I like it.  +1

There are times where I've used <mono> or <cursive> to accomplish something similar to set apart blocks of text, adding a <box> (maybe) tag would be a good idea; like has already been said, all you'd have to do is take the <quote> function and change it up a bit.

I can do that with the quote tags :)  *shrug*  my players are bright enough to ignore the  'Typed' at the end of the title :)

Yeah, that is what I am doing now.  :P I just think it is kinda cheesy looking sometimes.  :)

Personally, I think it will probably look just as cheesy with any other style of  box around the text as well.    It is certainly not something I would use as a player in an IC post -  I tend to use different font styles in GM posts to differentiate between information types.

But that was why I said it doesn't do anything special for me.  :)

+/-0 for making it a new function...

but +1 for removing 'typed:' from quote boxes entirely. I just don't think it's necessary in general. Using a quote link from a post would default with <quote burlingk typed:> instead of just <quote burlingk> but I think that enough people can tell that a quote box is a quote box without having it slapped in their face. So, if I were typing <quote> then the only thing that would be different from now would be the word 'quote' before the box; if I were typing <quote burlingk> the only difference would be it says 'berlingk' instead of 'burlingk typed' which, I think, is obvious enough to everyone what with the name there.

Plus, it negates the need to create a new function that is otherwise identical to the quote function, except that it looks a little different :P

You wouldn't need a new function, just overload the current one with an extra optional parameter.  But the point is well taken: is 'typed' really necessary?

They're asking for a new function; they want it to be easily discernible on a glance that it's different from the quote box... that's a new function (requiring a new tag, and a new addition to the little bar under the 'post message' button), to me.

I know what has been asked for...

I'm saying you wouldn't need it if you just overloaded the current function.

I like "typed:"  I've used Quote in ways that left it hanging there kind of awkwardly, but most of the time, it's nice.  (I still miss being greeted by character name at the top of my games, though.)  It's never felt like being slapped to me.  Although MM probably has more experience with that than I do. grin

One thing I'd like, if it's possible, for a not-a-quote function (maybe <box>?), would be to be right-justified.  And probably left, also.  ...even if it's a short line inside it, and for something meant to be used to look like signs and whatnot, it would be nice if it only extended a few spaces to each side of the letters inside.

(Hey, that's interesting...if you don't put a name in after <quote>, it doesn't say typed:, already!  Sometimes, Jase is just spooky.)
This message was last edited by the user at 15:42, Thu 02 July 2009.

No, but it does say 'quote'

Also, :P

Slightly off topic, but closely related, I've thought it would be nice to have what other sites call an [SBLOCK], which puts a little button at the top left of the "quote" so that you can expand or contract the box.  It's sorta like the current <spoiler> tag except it doesn't take up as much space when it is hidden.

I'd agree that having a collapsable tag would be useful.  I could see uses for ones that default to open as well as ones that default to closed.

I know that I was exited when I found out about the spoiler tag, but its bulkiness and usability seemed less than I had hoped for.

For instance, I thought that it would appear when placing the mouse in the box, but if I recall correctly, you have to actually hover over the text which you don't see, and if it is a large spoiler you weren't interested in it took a lot of screen space on the post.

I know that it is harder to do than it sounds [I helped a co-worker set one up to do it, and have done something similar myself]  but it might be nice to have a box or fieldset [for spoiler or other purposes, that would open or close by clicking on the title and be able to be defaulted to open or closed, and have a definable title] [I'd be for it having its own look and feel so it wouldn't be mistaken for a quote or other style spoiler, etc.

Just to clarify something people may not have realised, the title of a spoiler can be defined:

---

Spoiler for "Lord of the Rings": (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
The good guys win.

---

Like so: <spoiler <i>"Lord of the Rings"</i>>The good guys win.</spoiler>

The current spoiler simply changes the text colour to match the background, so you can't use colours in it, and it takes space, because the text is still there.

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Colours cause problems.

---

---

Spoiler for "Quite Clever": (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
That is a quite clever implementation of hiding the text.  Good Job Jase! And thank you Ron for pointing out the aspect of color, I can actually see that being useful sometimes.  :)

---

I still would like to be able to provide a wordy spoiler that wouldn't consume a lot of screen space.  (i.e. one that would be shrunk to a button/link normally, and would on a click, would open.  But I could see some others potentially wanting the opposite default)

I do not know the code base (though I would love to see it).  :-) I do know though that Jase has basically said to throw ideas at him and let him decide how hard they are to implement.  :-)

I myself am not so worried about how distinguishable the box is from the Quote box, as long as I can give it a title, and not have extra words thrown in.  :-)

I have to agree, as a player, I would not use the tag often.  However, as a GM, I would use it quite a bit.  Right now, I am using the <quote> tag to represent postings on a bulletin board.  ^_^

I'd be in favor of some variation on this. Mostly, I would probably use it when quoting something off-site like a rulebook, where the "typed:" really doesn't make sense. It would definitely be a nice option for GMs when laying things out.

I'd like to chime in in support of this request, and, of course, add a bit more.

Note only would I like to be able to make boxes like the quote box, I want to manage their foreground and background colors.  If I could enter

<box "The Title" bg:cyan color:red>Here are the contents!</box>

and it would give me a box with red on cyan text.  Ok, that particular combo would be eye-piercing, but it would be cool to have the ability to do it.

Also, I'd like a shortcut one that is for OOC

<ooc>Out of character comment here.</ooc>

which would be in italics, perhaps navy on a slightly darker gray than the usual text, and set in a bit.

The color schemes (including the colors that actually display from 'styled text') have been carefully crafted by people to make sure that they DON'T make completely debilitating combinations.

The same would have to be done for choosing exactly which shade of cyan (and then, for each shade of cyan, which shade of red) would continue to be visible for EVERY possible color scheme... I can see a lot of room for abuse if that didn't happen, and, actually, more likelihood of abuse than usefulness. Maybe as a subscriber feature down the line (since it would be a non-essential feature that would still be pretty 'cool' to use) once it's more 'worth' doing all that work.

So don't get me wrong, I think it'd be cool, it would just take a lot of work and I see very little benefit for how much work it would take (plus... *I* probably wouldn't use it, which affects my vote), so essentially a +/-0 for it.

Why do we need an 'OOC' command? Why not choose a specific color for OOC text only; bang, you're done? I see absolutely no benefit from a tag like that. Definitely need more of an explanation.

Because no one ever listens when you tell them something like that? Mind you, I'm sure not everyone would use the OOC tag, but more people might...

Um... that's a different problem altogether :P

Still a +1 for the original idea...

-1 for managing the foreground and background colours of the text boxes.  As MM pointed out, the colours currently available are specifically selected to avoid colour clashes, and the text colours are tweaked slightly to be more distinct on the various themes.  A coloured box and text which look good on the theme one person uses, might be unreadable on a theme used by somebody else.

There's also the possibility that players will instantly quit your game, complaining that, "the colours you selected made my eyes bleed!!!!"  At least judging by the reactions some people have to the holiday colour themes.  ;)

-1 for the OOC tag, because many GMs like to specify exactly how their players will designate such things ("All speech in blue, thoughts in blue italics, OOC in green... ") and can be pretty fussy about what colours they want to see.

+0 for the original idea.  I can take that or leave it.

+1 for removing that annoying "typed" from the "quote" tag (unlike JohnB's players, I'm not very smart so it bugs me -- the idea is that if you type, <quote sign post>, the text is "sign post:" rather than "sign post typed:").

-1 for OOC tag.  It doesn't seem at all necessary, I guess, to me.

-1 for managing foreground and background colours (as BBR mentioned, it's rough to do and not something I want to have to deal with when trying to read others' posts).

'Typed' will be gone as of the next version.  Not quite convinced that more is needed besides that.

I would quit and they DO make my eyes bleed! :P

+1 for the original idea and removing 'typed'.

- infinity for the ability to alter the colors and making it impossible for me to read. It's bad enough I have to deal with it on holidays...

+1+1+1+1+1.

Please, PLEASE make a different-colored (perhaps optional colors, or use coding to pick your color? =O) text-box function!