This post was last modified: Nov 27, 2016 at 1:57 AM by Fun With Despair.

in light of current events, can we just fucking do this already

why isn't this a thing?

I agree! Why didn't I think of this?

This post was last modified: Dec 1, 2016 at 9:49 PM by Spritanium.

We do need a solution for this, here's what I was thinking:

- If a Spellbound post is deleted, get the remaining percentage of the Spell's duration and multiply it by the original cost. This is the amount that gets refunded. For instance, if a 100EX Spell is meant to last 1 week but gets deleted after 1 day, 24/168 = 14%, so 86EX is returned to the caster.

- For permanent Spells on deleted posts, the caster is refunded `$cost - (X*($cost/10))`, X being the number of days the Spell has already been active.

- Edits are trickier. There's simply no way to programatically determine whether an edit renders a Spellcast any less funny, applicable, or desirable. We could sort of calculate the difference with Autocorrect and Outta Sight, but with every other Spell it's effectively impossible. It's because of this that I think this type of Spell moderation needs a human touch. If a user edits a post and you want your Spell undone, I think you should be able to contact an Admin to have it handled case-by-case. I also think editing posts specifically to dodge the effectiveness of a Spell is cheating and should have some sort of penalty; definitely nothing ban-related, but a punishment that can potentially affect someone's metagame performance.

Edits could just check if the autocorrected phrase is still there and if not refund the cost.

agree with spritey's first two points, and t-man is right.

also something to consider is that portions of knockback should be deducted for deletion/editing using similar formulas used for what the person regains, only halved

Edits could just check if the autocorrected phrase is still there and if not refund the cost.

This would work as a solution specific to Autocorrect, but even then it's exploitable. I can totally see someone taking advantage of an Autocorrect to write an entire new post which gives the corrected word an entirely new context. A code-based solution would see nothing wrong with that but the caster still might.

This is where my Spell-moderation usergroup idea would come in handy, but at current activity levels it can probably be handled by the normal staff.

I can totally see someone taking advantage of an Autocorrect to write an entire new post which gives the corrected word an entirely new context.

dude that's awesome though. the power of your spell just got someone to rewrite their whole post in a creative way

THAT'S playing around spells.

Yeah you have a point, to me it just seems a little like "hey remember that move you used on me a few turns back? well it turns out it didn't actually hit me "

Yeah you have a point, to me it just seems a little like "hey remember that move you used on me a few turns back? well it turns out it didn't actually hit me "

In some instances the salt obviously derived from that is hilarious enough to make it worth it and a spectacle of its own

In others, you wind up with posts that originally read like
"I like oranges [autocorrected to penis]"
then they edit it to play around it and you click off the autocorrect and it now reads like
"The male oranges is a sexual organ"

poor example but you get the idea, it'd be funny in its own right

Oh also edits will fuck up the Spell history function, since the old post content isn't stored after an edit

The best solution is to just disable edits on spellbound posts but there are a few people here who would have a problem with that

I agree with Draku, changing an enchanted word's context would be a fun way of countering autocorrect.

Otherwise, perhaps make it so posters that edit autocorrected posts can add text before and after the pre-enchanted text. It'd be neat if there's a way to make it so affected users have their enchanted posts partially locked so they can't edit any part of the post that existed before it the enchantment. If we go with this idea we probably shouldn't be allowed to add spoiler tags, color tags, and size tags to the addenda and postscripts, since those could be abused to obscure the spell. And if we go with this option, spellcasters should still be refunded if affected users outright delete enchanted posts. I don't know if this is technologically possible to code though.

Regardless, I'd much rather just let users edit autocorrected posts in the way Draku described – so long as the enchanted word is locked or the spellcaster's EXP is refunded if the spell is fucked with by the affected user. But to me, if nobody like's Draku's idea and/or my supplements to the idea, locking out the pre-enchantment portion of the post while allowing the affected user to edit in addenda and postscripts feels like a good compromise. (Unless that's technologically impossible to code or too difficult/tedious to code.)

I edited this post at least a dozen times but I think I'm done now. But fuck, why doesn't Firefox's spellchecker recognize "bespell" as a word? Is it because Oxford doesn't acknowledge it as a word? Fuck you, Oxford! If you recognize "emoji" as a word (and fucking declared "😂" – which as an emoji – Word of the Year 2015) then "bespell" is most certainly a word. Don't get me wrong, I love emojis just as much as any decent 26 year old man, but why the double standard for "bespell?" Step up your game… Merriam-Webster acknowledges "bespell" as a word. Whatever… I ended up using "enchant" instead.

This post was last modified: Dec 1, 2016 at 10:26 PM by T-man.

Come to think of it, not being able to edit spellbound posts might increase the versatility of Spell-B-Gone once items come out.

This post was last modified: Dec 2, 2016 at 1:08 AM by Yrrzy.

only spellbound posts i think shouldnt be edited are framed ones

but i think frames should have limits for that reason

(ie a wait period before you can use it and restrictions on what kind of posts can be framed)

yea that kind of thing is the ideal