace("/some really huge pattern constructed from the censor settings/", ":wub:", $posttext); 

If this actually passed, I suppose I could spend the minute or two to use preg_replace_callback instead, although I can't guarantee I'd get to it quickly.

[Calvin]

Oppose. Why replace the already patronising censor with something as pointless?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Oppose. Why replace the already patronising censor with something as pointless?

To really make people look stupid when they swear.

[Fabolous]

This has been moved to vote here.

[Calvin]

To really make people look stupid when they swear.

Why? I am not opposed to people swearing on this forum, why would I want them to be ridiculed for it like some school ground snob?

[Bokks]

Why? I am not opposed to people swearing on this forum, why would I want them to be ridiculed for it like some school ground snob?

On that note, I say we replace it with this

...
Actually, that works really well! I think ol' Bill Watterson would be proud, too...

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Why? I am not opposed to people swearing on this forum, why would I want them to be ridiculed for it like some school ground snob?

It would be still better than the current one: .

[Calvin]

I disagree. It's at the same level.