fchan

discussion

recent board-changes

Pages:1
1Report(capped)
Xenofur at 10 Mar 2006: 07:39

morning.

in the last few days i made a number of changes on the board to improve usability, protection and design.

usability & design:
i updated the javascript code that is responsible for saving settings in cookies. as a result you should now notice that the fcp actually DOES save settings and remembers them over time. another change made is that the sidebar should be more accurate in the display of new image posts.
something else added is a new bump check-box above the submit button. the default setting for this is "checked" and as long as cookies and javascript are enabled the setting will be saved when you uncheck it. this replaces the "sage" feature, which was not used as originally intended, but mis-used in order to express negative feelings towards posted content or in a vain attempt to "push a thread down". the use of sage to prevent a post from being bumped is disabled.
also added is another style-sheet which uses smaller fonts in order to make browsing the boards faster. going along with that are general design upgrades to the normal style-sheet.
in order to make sure that these changes are properly taken over into your browser please delete all your cookies on fchan and also your caches.

protection:
i have added a new timer that restricts the creation of new threads per ip and per board to one per hour. also added is a proxy blocker, please note that you can still view fchan via proxy, but may not make any posts.


please notify my if you notice any kind of misbehaviour or problems on fchan. :)

2Report
skibum#KrV755.GHU at 10 Mar 2006: 15:49

Well done!  I really hope this improves the usability and keeps down the flooding.  ^_^

3Report(capped)
Xenofur at 10 Mar 2006: 18:59

in case you're wondering why fchan is slow atm, it's friday evening in the us right now and all the people are descending here for their porn fix...

Outgoing:
 #### |###   #    ##  .       |#########  #######  # ## .|#   # # ##     ##        #    ######  #.#    ##
.#### #### .|#    ##  #       ##########. ####### ## ##|###   # # ##.    ##|       #    ######  ###    ##
##########|###    ##  #       ########### ####### ## ######   # # ###    ###       #    ######. ###    ##
##############    ##  #    .. ################### ##|####### .# ######. .### #     #    ####### ###   .##
##############    ##  #    ##.################### ##########.## ####### #### #.    #  # ####### ###   ###
##############    ##  #  | ###################### ############# ####### #### ###   #  # ###########   ###
##############    ##. #  #.###################### #############.####### ####|###   #  # ############| ###
##############    ###.#  ######################## #####################|######## # #. #|############# ###
##############|   #####  ####################################################### # ## ############### ###
############### . #####. #######################################################|# ##.###############|###
###############.#|###### ################################################################################
########################|################################################################################
#########################################################################################################
#########################################################################################################
#########################################################################################################
#########################################################################################################
#########################################################################################################
#########################################################################################################  Curr: 15103.45 kBit/s
#########################################################################################################  Avg: 9088.13 kBit/s
#########################################################################################################  Min: 1462.03 kBit/s
#########################################################################################################  Max: 27449.14 kBit/s
#########################################################################################################  Ttl: 3390.49 MByte

4Report
Randomness at 10 Mar 2006: 20:52

Me? Porn? Ooh, a cookie! *chomp*

Nice work, Xeno.

5Report (sage)
at 11 Mar 2006: 12:05

Proxy power.

6Report
at 12 Mar 2006: 13:37

on a semi-related note, thanks so much for adding board prefixes to files. Let's get organized!

7Report(capped) (sage)
Xenofur at 12 Mar 2006: 14:30

>>5
the dis board has no proxy protection so far. :)

>>6
ah yes, that is related to the fact that all images are now in one directory to facilitate easier management for me. :)

8Report
at 14 Mar 2006: 12:12

I am currently doing contract work for the next two years in a nation where I could face the most serious consequences for possession of gay porn, let alone gay furry porn. No one is going to seize my hard drives without what passes for "probable cause" here. But router logs can do me in. Thankfully, I am safe as long as I use Tor.

But now I cannot participate in the image threads here. I can't share my collection, and I cannot even register my agreement or excitement with the content of a thread. My enjoyment of fchan is seriously threatened by this, and that is unfortunate because fchan is one of the few things that I have going for me out here. (Someone will say "oh man how sad get a life" now, but STFU, you don't know me.) I can't come home for another two years, but I can't participate here anymore. I'm a second class netizen now. Is this really what you want? I hope you will give me some serious consideration. I'm sure I'm not the only one in comparable circumstances. There are many nations like this.

11Report
at 14 Mar 2006: 15:36

>>8 On the other hand, you now have a built-in excuse to take what you want and not share anything. You're off the hook! ;)

12Report(capped)
Xenofur at 14 Mar 2006: 17:45

First off: Get your facts straight FIRST. The first sentence of the second paragraph i absolutely wrong.

Secondly: Even if i were to restrict it, do not even TRY to blame me for shitty laws in the country you're in. Not i made them, THEY made them. Not i made you a second-class anything, THEY mad you such. Furthermore:
Is this really what you want?
To be brutally honest: IF and WHEN fchan is threatened then i will take steps to protect it and i don't care in the least wether a minority is negatively affected. If this minority really feels so strongly about it: Get in contact with the attackers.

Aside from that: You might want to look into a destructive encryption protection. Something that allows you to use two passwords, one for access, one which destroys the data and then presents a clean slate.

13Report
at 15 Mar 2006: 01:30

"please note that you can still view fchan via proxy, but may not make any posts."
"But now I cannot participate in the image threads here."
Looks like the first sentence of the second paragraph is absolutely right.

Anyway, you are the one implementing your changes. Don't try to evade responsibility for them. If you make a change that means innocent proxy users cannot fully participate, then you are the one choosing to make those users "second class netizens."

To be brutally honest: you don't have a clue what you are doing. You can't stop proxies, because there are always more proxies being created. What you could do, that would actually work, is to use a CAPCHA system, optionally with a whitelist of trusted users' IPs that would automatically bypass the CAPCHA.

Finally, it was just morally indefensible of you to demand that the victim of your new changes should have to contact and reason with your attackers. You know that's absurd, so it was flat out wrong for you to propose that this person waste his or her time and energy on an exercise in futility. I suppose that you probably did it because you're still uncomfortable taking full responsibility upon yourself. I don't blame you. I wouldn't want to have to accept responsibility for being both philosophically and technologically wrong.

14Report
at 15 Mar 2006: 01:58

>>13
read 8 again and *CHECK YOUR FACTS*!

that sentence is NOT correct.

15Report(capped)
Xenofur at 15 Mar 2006: 05:18

>>13
Nice way of mixing up things. >>8 is talking about using TOR in countries which restrict content. I told him to get his facts right and i didn't do it without reason, since TOR is not blocked. Anyways, gratulations to both of you for managing to force me to make this information openly accessible here instead of contacting me in private. Now I'll really have to investigate TOR in order to find ways to block it WHEN the worst case really comes to pass. (I'll go out of my way to try and only filter for potentially malicious nodes, but if i have to invest more than a week without results i'll simply block all of them.)

Anyway, you are the one implementing your changes. Don't try to evade responsibility for them. If you make a change that means innocent proxy users cannot fully participate, then you are the one choosing to make those users "second class netizens."
Wrong, i provide all the means to easily access this website via traditional methods. If there are people browsing the web with proxies there are two possibilities:
They do it voluntarily, it is their free choice. In this case it's their own responsibility for choosing this. Most of these have no factual reason for using proxies besides paranoia.
They are forced from the outside. The responsibility here lies by those who are forcing them for whatever reason, not by me. Anyways, most of those aren't blocked by my script either ways since they are using closed proxies.

Also a little piece of information on the side: So far the black list contains one entry. This entry was generated by me when i tested the system.

Re Captcha: I'd like to use them, but there's one problem: The captcha systems that are openly available to me do not work and have already been broken with securities ranging from 90-100%.

@Contacting attackers: Why should i expect less from them than what i have already done in the past?

16Report (sage)
at 15 Mar 2006: 11:33

zOMG proxecution!

18Report (sage)
at 15 Mar 2006: 19:01

I hear that. If it was just one particular proxy, you should have just done it, and not said anything.

19Report(capped) (sage)
Xenofur at 16 Mar 2006: 07:52

>>17
post deleted for insults, anyways, my anwer:

right, of course it is my fault for not thinking of a project that is not even a traditional proxy but a networked anonymizer when i implemented the change and made the announcement.

20Report
at 2 Apr 2006: 20:09

PINEAPPLE! What? I was bored. The laws in USA are weird. That's why I live in Canada!

21Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage