New spoiler policy.

[jestingrabbit]

There are two policies that apply, one to short, simple problems, another to long, complicated problems.



1) Short and sweet: put solutions in the puzzle thread hidden by a spoiler tag

Spoiler:

like this.

But please, before posting a solution check to see if others have already posted the same solution.


2) Long and bitter: the puzzle poster should create two threads, one titled "puzzle name" the other titled "puzzle name [solutions]". If you are the first person to respond to a tricky puzzle and it doesn't have a solution thread yet, make it yourself. Please remember to put a link to the other thread in the first post of the thread (ie in the puzzle thread put a link to the solution thread and in the solution thread put a link to the puzzle thread).

Ask questions about the puzzle in the puzzle thread, put answers in the solution thread un-spoilered (that way there will be less possibility of people arriving at the same solutions whilst percieving their contribution to be unique and we can also discuss whether a particular solution is a genuine solution in plain text the way nature intended us to participate on forums).



Feel free to discuss these policies here in this thread. If I like what you're saying I'll change the policy, but I think this will work well.

[skeptical scientist]

Sounds good. And we have spoiler tags now? Cool! I didn't notice.

[jestingrabbit]

I didn't notice the spoiler tags either until someone used them.

The rules are just what we do now but written down. I can't imagine that there's a better way to do it, but I'm always open to being shown unimaginably good things.

[skeptical scientist]

I didn't notice the spoiler tags either until someone used them.

The rules are just what we do now but written down. I can't imagine that there's a better way to do it, but I'm always open to being shown unimaginably good things.

Of course, I'm terrible at deciding whether a puzzle is complicated or not, so inevitably create solution threads for puzzles with one line answers and spoilerized answers in puzzles which then generate pages of discussion.

P.S. I'm not sure if the rules thread is the right place for chitchat, so feel free to delete.

[jestingrabbit]

Of course, I'm terrible at deciding whether a puzzle is complicated or not, so inevitably create solution threads for puzzles with one line answers and spoilerized answers in puzzles which then generate pages of discussion.

When in doubt start a solutions thread. Its just so much easier to read for frail old eyes like mine.

P.S. I'm not sure if the rules thread is the right place for chitchat, so feel free to delete.

The old version was pretty chatty, I'm happy to have this be the same, until it gets annoying and inane. Then I'll probably lock, delete and mail incendiary devices.

[4=5]

Spoiler:

if we hide our chitchat in spoiler tags would it matter if it is inane and annoying?

[jestingrabbit]

Yes, yes it would.

PS I think you need to put the colour tag inside the spoiler tag

Spoiler:

like this

to get that effect.

So, does this work?

Spoiler:

a_b

Yes, yes it does.

[Nimz]

PS I think you need to put the colour tag inside the spoiler tag

Spoiler:

like this

to get that effect.

It should be noted that there are two schemes now. White inside spoiler tags isn't invisible in the other scheme. By trial and error I found [color=#E4ECEF] and [color=#EBF0F5] are pretty close to invisible (whether spoilered or not) in the traditionally light and dark posts, respectively, when using the other scheme. Haven't checked when in the context of a quote, but that'll probably be another [color=#XXXXXX]. In the event any of that info is useful, yay! Otherwise, it's trivia (e.g. for if you get bored memorizing digits of [insert favorite irrational constant here]).

[Cheese]

By trial and error I found [color=#E4ECEF] and [color=#EBF0F5] are pretty close to invisible (whether spoilered or not) in the traditionally light and dark posts, respectively, when using the other scheme. Haven't checked when in the context of a quote, but that'll probably be another [color=#XXXXXX].

Edit the HTML of a page and you can find the exact #RRGGBB values. It'll require a little hunting, but is much easier than trial and error.

[Token]

Or, if you're me (and if you aren't, bad luck), you have a short program mapped to your F10 key that instantly tells you the RGB color (and x-y coordinates) of whichever pixel your cursor is at. The dark posts are #DCDCE5 and the light ones are #ECECEC.

[Torn Apart By Dingos]

Or, if you're me (and if you aren't, bad luck), you have a short program mapped to your F10 key that instantly tells you the RGB color (and x-y coordinates) of whichever pixel your cursor is at. The dark posts are #DCDCE5 and the light ones are #ECECEC.

Hey, that's useful. Want to share it?

[phlip]

xmag will do it, I've got it mapped to one of my keyboard's media buttons... use it all the time.

[jestingrabbit]

I think you guys are assuming everyone's using the same style, which might not be true.

[Token]

Or, if you're me (and if you aren't, bad luck), you have a short program mapped to your F10 key that instantly tells you the RGB color (and x-y coordinates) of whichever pixel your cursor is at. The dark posts are #DCDCE5 and the light ones are #ECECEC.

Hey, that's useful. Want to share it?

Well, I would, but it's not an .exe. It's a code file that runs through the compiler. I could find out how to actually compile it, but I'm too lazy for that kind of thing.

[Torn Apart By Dingos]

What? You mean it's a script? Share the code.

[Nimz]

I think you guys are assuming everyone's using the same style, which might not be true.

Which is exactly the point of my comment. In the normal scheme (style), I am ready to believe DCDCE5 and ECECEC are perfect matches for the background of posts, but in the other scheme, light and dark are reversed and DCDCE5 and ECECEC don't match the background anymore.

It should be noted that there are two schemes now. White inside spoiler tags isn't invisible in the other scheme. By trial and error I found [color=#E4ECEF] and [color=#EBF0F5] are pretty close to invisible (whether spoilered or not) in the traditionally light and dark posts, respectively, when using the other scheme.

[jestingrabbit]

Absolutely. It just seemed that people were ignoring your reality and substituting their own. Apologies for confusion.

[quintopia]

If you don't like spoilers, you could randomly alternate which of the two colors to use, such that the text is partially invisible but illegible in either scheme. But spoiler tags are so much easier. . .

[darkmatter]

Or, if you're me (and if you aren't, bad luck), you have a short program mapped to your F10 key that instantly tells you the RGB color (and x-y coordinates) of whichever pixel your cursor is at. The dark posts are #DCDCE5 and the light ones are #ECECEC.

Hey, that's useful. Want to share it?

Well, I would, but it's not an .exe. It's a code file that runs through the compiler. I could find out how to actually compile it, but I'm too lazy for that kind of thing.

Or, if you have almost any paint program in existence today, you could:

1 alt+printscreen to copy the page
2 paste it into a paint program
3 use the Eyedropper to copy the color for your own use
4 use the color editor to see the RGB Hex values

[Arancaytar]

Or if you are one of the countless users of Firefox, ColorZilla will tell you the color of any point in a web page, including images.

[MFHodge]

Since there are two different styles available for the forum (and potentially more in the future), coloring your text is not a great idea for a spoiler. It might look fine for you, but have no effect for many other people.

[Random832]

"show all spoilers" bookmarket for firefox:

Code: Select all

javascript:(function(){if(!window.$spoil) {var x=document.createElement('STYLE'); x.textContent='.quotecontent>div{display:block!important}'; document.getElementsByTagName('HEAD')[0].appendChild(x); $spoil=x.sheet} else {$spoil.disabled=!$spoil.disabled}})();

Spoilers will not hide while it is in effect. Click again to deactivate.

[Nimz]

Nothing to see here.
Well, there is another way to make text unreadable, but I think there might be some that would object to the widespread use of it.

[phlip]

Well, there is another way to make text unreadable, but I think there might be some that would object to the widespread use of it.

Not to mention the fact that it (a) doesn't work when quoted, (b) doesn't work for people using subSilver.

[Nimz]

Well, there is another way to make text unreadable, but I think there might be some that would find the widespread use of it objectionable.

Not to mention the fact that it (a) doesn't work when quoted, (b) doesn't work for people using subSilver.

I was actually alluding to something else in that post - I'm not so dense as to not notice VTMFHodge's post just barely above my own. I am perfectly content with coloured text, and I don't see why anyone wouldn't be. I'm not referring to micro text, either - I had my browser set a minimum font size, so size spoiling is easily vanquished. This is also vanquished by LTB. Final hint: I've (re)worded all of my sentences in this message to (very) obliquely reference the "other" way to make text unreadable, and I'll be keeping tabs on whether anyone knows what I'm talking about (and if so, whether it's safe for widespread use) ... 'nuff said.

[Random832]

Jul abg jevgr fcbvyre grkg yvxr guvf?

[jestingrabbit]

Jul abg jevgr fcbvyre grkg yvxr guvf?

Now do mathematical equations.

And anyway, there is a spoiler tag. It works

Spoiler:

like this.

Just highlight the text you want spoilered and press the button above the edit window. Its easy. It works. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Random832]

Jul abg jevgr fcbvyre grkg yvxr guvf?

Now do mathematical equations.

[zngu]\fhz_{v=z}^a k_v = k_z + k_{z+1} + k_{z+2} +\pqbgf+ k_{a-1} + k_a.[/zngu]

[jestingrabbit]

I just made the strangling motion with my hands.

[ehird]

Well, there is another way to make text unreadable, but I think there might be some that would find the widespread use of it objectionable.

Not to mention the fact that it (a) doesn't work when quoted, (b) doesn't work for people using subSilver.

I was actually alluding to something else in that post - I'm not so dense as to not notice VTMFHodge's post just barely above my own. I am perfectly content with coloured text, and I don't see why anyone wouldn't be. I'm not referring to micro text, either - I had my browser set a minimum font size, so size spoiling is easily vanquished. This is also vanquished by LTB. Final hint: I've (re)worded all of my sentences in this message to (very) obliquely reference the "other" way to make text unreadable, and I'll be keeping tabs on whether anyone knows what I'm talking about (and if so, whether it's safe for widespread use) ... 'nuff said.

Fnord snape kills dumbledore fnord.

[jestingrabbit]

I don't have much time... I suspect that the raptors are already circling my house as we speak (FOOL, those large bay windows... you laughed at the warnings, and now where are you...). I... I just wanted to say that resistance is possible, that the unlocked forums can still be bastions of freedom and good sense. This reign of terror... someone must alert Randal... someone must alert The Military. They must be stopped. THEY MUST BE STOPPED.

Oh, and spoiler your solutions please.

[Lord Aurora]

Spoiler:

I miss you jr

edit:

Spoiler:

although I have to applaud the LP (and, I'm assuming, Math/Science/etc) forum for keeping sane through the shitshow

[teelo]

Thread should be renamed "spoiler policy" since it isn't new anymore.

[dotproduct]

Thread should be renamed "spoiler policy" since it isn't new anymore.

I agree. Very much.

[jestingrabbit]

meh.

[MasterOfAll]

the once and future spoiler policy? (also, the one *you* you you you should be following. I'm looking at you, you who tend to not bother reading stuff!)

sounds a bit wordy to me . . . I think jestingrabbit has it summed up nicely. Not that my opinion matters, but somehow I felt . . . compelled . . . to post here.

tl;dr - hem