What Would You Like To See?

[Arnox]

Regex is always such fun!

I can't claim much credit for this as I found most of it on the internet, but here are two possible solutions;

#1 Changing the Regex to

// Remove any nested quotes, if necessary.
         if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
            $form_message = preg_replace('~\G(?!\A)(?>(\)|(?<!\[)(?>[^[]+|\[(?!/?quote))+\K)|\[quote\b[^]]*]\K~', '', $form_message);

For more information see the accepted answer on this page;
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18754062/remove-nested-quotes/18754616


#2 Creating a Parser function which can be told to easily remove quotes up to a set level

// Function to remove nested BB Code starting at a certain level
function removeNestedBBCode( $text , $pattern , $level )
{
	preg_match_all( $pattern , $text, $matches, PREG_OFFSET_CAPTURE);
	$nestlevel = 0;
	$cutfrom = 0;
	$cut = false;
	$removed = 0;
	foreach($matches[0] as $quote){
		if (substr($quote[0], 0, 2) == '[q') $nestlevel++;
		if (substr($quote[0], 0, 2) == '[/') $nestlevel--;
		if (!$cut && $nestlevel == $level){ // we reached the first nested quote, start remove here
			$cut = true;
			$cutfrom = $quote[1];
		}
		if ($cut && $nestlevel == ($level - 1 ) ){ // we closed the nested quote, stop remove here
			$cut = false;
			$text = substr_replace( $text , '' , $cutfrom - $removed , ($quote[1]+8) - $cutfrom );
			$removed += ($quote[1]+8) - $cutfrom;
		}
	};
	return $text;
}

// Remove any nested quotes, if necessary.
         if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
            $form_message = removeNestedBBCode( $form_message, '#(\[quote[^]]*\]|\[\/quote\])#' , 2 );

The 2 at the end on the very last line is the nesting level for quotes.
This is based on the third answer found on this page, although it took some editing to actually get it to work;
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18754062/remove-nested-quotes/18754616


If you want to play around with both of these solutions then you can go to https://dev.luckymouse.nl/testMatch.php and play around with them, this could be helpful if you want to determine the nesting level to use, if you were to pick option #2.

You'll always end up with some degree of a mess where quotes are removed from a post but the text surrounding them stays, though.

I tried both of these and none of them seemed to work. Always just quoted the post and cut all the other quotes out as it did before.

Maybe that's not where the actual quote-cutting code is...

 

[bluegate]

I tried both of these and none of them seemed to work. Always just quoted the post and cut all the other quotes out as it did before.

Maybe that's not where the actual quote-cutting code is...

I took the liberty of installing a copy of SMF 2.0.15 on a private server and had a look at the source for Post.php.

It appears that the software handles the quote-cutting for Quick Replies and Post Reply Pages separately and not unified under one function, and going by the snippet that you provided, you were editing the part of the file that is used when going to the separate Reply page, rather than using Quick Reply.

My suggestions, based on previous posts, would be;
In /Sources/Post.php

On line 860:

// Remove any nested quotes, if necessary.
if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
	$form_message = preg_replace(array('~\n?\[quote.*?\].+?\[/quote\]\n?~is', '~^\n~', '~\[/quote\]~'), '', $form_message);

Replace With:

// Remove any nested quotes, if necessary.
if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
	$form_message = cut_quotes( $form_message );

On Line 2604:

// Remove any nested quotes.
if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
	$row['body'] = preg_replace(array('~\n?\[quote.*?\].+?\[/quote\]\n?~is', '~^\n~', '~\[/quote\]~'), '', $row['body']);

Replace With:

// Remove any nested quotes.
if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
	$row['body'] = cut_quotes($row['body']);

This will, at least, centralize the quote cutting into one function, cut_quotes.
Now, depending on which solution you want to use you can add different code at the end of the file.

SMF Default

Spoiler

function cut_quotes( $text )
{
	return preg_replace(array('~\n?\[quote.*?\].+?\[/quote\]\n?~is', '~^\n~', '~\[/quote\]~'), '', $text);
}

Updated Regex mentioned in my post

Spoiler

function cut_quotes( $text )
{
	return preg_replace('~\G(?!\A)(?>(\)|(?<!\[)(?>[^[]+|\[(?!/?quote))+\K)|\[quote\b[^]]*]\K~', '', $text);
}

Parser Function mentioned in my post

Spoiler

function cut_quotes( $text )
{
	$quoteLevelToCut = 2;	// Separate Variable just to make it easier to read.
	return removeNestedBBCode( $text , '#(\[quote[^]]*\]|\[\/quote\])#' , $quoteLevelToCut );
}
function removeNestedBBCode( $text , $pattern , $level )
{
	preg_match_all( $pattern , $text, $matches, PREG_OFFSET_CAPTURE);
	$nestlevel = 0;
	$cutfrom = 0;
	$cut = false;
	$removed = 0;
	foreach($matches[0] as $quote){
		if (substr($quote[0], 0, 2) == '[q') $nestlevel++;
		if (substr($quote[0], 0, 2) == '[/') $nestlevel--;
		if (!$cut && $nestlevel == $level){ // we reached the first nested quote, start remove here
			$cut = true;
			$cutfrom = $quote[1];
		}
		if ($cut && $nestlevel == ($level - 1 ) ){ // we closed the nested quote, stop remove here
			$cut = false;
			$text = substr_replace( $text , '' , $cutfrom - $removed , ($quote[1]+8) - $cutfrom );
			$removed += ($quote[1]+8) - $cutfrom;
		}
	};
	return $text;
}

Edit: annoying how code blocks are condensed to have a height of 20px... They look nice and dandy in the preview

 

[Arnox]

I took the liberty of installing a copy of SMF 2.0.15 on a private server and had a look at the source for Post.php.

It appears that the software handles the quote-cutting for Quick Replies and Post Reply Pages separately and not unified under one function, and going by the snippet that you provided, you were editing the part of the file that is used when going to the separate Reply page, rather than using Quick Reply.

My suggestions, based on previous posts, would be;
In /Sources/Post.php

On line 860:

// Remove any nested quotes, if necessary.
if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
	$form_message = preg_replace(array('~\n?\[quote.*?\].+?\[/quote\]\n?~is', '~^\n~', '~\[/quote\]~'), '', $form_message);

Replace With:

// Remove any nested quotes, if necessary.
if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
	$form_message = cut_quotes( $form_message );

On Line 2604:

// Remove any nested quotes.
if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
	$row['body'] = preg_replace(array('~\n?\[quote.*?\].+?\[/quote\]\n?~is', '~^\n~', '~\[/quote\]~'), '', $row['body']);

Replace With:

// Remove any nested quotes.
if (!empty($modSettings['removeNestedQuotes']))
	$row['body'] = cut_quotes($row['body']);

This will, at least, centralize the quote cutting into one function, cut_quotes.
Now, depending on which solution you want to use you can add different code at the end of the file.

SMF Default

Spoiler

function cut_quotes( $text )
{
	return preg_replace(array('~\n?\[quote.*?\].+?\[/quote\]\n?~is', '~^\n~', '~\[/quote\]~'), '', $text);
}

Updated Regex mentioned in my post

Spoiler

function cut_quotes( $text )
{
	return preg_replace('~\G(?!\A)(?>(\)|(?<!\[)(?>[^[]+|\[(?!/?quote))+\K)|\[quote\b[^]]*]\K~', '', $text);
}

Parser Function mentioned in my post

Spoiler

function cut_quotes( $text )
{
	$quoteLevelToCut = 2;	// Separate Variable just to make it easier to read.
	return removeNestedBBCode( $text , '#(\[quote[^]]*\]|\[\/quote\])#' , $quoteLevelToCut );
}
function removeNestedBBCode( $text , $pattern , $level )
{
	preg_match_all( $pattern , $text, $matches, PREG_OFFSET_CAPTURE);
	$nestlevel = 0;
	$cutfrom = 0;
	$cut = false;
	$removed = 0;
	foreach($matches[0] as $quote){
		if (substr($quote[0], 0, 2) == '[q') $nestlevel++;
		if (substr($quote[0], 0, 2) == '[/') $nestlevel--;
		if (!$cut && $nestlevel == $level){ // we reached the first nested quote, start remove here
			$cut = true;
			$cutfrom = $quote[1];
		}
		if ($cut && $nestlevel == ($level - 1 ) ){ // we closed the nested quote, stop remove here
			$cut = false;
			$text = substr_replace( $text , '' , $cutfrom - $removed , ($quote[1]+8) - $cutfrom );
			$removed += ($quote[1]+8) - $cutfrom;
		}
	};
	return $text;
}

Edit: annoying how code blocks are condensed to have a height of 20px... They look nice and dandy in the preview

Done. Works now. :tup:

 

[bluegate]

Done. Works now. :tup:

Good to hear that it works!

( Yes, I cut out my rather large quote manually )

 

[bluegate]

I'm sorry this took so long. I kinda forgot you replied. lol

Concerning design: The width of the forum MAY be a pretty easy fix actually. What I'm worried about is that by constricting the width more, it's going to screw with the mobile layout of posts which is already pretty optimal. Now SMF DOES have a dedicated mobile mode, but the last time I dealt with it, it was kinda meh. And I hate mobile versions of sites too.

That shouldn't be too much of a problem, actually.

Most mobiles phones have a very limited effective width, ranging from 320px to around 800px depending on orientation, so if you were to add a "max-width: 1200px;" to div#wrapper in the site's style sheet, pretty much all phones would still have a full-width experience, but desktops would get a slimmed down version, which would in turn be a bit easier on the eyes.

Most tablets would also still display a full screen site, aside from some freakishly large ones when in landscape mode, for example the Ipad Pro 12.9" with its 1024x1366 resolution.

Talking about the Neutrality theme, which of these is an easier read?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Done. Works now. :tup:

Great!
So, which solution did you choose?
Can we quote 2-3 deep now?
With or without leftover text?

 

[Signa]

I'm already loving the fact I can collapse spoilers if I don't want them on the screen anymore.

 

[Arnox]

I'm sorry this took so long. I kinda forgot you replied. lol

Concerning design: The width of the forum MAY be a pretty easy fix actually. What I'm worried about is that by constricting the width more, it's going to screw with the mobile layout of posts which is already pretty optimal. Now SMF DOES have a dedicated mobile mode, but the last time I dealt with it, it was kinda meh. And I hate mobile versions of sites too.

That shouldn't be too much of a problem, actually.

Most mobiles phones have a very limited effective width, ranging from 320px to around 800px depending on orientation, so if you were to add a "max-width: 1200px;" to div#wrapper in the site's style sheet, pretty much all phones would still have a full-width experience, but desktops would get a slimmed down version, which would in turn be a bit easier on the eyes.

Most tablets would also still display a full screen site, aside from some freakishly large ones when in landscape mode, for example the Ipad Pro 12.9" with its 1024x1366 resolution.

Done. Actually I just realized, since I have a 1440x900 monitor, my max width for my system was already around ~1200, so I didn't see what the issue was. I'm dumb. lol

Done. Works now. :tup:

Great!
So, which solution did you choose?
Can we quote 2-3 deep now?
With or without leftover text?

It's a secret... o_o

And yes, you can quote 2 deep now. Don't know what you mean with the text though. It's gonna automatically have a max of two quotes.

I'm already loving the fact I can collapse spoilers if I don't want them on the screen anymore.

It's almost as if we built it to not be a piece of crap. :laugh:

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Great!
So, which solution did you choose?
Can we quote 2-3 deep now?
With or without leftover text?

It's a secret... o_o

And yes, you can quote 2 deep now. Don't know what you mean with the text though. It's gonna automatically have a max of two quotes.

2 deep and no leftover text (which would have been me quoting you saying 'Done. Works now. :thumbsup:).
Nice!

 

[bluegate]

I'm already loving the fact I can collapse spoilers if I don't want them on the screen anymore.

When browsing on the Escapist, this might be an interesting page for you.

/shameless self promotion

That shouldn't be too much of a problem, actually.

Most mobiles phones have a very limited effective width, ranging from 320px to around 800px depending on orientation, so if you were to add a "max-width: 1200px;" to div#wrapper in the site's style sheet, pretty much all phones would still have a full-width experience, but desktops would get a slimmed down version, which would in turn be a bit easier on the eyes.

Most tablets would also still display a full screen site, aside from some freakishly large ones when in landscape mode, for example the Ipad Pro 12.9" with its 1024x1366 resolution.

Done. Actually I just realized, since I have a 1440x900 monitor, my max width for my system was already around ~1200, so I didn't see what the issue was. I'm dumb. lol

Thanks! Reading posts has become a lot easier

 

[Guilion]

Sooooo, I already know that https is out of the question but can we at least be assured that the databases of the website are encrypted? (You know, just the databases, not the connection)

 

[Arnox]

Sooooo, I already know that https is out of the question but can we at least be assured that the databases of the website are encrypted? (You know, just the databases, not the connection)

HTTPS is NOT off the table, but it's being a real bitch because Cloudflare, the one providing the free certificates, has given us very bad documentation, among other things, and now me and my host are trying to puzzle over how exactly this has to work. I'll post an update when I have more to report.

 

[Guilion]

Sooooo, I already know that https is out of the question but can we at least be assured that the databases of the website are encrypted? (You know, just the databases, not the connection)

HTTPS is NOT off the table, but it's being a real bitch because Cloudflare, the one providing the free certificates, has given us very bad documentation, among other things, and now me and my host are trying to puzzle over how exactly this has to work. I'll post an update when I have more to report.

Oh wow, thanks a lot for taking my off-site suggestion into consideration. Be patient with cloudfare, they have always been a pain to deal with and very recently updated their TOS which, by the way, made them end relationships with various sites including ED and archive is.

 

[Silvanus]

Well, I'm definitely not going to suggest any rules like the infamous "don't be a jerk" rule on the last site, because it's quite clear that (for better or worse, hopefully for better) that's not the vibe of this place. That rule was far, far too vague and loosely-interpreted anyway, I think most posters agree.

But I would like to say that there's a reason the Wild West back at The Escapist was just left alone by quite a lot of the regulars elsewhere on the forum, and it wasn't because it was Pub-Club only. Half the time, the free reign would result in levity and free-wheelin' and all that jazz, and all was good. And the other half of the time, people would be using it to throw around unbridled aggression towards each other, and it was ugly and slightly awkward, and things had obviously just devolved into genuine anger and insult, slurs and personal shit.

This place is clearly not on the verge of that happening right now, because we're all in that honeymoon phase (long may it continue!), bolstered by our camaraderie at having escaped that sinking ship we all previously served aboard, where the captain was drunk and the below-deck guys who knew what they were doing had all been let go for no good reason.

...but I suppose what I would like to see is some indication that the same won't happen here. I want to be part of a community with the people from The Escapist, but with a semi-functional forum; I don't want to be part of another Wild West. So no tone policing is all fine and for the best, but if it ends up spiralling into recrimination and hate speech like that place did, then I'll be leaving, and the forum will be left with a very select audience.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

So no tone policing is all fine and for the best, but if it ends up spiralling into recrimination and hate speech like that place did, then I'll be leaving, and the forum will be left with a very select audience.

You would have to define this "hate speech" that supposedly occurred on the Escapist..
The only places you are likely to find actual, hateful, baseless, lesser than/exterminate, talk, is on places like stormfront (for "racial minorites"), 4chan (jokingly and and not, against everyone) and in SJW circles (against white males and non-conformers).
Criticism, critique and skepticism against things like unfiltered mass-immigration, Islamic teachings and Muslim cultural values, thought-policing and similar practices hollowing out and eroding Western Ideals are not "hate speech".
Ironically, your accusation is a form of tone-policing in actuality, wanting to implement certain unreasonable restrictions on speech.

 

[Arnox]

Ironically, your accusation is a form of tone-policing in actuality, wanting to implement certain unreasonable restrictions on speech.

Down, boy. Heel!

...but I suppose what I would like to see is some indication that the same won't happen here. I want to be part of a community with the people from The Escapist, but with a semi-functional forum; I don't want to be part of another Wild West. So no tone policing is all fine and for the best, but if it ends up spiralling into recrimination and hate speech like that place did, then I'll be leaving, and the forum will be left with a very select audience.

What you're asking for is kind of contradictory here. You don't want tone-policing, but at the same time, you don't seem to want any possibility of offensive threads and posts. Am I mistaken here?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Ironically, your accusation is a form of tone-policing in actuality, wanting to implement certain unreasonable restrictions on speech.

Down, boy. Heel!

My bad. It was not for me to reply as such in this specific thread.
My sincerest apologies to you.

 

[Arnox]

My bad. It was not for me to reply as such in this specific thread.
My sincerest apologies to you.

Don't worry. It was much more in a joking fashion. You're not breaking any rules at all. lol

 

[Houseman]

...but I suppose what I would like to see is some indication that the same won't happen here.

You know the joke(s) about the Catholic school-girl, who is so repressed that the moment she gets a hint of freedom, she goes absolutely kilter? That's how I feel the Escapist was. People were so tired of walking on eggshells, that the moment that they gained the ability to speak their mind, they erupted like a volcano.*

Since we have the freedom to speak our minds from the get-go, I don't think that same sort of pressure will build up here.

*Disclaimer: I never saw the inside of the Wild West

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

My bad. It was not for me to reply as such in this specific thread.
My sincerest apologies to you.

Don't worry. It was much more in a joking fashion. You're not breaking any rules at all. lol

Understood, Mistress! ,)

Though the apology remain, since my reply could be considered a slight derailing (into politics of all things!), and this IS really a thread for you to gather grievances and advice and reply how you will proceed forward.
Though I understand that you don't go for that sort of more formal and stiff air, right?

 

[Arnox]

Though the apology remain, since my reply could be considered a slight derailing (into politics of all things!), and this IS really a thread for you to gather grievances and advice and reply how you will proceed forward.
Though I understand that you don't go for that sort of more formal and stiff air, right?

As long as you're not breaking the rules, I don't care what ya' do. In this specific case, the conversation flow has not been interrupted. It has gone from one subject to the next naturally. It's somewhat off-topic, but that's OK because someone else can make a post and bring it back on topic should they wish.

 

[Silvanus]

You would have to define this "hate speech" that supposedly occurred on the Escapist..
The only places you are likely to find actual, hateful, baseless, lesser than/exterminate, talk, is on places like stormfront (for "racial minorites"), 4chan (jokingly and and not, against everyone) and in SJW circles (against white males and non-conformers).

Generally, as soon as somebody starts talking about "SJWs", I'm going to switch off. I'm not going to take it seriously. It's a political insult.

Criticism, critique and skepticism against things like unfiltered mass-immigration, Islamic teachings and Muslim cultural values, thought-policing and similar practices hollowing out and eroding Western Ideals are not "hate speech".

I didn't say they were. I didn't say I wanted to restrict discussion on any of those topics, ever.

Ironically, your accusation is a form of tone-policing in actuality, wanting to implement certain unreasonable restrictions on speech.

Look, I was just discussing something I felt had a pretty major negative impact on discussions in the Wild West. Something that made threads intensely unpleasant to be in, and I wouldn't want to see here. I did not even make any specific suggestions.

It doesn't bode well for the likelihood of us having a proper discussion about it if the default response is personal accusation and hostility.

You know the joke(s) about the Catholic school-girl, who is so repressed that the moment she gets a hint of freedom, she goes absolutely kilter? That's how I feel the Escapist was. People were so tired of walking on eggshells, that the moment that they gained the ability to speak their mind, they erupted like a volcano.*

Since we have the freedom to speak our minds from the get-go, I don't think that same sort of pressure will build up here.

Y'know, that's a possibility, yeah.

 

[Arnox]

Look, I was just discussing something I felt had a pretty major negative impact on discussions in the Wild West. Something that made threads intensely unpleasant to be in, and I wouldn't want to see here. I did not even make any specific suggestions.

It doesn't bode well for the likelihood of us having a proper discussion about it if the default response is personal accusation and hostility.

I will say that even though we probably have even looser rules than the WW, it's a damn ice cream social here, tonally speaking. I find it funny that we're all sipping tea and discussing the weather whereas you got people at each other's throats on the Escapist.

Now, could it happen here? Yeah, probably. But I think it's definitely gonna be much more contained. People will shout at each other in a thread and then they'll get tired and get over it. As is the natural course of things. On the Escapist, things just seem to fester because nobody can say what they feel.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

You would have to define this "hate speech" that supposedly occurred on the Escapist..
The only places you are likely to find actual, hateful, baseless, lesser than/exterminate, talk, is on places like stormfront (for "racial minorites"), 4chan (jokingly and and not, against everyone) and in SJW circles (against white males and non-conformers).

Generally, as soon as somebody starts talking about "SJWs", I'm going to switch off. I'm not going to take it seriously. It's a political insult.

If that is the only thing you took from that sentence and decided to "switch off", it doesn't exactly look like you embrace diverse thought, nor recognize the problem more and more people have with the extreme left.
It is of course your choice to live in a bubble, but people are also then free to call out your (and their) double-standards.
As well as face the outcome of denying political implications. (Trump).

Speaking of political insults, do you also decry the liberal (hah!) use of racist, sexist, misogynist, islamophobe, transphobe,etc,etc,etc,etc. against everyone not far left? or even far leftists that deviate slightly from the manifesto?
The outcome of that is that the word has lost all meaning, and can be applied to just about anyone you disagree with.
There is where your "hate speech" comes into effect and shuts down 'wrong-thinkers'.

Criticism, critique and skepticism against things like unfiltered mass-immigration, Islamic teachings and Muslim cultural values, thought-policing and similar practices hollowing out and eroding Western Ideals are not "hate speech".

I didn't say they were. I didn't say I wanted to restrict discussion on any of those topics, ever.

Then what do you mean by "hate speech"?
Please elaborate!

Ironically, your accusation is a form of tone-policing in actuality, wanting to implement certain unreasonable restrictions on speech.

Look, I was just discussing something I felt had a pretty major negative impact on discussions in the Wild West. Something that made threads intensely unpleasant to be in, and I wouldn't want to see here. I did not even make any specific suggestions.

It doesn't bode well for the likelihood of us having a proper discussion about it if the default response is personal accusation and hostility.

No, so called "hate speech" did not ruin discussions in the Wild West. It was without a doubt the most active place there.
Ok, there was a slight dip just before they closed it down but after the 'eruption', as Houseman fittingly described it, everyone just needed a breather.
"Hate speech" did ruin R&P though. Leaving it to those agreeing with OP and those 2-3 few opponents who had learned to walk the fine line of the CoC without incurring too much Mod wrath.
Even then, "hate speech" didn't stop people calling those few dissenters everything vile under the sun, with regards to nazi,racist,sexist...etc,etc..the whole spiel again.

Ok..We've said our piece. I'll leave you your final reply if you wish but lets not derail this thread too much.
You can make a separate thread if you want to continue this.

 

[Silvanus]

I will say that even though we probably have even looser rules than the WW, it's a damn ice cream social here, tonally speaking. I find it funny that we're all sipping tea and discussing the weather whereas you got people at each other's throats on the Escapist.

Well, that it is, at present-- but there are a great many more people on The Escapist (well, there were, when it was functional; it might have completed its implosion by now for all I know). More people and more time, more likelihood of different opinion and argument.

If nicety reigns forever, then hey! No argument from me.

Now, could it happen here? Yeah, probably. But I think it's definitely gonna be much more contained. People will shout at each other in a thread and then they'll get tired and get over it. As is the natural course of things. On the Escapist, things just seem to fester because nobody can say what they feel.

I do want to say I think the rules on The Escapist were inconsistently applied and vague, and I saw stuff moderated frequently which I wouldn't have wanted to be moderated.

But this didn't lead me to want moderation dropped in principle; we just had shoddy rules. I still don't want slurs and personal accusations thrown around without any recourse to a moderation team. Eventually, that's going to lead to a forum on which only people happy to shout at each-other are happy to be.