This is an off topic so I'll just leave it here

For FS, keep this childish behavior in PMs and don't bother the rest of us with your drama. We have mods to kick the leechers out!

 

Rules are rules and finally @george should decide what's okay and what's not. Despite of this I don't think insulting someone does improve the atmosphere in this community. That's also a rule: "6. Be nice and polite. Respect others and you will be respected.". Nor does a public thread help of course.

I as well as @Nikon4life I don't see exactly where a rule was broken. There is no rule telling only to give likes to unlock a hidden link.

 

At least this forum isn't for building bombs; nor is it for curing cancer . . . (or SarsCOV-19; on a more pressing topic) . . .

 

Say what?

 

So to "acknowledge" a post or whatever should one reply saying thanks instead? Look I know this is a double edged sword for you guys but unless you can change the forum software in the backend to it only registering likes for posts with hidden links then I feel you guys are just creating more headaches for yourselves.

 

This is relatively fair but I do foresee potential issues in the sense of those willing to mirror; s/he will get the "like" (1 of 20) - but one should, as courtesy, and rightfully so - provide a "Like" to the OP too [so in effect one is using 2 /20 "likes" for a mirrored post].

On a server level - I imagine this would ease any potential load as new membership increases, esp as the forum is currently open to new members. This would certainly have an impact on ones choices; sorta like going from digital to film - right? Choose your compositions and subject matter carefully . . .

 

I agree - it would eradicate any ambiguity relative to those rules [not] defining a "fake" like; I assumed this was in the context of creating a duplicate account and thus ping-ponging likes back and forth between the two (but same) owner; thus the "fakeiness".

I'm not a coder, but my memory of Boolean logic should easily only allow a certain number of likes from a certain party member specific to a target account (i.e. between two specific accounts; relative to the time the member originally joined); there are algorithms that can be hashed out - - -

This would additionally serve to foster fairness for all and quench the flames of ad-hominem remarks that are so easily made behind a pseudo-mask of anonymity . . .