Randomizer "settings"

Category: Zone BBS Suggestions and Feedback

Post 1 by Elenhiia (Feather'rr'rr'rr'rr'rr'rr'rr'rr'rr'rr for president!) on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2008 21:37:19

I was wondering if, in your profile, you could have a yes or no to "can the randomizer select you when someone uses it?" Some people don't like the randomizer selecting them. I don't have a problem with it but I've seen this concern brought up before.

Post 2 by Nick6489 (11 years a Zoner) on Thursday, 01-May-2008 11:43:47

I don't have a problem with it either, but I think this should've been there from day one. Make it happen.

Post 3 by purple penguin (Don't you hate it when someone answers their own questions? I do.) on Thursday, 01-May-2008 22:47:29

Yep agree if it can be done.

Post 4 by purple penguin (Don't you hate it when someone answers their own questions? I do.) on Thursday, 01-May-2008 22:47:55

Agree if it can be done

Post 5 by purple penguin (Don't you hate it when someone answers their own questions? I do.) on Thursday, 01-May-2008 22:48:41

Wow so my post did go through. I got this error message when I posted.

Post 6 by laced-unlaced (Account disabled) on Friday, 02-May-2008 9:40:23

yeah, same here. go for it

Post 7 by Svenja (don't need any!) on Friday, 02-May-2008 16:02:13

same here, go for it, I've already seen people who complained about this.

Post 8 by TylerK (This site is so "educational") on Friday, 02-May-2008 16:45:51

Go for it. I don't have a problem with the randomizer picking me, but there are users (especially new users) who absolutely detest it when the randomizer picks them. On the subject of the randomizer, could it be fixed such that % L no longer returns null?

Post 9 by midnight sun (you can't catch me, i'm the palobread man) on Friday, 02-May-2008 18:39:38

i have no problems with the randomizer either i love it as many of you know lol but yes this is not a bad idea, and i think too that new users could have this option turned off by default and then decide if turning it on or not after they know what it is about, because there's alot of misunderstanding with new people

Post 10 by rdfreak (THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE-BLUE KANGA-KICKIN AUSIE) on Saturday, 03-May-2008 0:46:22

certainly agree, yeh

Post 11 by battle star queen (I just keep on posting!) on Saturday, 03-May-2008 2:34:25

agree with what has been said

Post 12 by Gilman Gal (A billy Gilman fan forever and always!!) on Saturday, 03-May-2008 6:10:00

I like the idea of having the new users have it off at first, untill they know what it's about, then they can turn it on for themselves.

Post 13 by Svenja (don't need any!) on Saturday, 03-May-2008 6:59:22

yeah, lory, u r right with that matter.

Post 14 by rat (star trek rules!) on Monday, 05-May-2008 21:36:16

very good idea worsty

Post 15 by Twinklestar09 (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Tuesday, 06-May-2008 5:57:14

I also think this is a good idea. Personally, I would sometimes like to change to public QuickNotes, but, while I don't have any issues with being in some randomized messages, I honestly feel uncomfortable seeing my name as part of the sexual ones. So having a yes/no randomizer setting thing would be nice because while people can freely write/have whatever messages they want, individuals could also choose whether or not they wanted to take a chance that their name could be part of such messages.

Post 16 by The Elemental Dragon (queen of dragons) on Friday, 09-May-2008 22:44:33

You might be comfortable with some of them, but uncomfortable with the others, but that is why it is the randomizer, either we have it or we don't at all. You can't block what extra text people type then put someone in. it is just hapenstance. Frankly I'm not too keen on this idea. the abality to pick a random person is all the fun. if you don't want to be in it, honestly I say too bad. it's not like the person can choose who they want to use.

Post 17 by Twinklestar09 (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Saturday, 10-May-2008 1:02:15

Oh I didn't mean like us getting to choose which messages we could/wanted to be randomized on,; I wouldn't expect the ability to choose what specific messages I would/wouldn't want to be randomized for. I meant more like being able to choose having/not having my name randomized at all, regardless of the message/user. I was just giving my personal example on why having the randomizer option suggested in the 1st post would be a good idea. *smile*

Post 18 by The Elemental Dragon (queen of dragons) on Saturday, 10-May-2008 18:58:50

oh, sorry. I saw myself when I came on here two years ago in something like that, but didn't think much about it. I think it goes with the type of person and if you're offended easily. but that is just me.

Post 19 by Twinklestar09 (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Sunday, 11-May-2008 9:44:55

No problem. *smile* I'm sorry too actually; I noticed when I reread my first post, that I didn't say in Post 17 what I should've said in Post 15. Yeah, that's really part of why I just don't use Public QN-ing, so I won't see or know if my name comes up randomly in situations that are offensive to me. My thinking was that since I agree that people do have a right to say whatever they want on their messages, that the randomizer setting would be good for people who would just rather not be part of having their names randomized could choose to do that. For me, I rarely go on Public QN's anyway, so that's working fine for me, but I think it would be especially good for those who are/want to be on Publics more. Just my opinion. *smile*

Post 20 by Striker (Consider your self warned, i'm creative and offensive like handicap porn.) on Sunday, 01-Jun-2008 23:51:49

I like this idea but I think that if you decide to turn off your name being able to be randomized I think that if you are premium you should not be able to randomize... because just watch, people will chicken out on the randimizing and get pissed when they can't randomize the people they want.
Even though that last sentance is a little unrelated, I think if you are going to use the feature you should have it available to use you...

Post 21 by laced-unlaced (Account disabled) on Tuesday, 03-Jun-2008 3:43:56

another good idea, i don't see the point in using the randomiser, if everyone chickens outm, it would be pointless. i think perhaps, if we implimented that feature, that may happen. not sure. hmmm

Post 22 by changedheart421 (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Tuesday, 03-Jun-2008 7:32:29

I definitely am against this feature so am in agreeing with we need to have a choice.

Post 23 by admin (I just keep on posting!) on Thursday, 19-Jun-2008 21:56:13

This is now available under account settings.

Post 24 by Striker (Consider your self warned, i'm creative and offensive like handicap porn.) on Saturday, 21-Jun-2008 1:24:28

hmm, I still think that if you don't wish to be randomized you shouldn't be able to use %u %s %f %m %
a for any reason. you should be able to use all randomizer comands that don't affect any other user if y you arn't going to use it your self as this is a way of wimping out. like for example, you can't play the lotto and not put cash in.. I'm not sure if this all made total sense but yeh, just my take on it.
if you are going to use it, you must let it use you...

Post 25 by The Elemental Dragon (queen of dragons) on Saturday, 21-Jun-2008 8:38:35

Striker, makes perfect sense. mehh, I don't care either way.

Post 26 by Jage (Zone BBS, a decade of madness) on Sunday, 22-Jun-2008 1:23:09

Agreed, and it's now so. You must be in the randomizer to use it.

Post 27 by Striker (Consider your self warned, i'm creative and offensive like handicap porn.) on Sunday, 22-Jun-2008 22:42:52

cool, thanks

Post 28 by Fluffy Little Lion (Colonel) on Saturday, 02-Aug-2008 11:48:32

The randomiser rocks. If people don't want to be used in it, i think that is fine. However, I think most people would still let them selves be used in it.
PS: teach it more words.