[pinkgothic]

I have no issue with the matter, myself, but honestly it distresses me a bit tabacco is so quick dismissing this. Having run several boards myself, I can understand the bother it is to change the code manually, paticularily if it's now self-written code, but this is serious concern in my opinion - and I fully support those who would like it changed, even if it makes no difference to me, personally.

As said, "private" implies privacy. Perhaps it would be better to at least make a global announcement or something explaining this loophole, so people are made aware of this.

Sorry mods. Y'all do an excellent job and I really don't want to dampen anyone's opinion on that, but I do think this should be looked into, and not just dismissed as "too much work". Don't hurt me.

Edit: I can confirm that it's not an isolated phenomenom, by the way.

Edit 2: It's also in profiles, though that's less of a problem since it does mean you have to click on the person's name first.

[tabacco]

pinkgothic, I'm fully aware of it. I don't see it as a problem, and honestly I believe that if you were serious about your privacy you wouldn't be communicating via a forum mechanism anyway. Please don't assume that I don't take your privacy seriously.

[Jake]

As has been said before, if you don't like it, set yourself to invisible. Did I miss something earlier explaining why that wasn't an okay solution? ... I probably did.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Who's Online is pretty cool for checking on what everyone's doing at a given moment. Anybody notice that members tend to be reading mainly current threads, while Guests delve into the archives a lot more? I've found a lot of interesting old threads by stalking Guests around

Haha, whoa I hadn't really noticed that. Why would anyone be looking at this thread? Weird. Lost Googlers I guess.

[Sage]

Apparently I touched a nerve with my original post. I'm astonished that this thread went past one or two replies.
While I appreciate the support of my position on this topic, I am also aware that this is a privately-owned forum that is most graciously open to the public, should the public decide to become members.
By accepting membership, we agree to play the game by the rules set down by the owner of the forum.
My original complaint/question was addressed and answered in no uncertain terms, and I have no wish to further antagonize the moderators of this forum, tabacco in particular.
No forum is perfect to everyone in every way, but this forum more closely approaches that status than any other I've seen, and if my original complaint is the worst I can come up with, then I hardly have reason to complain at all.
For this reason, I must ask that this thread be closed.

Thank you,
Thrift Store Scott

[tabacco]

Originally Posted by Thrift Store Scott

Apparently I touched a nerve with my original post. I'm astonished that this thread went past one or two replies.
While I appreciate the support of my position on this topic, I am also aware that this is a privately-owned forum that is most graciously open to the public, should the public decide to become members.
By accepting membership, we agree to play the game by the rules set down by the owner of the forum.
My original complaint/question was addressed and answered in no uncertain terms, and I have no wish to further antagonize the moderators of this forum, tabacco in particular.
No forum is perfect to everyone in every way, but this forum more closely approaches that status than any other I've seen, and if my original complaint is the worst I can come up with, then I hardly have reason to complain at all.
For this reason, I must ask that this thread be closed.

Thank you,
Thrift Store Scott

Thanks, Scott, and I agree. I'll close this thread.

[fov]

I don't really think it needs to be closed, but since you asked, I'll do it.

EDIT: Ack! Doug beat me to it! Damn you!!