Jump to content

Andrew

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrew

  1. The sale of 182M has been completed. This topic can now be closed.
  2. 77591522 is now sold. Offers for 182M are still being accepted.
  3. Hello. I am selling 2 IDs, and both will be available starting January 28th 23. ID (182000000) M digit [ID is sold] ID (77591522) 8 digit [ID is sold] You can find me on Help chat, and ask for PC. Offers are open.
  4. Someone like you should rethink their intentions, or find something better to do. But that's just a personal opinion. Statistically speaking, only 3 of 20 people (or even less) bother to PM a banned person. Implementing a site-wide update or power would be pointless effort to fix something that isn't broken
  5. If I'm understanding this correctly: You're creating a problem, and you're fully admitting to creating a problem (that doesn't really exist beforehand), and you're recommending a somewhat irrational solution to "prevent the drama" you're literally creating? This makes no sense. No, really, not at all. A user is muted almost every day, and from what I observe, it functions just as it needs to, specifically for ban evasion cases. If it deters said user for even 10 seconds without them knowing they've been silent banned, that's pretty much considered a win. In short, if a user wants to PM a banned user, so what? I don't think that's any legitimate person's issue. And if you really want to make a contribution to the community, maybe consider not doing foolish things like you said above. No offense is intended; I'm just being blunt in what I say and believe....
  6. As I do this now, I manually sign in and out, and delete the message after they leave. Though it would be really helpful if the power automatically did this! And yes, that's exactly why I posted this thread, because it definitely is misleading.
  7. In this day and age, where we deal with a lot of ban evasions, mute has become a convenient and clean way of clearing the chat without having a major disruption or scene caused. It's worth noting however, that there is a major flaw, especially in some cases where a user (or chat even) relies on mute and/or silentban to keep a chat clear. Because mute does not show a message to guests specifically, and more likely the reason, if it is combined with silentban, the messages will still unfortunately still appear in chat. Unless this is intended to be this way (I hope not?) this is a really major flaw because inappropriate content will still be visible in the chat for new users to sign in and see. Below are demonstrations with and without silentban enabled. (both have the same result) WITH silentban enabled: https://i.imgur.com/vs1AatJ.mp4 WITHOUT silentban enabled: https://i.imgur.com/VKiKHZz.mp4 Because these are not .gif, they will not embed in this post, sorry.
  8. This seems to have *mostly* worked; for some reason, a few old "friends" seem to have respawned when I have logged back on to my PC, but I will see if I can continue attempting to clear them out. It's an endless cycle, but I hope this is at least close to the end
  9. While this is understandable, I wanna verify if it’s even possible for such updates. Because at this point it’s only slightly agitating :P
  10. For the past, somewhere between 2 and 3 years, I've not been able to properly update my friends list. I've seen some people were able to do it, but most others weren't able to. My question is this: If I am logged in 3 different devices, is it possible to actually be able to permanently remove friends from my friends list? Whenever I login on the same device, or even a new device, said person will instantly respawn. I've been hoping to do this without clearing my list entirely... which I will probably have to do as a last ditch option anyway.
  11. In my opinion, I think stricter banning, whenever it IS effective, most ban evaders are silenced for a reasonable time. Then again, they don't wait either, they just switch IPs again, and get a new ID to get ungagged faster. But also... having an option in gcontrol probably wouldn't hurt either.
  12. @ACORRENTADOOf course, one thing that likely won't be done is to completely block VPN access, that would be unreasonable for sure. I'm not for that idea at all, though there has to be a way to limit the disruptive activity that goes on lately, since VPNs are certainly abused to bypass bans. And functionality-wise, this is why stricter banning and protect modes do exist. Though it's been a while since the former was implemented, so it could probably use an upgrade and/or replacement in some way. At least from what I have observed now, /pr doesn't affect unregistered users who are already signed in. Of course if they sign out, they will not be able to enter again until it is disabled, but I've not actually verified if they are able to speak. Maybe this is something I will check out later.
  13. If it's known by now, the primary "popular" chats on English, also being official, deal with most ban evasions, because most people abuse the combination of their VPN, and access to xat without storing cookies. While this is extremely problematic, there are only very few solutions. I'm hoping this will be an open discussion about how this can be solved, maybe and general brainstorming. I'll also list the few "solutions" that we do have below. Protect modes /p: While protect was not made to be used for ban evasion circumstances, it's probably one of the most effective methods, with /pr being the most effective method in stopping ban evaders. More about that later on. Protect was developed initially to stop raids, which it does very well, and it also is the primary use of stopping ban evasions, especially in official chats. But even still, after using these methods, whether they work or not, it's still not all right. As it is known, most official chats are not members only, but open to all guests, and in most cases, it has to be. But when a user decides to either single-handedly, or within a party, disrupts the chat, protect mode is inevitably enabled. Most owners/mods instinctively use /p, which is the default protect mode, and only triggers a captcha. Pre-HTML-5 era, this was guaranteed to always trigger a captcha. Now, in the HTML-5 era, I don't always see this happen in 100% of scenarios. In a lot of times, a toon will instantly re-enter the chat, and gloat about not getting a captcha at all. This happens regularly. I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe that, at least at this moment, this is an effective method at all to stop ban circumventions, moreso to halt raids (as the captcha still disables them). /pr: The primary official chats resort to /pr where /p fails, and it is the most effective. The only major flaw to this, is that it shuts out the entire chat. If a group is private, this is not a problem, but official chats have to use this method frequently (and temporarily) to shut out ban evaders and trolls completely. In my opinion, for a public chat, it should not have to come to this, as some groups are not meant to be members only. If a user needs help, and clicks a link that redirects them to help chat, they have to be turned away because a single, or few users has caused the entire chat to shut down. There has to be a better solution for this. /pg: Many people don't seem to resort to this protect mode very often, but I could see true potential in this protect mode. It's similar to the "stricter banning" functionality (more about this later on too), but its major flaw is that it affects registered users as well. How I could see something like this improved is that it whitelists registered users, so it doesn't affect them at all (in my honest opinion, it shouldn't), and continues to silence brand new users (especially those with funky VPNs) for X minutes or so, so chat disruptions happen less often. In times of frequent ban circumvention, this could maybe be useful, so it would less likely turn away new users completely if they genuinely need help, for example. Stricter banning Stricter banning is already very useful in a lot of common cases, but as of lately, those using VPNs now, seem to have zero issue getting past the stricter banning functionality. And even if new users find themselves gagged, they will find very soon a new IP/ID, and eventually get past it (usually no issue on the 2nd attempt, from what I have observed). If this functionality has some way of being improved, it probably would be recommended as well, though I'm not sure how. It's already causing a lot of false positives among registered users, who seems to be gagged more often than unregistered users. Conclusion // From a simple user's point of view: Any other actions regarding problematic users, and cleaning them up, are measures that has to be taken manually, but this is probably a big enough issue that this has to be addressed somehow. Understandably, it seems sooooo easy that ideas can be suggested on how to stop/solve issues like these, and implementing them are a lot harder. But at the very least, I figured this discussion should be opened, so we can openly discuss how this should be addressed, and if it can. And as usual, I understand that xat has a lot of priorities that may include or exclude this, and I have zero intentions on rushing anything to be implemented that might be discussed here, but I also believe it's important to acknowledge these issues, and only hope that some solutions, whether now or in the future, can be agreed to.
  14. Nameglow + bought it from the store because no one told me about trade directly after buying xats. Typical exited 14 y/o.
  15. Andrew

    NOTES Power

    This is interesting. I could certainly see something like this being very useful, and the idea is creative. Could go a long way
  16. It could be an interesting addition, if not that, its own power is possible too.
  17. Done. Had to disable both the uBlock Origin and DuckDuckGo extensions, and the site loads now. Still though...
  18. Kaspersky is something I haven't touched since maybe 2015. Only thing disabled adblocker does is shows the ad, but still fails to load the entire page. (which is still unloadable)
  19. In the latest release, xat has completely stopped working for me for firefox, and I'm not able to login on chrome. Has there been any obvious identified bugs that might be causing this? And will this be fixed soon? Below shows how much of the page for me will load, and it doesn't go beyond this at all. Thanks
  20. In my opinion, if this were just exclusive to PURPLE, it would emphasise its "Epic" status. If you add it on to blueman and pink as well, then that sort of ruins that. But maybe that's an entire different conversation, different thread. Just my 2 cents on this.
  21. Treating others with kindness and decency takes much less effort than actively trying to tear them down. Be nice for a change, make someone smile.

  22. I wouldn't imagine this happening. If there were a hypothetical "rule" for such a thing, then it would have to curve for just about everything else from religion to politics and potentially to other beliefs. And I wouldn't imagine a majority of people being too happy about too many restrictions.
  23. Doesn't quite work, as 2 days ago it was the first thing I've tried, but I've maybe logged in ~ 5 times.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.