Restrictions on size for forums

wolvesstar97

When 2.0 is actually released, are you going to restrict size of text? Messages like this could be a quick way to troll or spam.

Thanks Scratch Team! 2.0 is EPIC!

stevetheipad

I hope so. :P

i miss the old days

wolvesstar97

stevetheipad
I hope so. :P

I think I found another bug- smileys do not register with enlarged text. :O
On the contrary, that could be good- eliminates giant smiley spam. :)

Last edited by wolvesstar97 (Oct. 1, 2012 16:58:58)

Thanks Scratch Team! 2.0 is EPIC!

Lightnin

Yeah, I agree - this is a little big, isn't it? :)

Any thoughts on a good maximum size? Perhaps we should restrict it to 32.
Or should we just get rid of the ability to set size alltogether?

And this is only 10.

Last edited by Lightnin (Oct. 1, 2012 17:40:45)

kayybee

I think 32 would be good (this is 16, right?) because its good for making visible titles.

stevetheipad

Lightnin
Yeah, I agree - this is a little big, isn't it? :)

Any thoughts on a good maximum size? Perhaps we should restrict it to 32.
Or should we just get rid of the ability to set size alltogether?

And this is only 10.

Yeah, 32.

i miss the old days

Lucario621

I feel big now!
Well, I guess size 16 wouldn't be too bad either
Hehe.

Hardmath123

I vote you just have

[big]

and

[small]

tags, which do a reasonable modification.
This could be a problem, too. I could imagine trolling someone by posting it super-small.

scimonster

Hardmath123
I vote you just have
[big]
and
[small]
tags, which do a reasonable modification.
This could be a problem, too. I could imagine trolling someone by posting it super-small.

A g r e e d .

Retired Community Moderator
BTW, i run Google Chrome 41.0.2272.101 on a Linux system - Ubuntu 14.04. NEW: iPad 4th gen. w/retina.

418 I'm a teapot (original - to be read by bored computer geeks)
THE GAME (you just lost)
; THE SEMICOLON LIVES ON IN OUR SIGS

Hardmath123

scimonster
Hardmath123
I vote you just have
[big]
and
[small]
tags, which do a reasonable modification.
This could be a problem, too. I could imagine trolling someone by posting it super-small.
A g r e e d .

lol.

wolvesstar97

Hardmath123
scimonster
Hardmath123
I vote you just have
[big]
and
[small]
tags, which do a reasonable modification.
This could be a problem, too. I could imagine trolling someone by posting it super-small.
A g r e e d .
lol.

I think that you should be able to still set sizes, but with the lower limit 10 and the upper limit 32.

This is reasonable for making a point, right?
And for being unnoticed, you can still read it.

Last edited by wolvesstar97 (Oct. 2, 2012 10:45:34)

Thanks Scratch Team! 2.0 is EPIC!

LS97

what about maximum 40? I feel that for single-word headers 32 isn't large enough…

Retired Scratcher • Aspiring information systems engineer

wolvesstar97

LS97
what about maximum 40? I feel that for single-word headers 32 isn't large enough…

40 probably would be ok… It's somewhat risky, but Scratch is well behaved enough not to abuse it.

Last edited by wolvesstar97 (Oct. 2, 2012 13:37:50)

Thanks Scratch Team! 2.0 is EPIC!

scimonster

40
10
Seems alright.

The syntax is weird though. It should be

[size=15]15[/size]

Retired Community Moderator
BTW, i run Google Chrome 41.0.2272.101 on a Linux system - Ubuntu 14.04. NEW: iPad 4th gen. w/retina.

418 I'm a teapot (original - to be read by bored computer geeks)
THE GAME (you just lost)
; THE SEMICOLON LIVES ON IN OUR SIGS

LS97

scimonster
40
10
Seems alright.

The syntax is weird though. It should be
[size=15]15[/size]

true!

Retired Scratcher • Aspiring information systems engineer

Saca312

can't you just edit the size to this though by just editing the tag
I was wondering….maybe make an auto lock or something like that for the big & small thing.

Edit: Also, you could make a header thingamagig thing in the forum options for you to choose where you can put a certain heading. Maybe max 50 characters for a header so no spammers and a bigger size font choice for the heading. And lock the body to maximum of 32.

Last edited by Saca312 (Oct. 2, 2012 15:42:24)

Well Wassup! I'm Saca312, a proud 2nd Wave tester of 2.0. I was the 64th Curator on scratch, and am eager to find out more about scratch 2.0.!

Saca312

LS97
scimonster
40
10
Seems alright.

The syntax is weird though. It should be
[size=15]15[/size]
true!

agreed

Well Wassup! I'm Saca312, a proud 2nd Wave tester of 2.0. I was the 64th Curator on scratch, and am eager to find out more about scratch 2.0.!

wolvesstar97

Saca312
can't you just edit the size to this though by just editing the tag
I was wondering….maybe make an auto lock or something like that for the big & small thing.

Edit: Also, you could make a header thingamagig thing in the forum options for you to choose where you can put a certain heading. Maybe max 50 characters for a header so no spammers and a bigger size font choice for the heading. And lock the body to maximum of 32.

Ehh, I think that just restrictions on size would be fine, even going so far to say that size could be enabled completley untill it's abused…
The syntax is weird though…
Hey, that could be an advantage! Trolls wouldn't assume that it's a different pattern from other BBCode, and would just post broken links, then mods would remove it before they realized that it was wrong.
or possibly my head lives in a perfect worldi mean perfixed

Last edited by wolvesstar97 (Oct. 3, 2012 00:17:50)

Thanks Scratch Team! 2.0 is EPIC!

NeilWest

It's be more of a problem if the text was important yet was so small, you couldn't be able to read it unless you quoted it.

Lightnin

NeilWest
It's be more of a problem if the text was important yet was so small, you couldn't be able to read it unless you quoted it.

Good point!

Discuss Scratch