The ability to sage is one that is used on many forum sites, typically in order to get your opinion out without unnecessarily bumping a thread.
When people find a spam thread (typically on main) they usually warn others not to respond (since apparently it needs to be said, which it actually does, surprisingly).
However, this bumps it back up to the top and causes more people to respond.
In order to tell/ warn other members about a thread without giving it more unnecessary attention.

An easy way to integrate saging posts would be to put "sage" in the name field, before your actual name. This would make it reletively easy to interpret code-wise, considering the script could simply search the first 4 characters of the [name] field for "sage", and would sage the post if the field were found.

This would also let other posters know that said posters are saging (see name field in OP). This way conversation can continue without bothering other threads, meaning bumps would happen less often to replace unnecessary threads.

It would be relatively simple to put into the code, and would allow people to keep more relevant threads near the top of the board.

Took two years/a year+ after finding out about permasaging for someone to make this suggestion. I'm for it.

That can be abused though, wouldn't it? If anyone can just sage a topic by typing it into the name spot.

>>3 It's not a permasage. I don't see how it'd be abused, there's bound to be at least one person who won't put sage in their name or email field or whatever.

>>3
Each sage would be per *post*. If people want to argue, it's a perfect solution so that no one has to see them bicker. It's hard to abuse something everyone can use.
We all know that mods aren't active ALL the time, which leads to all the user moderation here.
Besides, the site hasn't had a major update in a few months. Would be nice to add a new feature and expand.

I thought this wasn't suggested before because there was a problem with making it happen or something. But yeah I'm all for it.

I'm not quite grasping the concept

So uh, putting sage before your name would allow you to post without bumping, or is it just supposed to be a sign for people not to post, o_0''

>>7
Saging would allow you to post *without* bumping the thread. If someone sages, it can allow people to warn others not to reply to the thread, while not bumping it to the top to garner more attention.
For example, if I posted in the thread below this with a "sage" than my post would still be in that thread, but this thread would still be on top of the board.

I know what a permassage is, lol

I'm talking about your suggestion, I don't really get what you're trying to do by putting "sage" before your name :x

For a regular sage, you usually put sage in the name field or the email field or whatever. Black was just showing an example if we were to implement it.

>>9
A sage is on a post by post basis, while a permasage is for an entire thread.
For example, a permasaged thread means each post in that thread is forcibly saged.
I was suggesting we have the option to sage posts in a thread that hasn't been permasaged yet (or isn't).

I was suggesting that (since we don't have any other field than a name field) that we could sage by putting "sage" (w/o quotes) before the name. The script would check if the first 4 characters in the name field would be "sage", and then sage the post if it found the correct query.

Copy/ paste definition:

Within the context of text and image forums, "sage" or "saging" is the act of adding commentary that will not renew a thread's position within the forum.

This is done for one of two reasons:
-As a generosity to other posters - a long living but moot thread is not of aid to anyone, and this acts as a discrete manner to add complementary information.
-Exclusively as a harsh statement of reprisal - feeling that the content is inappropriate or that the manner of the poster is unsuitable.

oh I see

okay okay you have my support \o/

Totally support this.

Didn't Enni make this suggestion a while back?

Well, whatever... GO TEAM. I'm for this as well.

So, then, they don't want to bump the topic up, they put that in their name and it only works one time per post in the sense you have to keep putting Sage in your name? I'm liking it now.

>>16
Correct. It only works on a post by post basis, if you put "sage" (w/o quotes) in the name field. (Because it's the only field we have, let's face it).

>>17 Can always put in another field.

>>18
We only have the name field.
Usually sage is done in the email field, but this idea makes due without that.
By 'field' I mean a place to input information when responding to a post by hitting "new reply." The name field is the only one that this site has, although if we could make more fields that would be wonderful.

You made me want to facepalm myself. I meant we could ask Reltair if adding another field would be possible for this thing.

>>20
It would certainly be a nice addition, since the site hasn't updated in some time.

Read the entire thread, and I fully support the idea. Has anyone contacted Reltair about the idea yet?

On top of this pretty idea that's flowing, if a certain number of people "sage" it, let's say 15, then thread thread will be saged and the mods won't have to do it.

That'd be a cool feature, but that might not happen before the mods get here to do it themselves. I like this suggestion though. I also get tired of people bumping up a crapthread just to tell people to not reply to it.

>>23

The idea is it sages when 1 post does it. Not a permasage, and I don't think it needs to EVER permasage itself even if 100 people do it. That is a job alone the mods should handle.

>>23
We'll leave it to the mods to permasage threads. They're usually pretty quick about it.
Besides, if someone were to say "I don't like this thread, let's permasage it" and use 15 different names (or IP's, based by proxy) then that person could permasage threads all by themselves.

>>25
For example, GHF would have long since pemasaged all of Barabi's topics/topics she posted in if it was like that.

>>26
Exactly. Should just stay a post-by-post sage, and leave the permasaging to the mods.

I'm for this idea, the current system makes it easy for trolls.

>>27 Out of curiosity did you get that tripcode through trial and error or did you use some other method?

>>28 It's a secret method beneath the boiling surface of earth...

>>28
It's using tripcode explorer. If you're lazy, I can get you a specific trip.
Follow the link and guide in >>49 for this thread:
http://dollars-bbs.org/test/res/1342074913.html#49

Either way, seems no one's objecting to the sage idea so far.

I definitely approve of this idea :O It would be really useful.

This is actually a really great idea. +1

I feel I need to clarify this, simply so this won't be an issue later. Some of you already know this, some of you don't.

Saging isn't a new idea, merely an idea that I thought would be helpful if integrated into the BBS. It is not my idea, we would be simply using something that is already in place elsewhere.

Still, no one has objected so far, so I'm emailing admin to see.
Let's see where this goes.

I'd laugh if anyone thought this was a new idea. It's on most imageboards and BBS', lol.

>>34
Keep in mind the age thread.
Some users probably didn't even know about it. That statement was only to avoid later drama.

>>33
Obviously. I mean it's a great idea to implement it on this board.

Alright, here's an update:
It's being looked into, but we're not sure when it'll be implemented.
In short, it's on the way, but undetermined as to when.

>>37 Sweet.This makes me happy.

Confused, -_- So if I put "sage" next to my name it wouldn't allow people to bump it up?

>>39 No, if you put "sage" next to your name, your post won't bump it. Your next post, and anyone elses post can still bump it if they choose not to put "sage" next to their name.

>>39
It's a fairly simple concept, but emphasizing what >>40 said, it's only for each poster's post with 'sage' in it.
EXAMPLE
/Thread:
>>1
blah blah blah (Can't bump a thread that was just created, the first poster is always irrelevant as to if they put sage or not, it doesn't matter because it's the creation of a new thread)
>>2
This doesn't need to be on main (uses sage, thread does not bump)
>>3
Fuck your sage! (doesn't use sage, thread bumps)
>>4
You're a moron. There's a specific board for these kinds of topics, take it there. (sages, thread does not bump)
>>5
Fine. I'll take it to (INSERT BOARD HERE). (Sages, thread does not bump)

I vote yes for this idea.

Want this...

So, anyone taking this to the Reltair?

>>44
Read >>37, it's already been sent. He said he's working on it and that it shouldn't be that hard, but everyone's been busy with school and jobs and such.
But yes, it's on the way.

normally you'd type sage in the email field right? Why don't we have that btw?

>>46 Because the Admin Relatair wanted to make it easy for everyone to join the site, thus, no e-mail field.

*Reltair.

>>48 I can tell you've never used an imageboard before. You can still post with an email field.

>>49
I can tell you one thing.
This isn't an imageboard, it's a forum. Hence we don't have more than a name field. It was discussed earlier ITT about implementing another field, but right now the focus is on saging.

IIRC, earlier in the year or so, tsubaki was arguing that this site is not a forum, but a BBS, saying that a forum requires registration and all that jazz. And now we have someone saying that this site is a forum? Oh man, all that irony. Gives me so much iron.

Anyways, the actual term is "textboard", since it's based on 2ch, and 2ch is a textboard.

Oh, and I said imageboard because lots of members are pushing for images on all threads.

>>52
Ah, so that's why.
(Although a lot of users still make threads with little description or pictures none the less...)
But, as you said, it's probably closer to a textboard or BBS.
Point is, we still only have one field. Perhaps at a later time we'll implement another. (Guess we'll see after the saging option gets put in)

Bump for the sage.

Bump over saged

BUUUUUMP!

bumpity bump bump

>>57 Please don't bump threads unless they're off the page or underneath a permasaged thread.

Finally got around to looking at this tonight.

Currently added to the Test board is the ability to sage your replies by ticking off a checkbox. The only difference between a saged reply and a normal reply is that it doesn't bump the thread to the top.

I'll add it to the other boards later after I do some more testing since it was a fairly quick implementation (kareha already had some existing code to support it).

Just used it on the Test board on my thread, and it worked perfectly. I look forward to seeing the SageSystem used throughout the site.

Works perfectly.
Let's hope that it's not abused, although I doubt it will become a problem, seeing as though others can simply bump it anyways.

Grats on having this implemented

and ty Reltair

^_^

Bueno.

>>47 Old post, but must fix.

; thus,*

Use a semicolon before words such as thus and otherwise when juxtaposing two sentences, people.

I like this.

Okay, since there is now a sage option anytime you make a post it was obviously successful. We may now stop commenting on this thread.

Thanks for your effort, Black.

>>67
Actually this thread can also be used to tell people if any fuck-ups happen via the Sage function. So I don't think people need to just stop posting altogether in here.

Just a reminder:

The sage function is not an excuse to act like an asshat without repercussion. If someone misplaces a thread, makes an irrelevant post, or something similar and you wish to micro-manage and call them out on it, the very least you could do is fucking explain your intentions instead of resorting to the same sort of baseless flaming and irrelevance that we needed moderators to clean up to begin with.

It isn't doing jack shit for the site no matter how wrong the offending party is. In fact, you'd be baiting more people to stir more bullshit - people who don't know how the sage function quite works. So ironically, shitposting before a thread is permasaged and dealt with is adding to the problem!
See: every thread that a site organization argument happened on without anyone actually pointing out the problem.

To give an example, if someone makes an anime thread on main, your post in response should include something along the lines of "your post belongs in the animation board" or at the very least "you need to read the FAQ." If the only message it contains is "ur a piece of shit" then you're a massive faggot.

>>69 this

guys it's okay to be nice sometimes \o/
it's healthy, it really is

>>69
While I could point out the hypocrisy in trying to get others to be nicer by being incredibly rude (i.e.- calling someone a massive faggot, asshat, cursing, ext.), this has more to do with other member's attitudes rather than the sage function itself.
In which case, you already know which thread would be more relevant:
http://dollars-bbs.org/suggestions/res/1321824143.html

>>71 uh I'm not sure if you've noticed but that thread's been closed for a looong time now.

>>72
(For good reason, so we don't keep going over this over and over again)

My post was primarily about the abuse of the sage function, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to debunk my entire argument in the most asinine way possible. It's exactly that sort of strawman argument that I've been seeing a shitload of lately around the boards and it's frankly making me sick.

I'm wondering if you even read my post? This is a common theme I'm seeing nowadays around the site - people who fancy themselves mini-moderators don't even bother with diplomacy, they just mechanically post an indisputable diagnosis for a perceived problem. And to be blunt, I'm insulted you would throw that shit my way when I was trying to make a legitimate point.

I'm not even going to embellish on my previous point, because you didn't say anything on topic in your response.

>>74
I don't think you understand my intentions.
For the most part, I agree with >>69.
It's been a problem for quite some time that people just baselessly flame others for such a small error as making an irrelevant thread, without giving proper saying as to why it's irrelevant.
I agree that it is indeed a problem that this kind of abusive attitude (or "baiting" as you referred to it) continues.

What I disagree on is that this is focused on the Sage function, hence my response.
From my point of view, it seems more focused on people responding to such irrelevant threads without explanation more than using the sage feature to do so, and I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged that instead of saying I'm "throwing shit" at you.

Now, about the whole "not explaining as to why ____ is irrelevant"

This isn't anything new at all.
For example, people have been Spidermanning even before the sage feature. What happened was someone would bump it, and then more people were more likely to see it, resulting in it continuing to propagate. When people saw others doing it, they were encouraged to jump on the bandwagon, riding it all the way into internet drama-ville.

However, the sage feature allows people to do these things to threads without bumping them. While I would argue about how this stops a fair amount of users from seeing said comments and jumping on the previously mentioned bandwagon, it hasn't been around long enough to say for certain whether or not it's cutting down on such postings or actually increasing them, since we have no considerable amount of examples over a respectable amount of time. (I'm certain there's a run on in there somewhere, but there's other things to address)

The next step would be simply to cut down on what's left of said posting, which you're obviously trying to do in >>69.
Again, I simply disagree with the way you're trying to do it. While you're encouraging others to give explanation and reason, you're doing it in such a way that can be viewed as offensive.
From my perspective, it's these kinds of aggressive attitudes that are causing these problems, and it seems unlikely that more of it will solve anything.
Hence why I referred to the other thread.
Hence why I said it had more to do with poster's attitudes than the sage feature.

I would appreciate it if you would try to see this from my point of view and stop with the aggressiveness, however, that's entirely up to you.

I kind of have a function to toss into this "SAGING" option. Even though it's already created, we have a hard time knowing who sages, and who bumps it after they sage, thus you kind of get pissed at the person above the last poster, as well as the last poster themselves.

Thus I feel the background GREY for posts should be a few shades lighter for all who sage posts. Which I feel is very much possible. This way each "post" that was saged, can easily be shown that they were saged. Also gives us an idea of who all sages them when needed.

>>76 or just add something to the row with all your info

>>78

Coding wise it's a lot easier to have 1 post a different shade, than to give people "information" on who saged it, I think.


Plus it's visually better looking on the eyes.

>>79 why do i get the feeling you dont get what i meant. Im talking about where the top row saying post #, name& trip,date, time, n id, if its a saged post just put the word "saged" there or something alongside all that. Im sure yours would be just as simple if not simpler, but im just throwing another option out there.

But why inform others who sages in either case? The only 'problem' we currently have is people yelling at others for not saging, which will happen regardless of whether or not we know who sages and when.

People aren't obligated to sage because it's a balanced system. If someone disagrees that a thread should be saged, they can simply undo the sage's work by bumping the thread. Over time, this will become less and less accidental and more on purpose. Either way, there will always be people who can bump, regardless of whether or not the sage is visible.

Any amount of others being "pissed off" at people who bump can be solved with self control, and is up to the user whether or not to say "WHY DID YOU BUMP THIS FAGGOT" instead of referring them to use the sage feature. In fact, more people would likely use the sage feature if they knew how it works and how to use it. Simply make a copy/ paste and put it at the end of posts that are appropriate.

Focusing again on the whole "make sage visible" idea:
It's acknowledged that people have been upset over others bumping threads in the past, this we know. However, making the sage visible will only provide both sides with fury instead of just one. Individual members will instead be called out from NOT using the sage, and the OP will be insulted considering people consider his/ her thread to not even be relevant (of course, people have said this bluntly in the past, but this would be more the cherry on the cake, so to speak).

Making a visible sage wouldn't get rid of such comments, only focus them and possibly add even more to the problem. Personally I think it would be better to just keep the sage invisible, that way people don't have a focus for their anger and it dies down quicker. Any small disputes can be solved by going in said threads and simply trying to cool others down.

It's going to take time for people to learn the sage system, regardless.

Bumping good shit up, and the stupid shit down.