"Users browsing this topic" feature?

[A mean old man]

Why not?

[Lackadaisical2]

why?

[Dorfinhiem]

why?

Why not?

Well this went far.

I'd enjoy the idea, personally.

[Compass Quest]

No, it sounds stalkerish.

[A mean old man]

stalkerish = good!

[Picklepoo]

Id rather see whos browsing the topic im on then to see the whole forum.

[Euroslavia]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

[Andrewboy]

i like the idea, it gives you an idea of who popular the topic is.

[Flibbleites]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

[Blitzkrenia]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

But wouldn't that eliminate the paranoia effect created by not specifying the threads the mods are viewing?

[Arumdaum]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

But wouldn't that eliminate the paranoia effect created by not specifying the threads the mods are viewing?

It says that I'm the only one browsing this forum!

Time to break the rules.....

[Khornate Worshippers]

Do you mean one that says exactly which users are browsing it, or just the number and type?

[Lackadaisical2]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

Don't the mods often times use a... erm... "stalker" mode, int hat they can be logged on, and not appear to be.

[Flibbleites]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

But wouldn't that eliminate the paranoia effect created by not specifying the threads the mods are viewing?

We have the option of going invisible, so just because there isn't a mod listed, there still could be one watching.

[Kalibarr]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

But wouldn't that eliminate the paranoia effect created by not specifying the threads the mods are viewing?

We have the option of going invisible, so just because there isn't a mod listed, there still could be one watching.

doesn't it defeat the point if only mods can go invisible I mean if it says someone invisible you know it's a mod

[Topid]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

But wouldn't that eliminate the paranoia effect created by not specifying the threads the mods are viewing?

We have the option of going invisible, so just because there isn't a mod listed, there still could be one watching.

doesn't it defeat the point if only mods can go invisible I mean if it says someone invisible you know it's a mod

This is true. I've always thought everyone could be hidden.

[Euroslavia]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

But wouldn't that eliminate the paranoia effect created by not specifying the threads the mods are viewing?

We have the option of going invisible, so just because there isn't a mod listed, there still could be one watching.

doesn't it defeat the point if only mods can go invisible I mean if it says someone invisible you know it's a mod

I'm not getting your point. If a moderator is invisible, you won't have any clue or notice that says they're actually invisible. There's nothing that literally says "Someone is invisible".

[Kalibarr]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

But wouldn't that eliminate the paranoia effect created by not specifying the threads the mods are viewing?

We have the option of going invisible, so just because there isn't a mod listed, there still could be one watching.

doesn't it defeat the point if only mods can go invisible I mean if it says someone invisible you know it's a mod

I'm not getting your point. If a moderator is invisible, you won't have any clue or notice that says they're actually invisible. There's nothing that literally says "Someone is invisible".

on the index page it lists how many hidden users there are

[Newmanistan]

I miss this greatly from the jolt forum.

This would be extremely useful in the sports forum. Yes, the sports forum.

Us sports RPers are given a score and then RP the game, which can take about 15-20 minutes if you put alot of effort into it. Customarily, the first RPer gtets to say how the game went. Let's say me and (picking another sports RPer who frequents other forums) Bears Armed had a big game. He and I both like to RP at length.

The score is posted. I log on and see "Bears Armed" as viewing the forum. So I'm thinking well... he may be RP'ing the match, I am going to wait. On the jolt forum I could click on Bears Armed's name and see "replying to World Cup 49 RP thread)". Assuming that World Cup 49 is the sport in question, I know now to wait. If I see he is "replying to some other thread", then I can start my RP first. Most of you don't know the agony of spending 20 minutes on a sports RP only to see that your opponent RP'd the game 5 minutes before you did (while you were replying), and now you have to change up your RP to match. (as is etiquette, some people will just leave their RP there).

There is actually not something that I miss more from jolt then this very feature. Think about the sports people!

[Euroslavia]

I can see it both ways. If it were enabled, we can see if another moderator is viewing a certain topic and can more accurately determine whether to act on something or not (concerning mod collisions and such). On the other hand, I prefer *some* sort of privacy when it comes to what I'm looking at.

Either way though, I'm okay with.

Not to mention that if someone sees that a mod is currently viewing the topic they're in, they might be less inclined to break the rules.

But wouldn't that eliminate the paranoia effect created by not specifying the threads the mods are viewing?

We have the option of going invisible, so just because there isn't a mod listed, there still could be one watching.

doesn't it defeat the point if only mods can go invisible I mean if it says someone invisible you know it's a mod

I'm not getting your point. If a moderator is invisible, you won't have any clue or notice that says they're actually invisible. There's nothing that literally says "Someone is invisible".

on the index page it lists how many hidden users there are

Ah, good point. I suppose I never noticed that before.

[Czardas]

on the index page it lists how many hidden users there are

Yes, but only on the index page. Presumably, if a "users browsing this topic" feature is introduced, it'll just list regular users.

[[violet]]

The score is posted. I log on and see "Bears Armed" as viewing the forum. So I'm thinking well... he may be RP'ing the match, I am going to wait. On the jolt forum I could click on Bears Armed's name and see "replying to World Cup 49 RP thread)". Assuming that World Cup 49 is the sport in question, I know now to wait. If I see he is "replying to some other thread", then I can start my RP first. Most of you don't know the agony of spending 20 minutes on a sports RP only to see that your opponent RP'd the game 5 minutes before you did (while you were replying), and now you have to change up your RP to match.

Okay, you got me. I've modified the "Who is online" list (available by clicking "WHO IS ONLINE" near the bottom of the index page) to describe the particular topics people are reading or replying to.

The "Users browsing this forum" thing at the bottom of each page remains the same -- i.e. I haven't changed it to be topic-specific.

[A mean old man]

Hey, that's neat! Thanks.

EDIT: A bit of a late response to this. Meh, only 6 days.

[Bluth Corporation]

I miss this greatly from the jolt forum.

This would be extremely useful in the sports forum. Yes, the sports forum.

Us sports RPers are given a score and then RP the game, which can take about 15-20 minutes if you put alot of effort into it.

Or...much, much, longer.