Log in

View Full Version : Private Messages


SniperKing
May 30th, 2013, 12:11 AM
It would be great to shorten the amount of time you have to wait to send a private message. What I mean is, instead of 45 seconds per message, 30 seconds would be better. I am a relatively fast typer and I always have to wait 15-20 seconds when sending messages. I don't think many other people have mentioned this so it probably isn't highly relevant...

Tucker13
May 30th, 2013, 12:13 AM
Same here I hate waiting for it too.

xXl0sth0peXx
May 30th, 2013, 12:31 AM
Honestly, it's 45 seconds out of your life - or as you said, by the time you get to the message and such, like 20 seconds. It's really not that big of a deal. It's really more for protection against people spamming and abusing. I can see it being a bit annoying, as being the fast typer I also am, 20 seconds between posts is annoying sometimes. Honestly though, I can't really see this changing. It's not really that big of a deal.

SniperKing
May 30th, 2013, 12:42 AM
Honestly, it's 45 seconds out of your life - or as you said, by the time you get to the message and such, like 20 seconds. It's really not that big of a deal. It's really more for protection against people spamming and abusing. I can see it being a bit annoying, as being the fast typer I also am, 20 seconds between posts is annoying sometimes. Honestly though, I can't really see this changing. It's not really that big of a deal.

I understand, thanks for your reply :) I thought it may have been for preventing spammers but then remembered that there's the 100 post count to stop them as well, which I think is a great idea. Thanks!

The LOLer
June 3rd, 2013, 07:07 PM
Really,? This is pathetic.

xXl0sth0peXx
June 3rd, 2013, 08:48 PM
Really,? This is pathetic.


Elaborate please? I don't know what's pathetic. You shouldn't need less than 45 seconds to send a PM.

The LOLer
June 3rd, 2013, 08:57 PM
Elaborate please? I don't know what's pathetic. You shouldn't need less than 45 seconds to send a PM.

It's ridiculous there asking for this. Dont get in a fuss please.

PinkFloyd
June 3rd, 2013, 08:59 PM
I'd suggest moving to Skype or something instead of trying to change something here.

kryptonite
June 3rd, 2013, 11:09 PM
I'd suggest moving to Skype or something instead of trying to change something here.


Good point. If you want to chat in real time, there's other services designed for that. Heck, why not use the VT chat room?

PinkFloyd
June 3rd, 2013, 11:48 PM
Good point. If you want to chat in real time, there's other services designed for that. Heck, why not use the VT chat room?

Well the VT chat room isn't that private! :P

ImCoolBeans
June 4th, 2013, 08:51 AM
Really,? This is pathetic.

It's ridiculous there asking for this. Dont get in a fuss please.

Really? What makes you God? Don't speak to other users like that. It's rude and nobody wants to hear it. What would you say if I started going into your suggestions and telling you they're all pathetic?

The LOLer
June 4th, 2013, 09:10 AM
Really? What makes you God? Don't speak to other users like that. It's rude and nobody wants to hear it. What would you say if I started going into your suggestions and telling you they're all pathetic?

Ok, it's not pathetic they can't wait 45 seconds. So go help them out your the admin. I did not say I'm god whatsoever, so please don't give me that. If I thought I was god, I could make my self walk. Sorry I used the word pathetic. I'm sure not being able to wait 45 seconds is a legit problem, and maybe it is, but whatever. :/ I hope they can sort out there problem :)

ImCoolBeans
June 4th, 2013, 09:15 AM
Ok, it's not pathetic they can't wait 45 seconds. So go help them out your the admin. I did not say I'm god whatsoever, so please don't give me that. If I thought I was god, I could make my self walk. Sorry I used the word pathetic. I'm sure not being able to wait 45 seconds is a legit problem, and maybe it is, but whatever. :/ I hope they can sort out there problem :)

My point is don't be a jerk to other members, nobody likes that. So "don't give me that."

The LOLer
June 4th, 2013, 09:19 AM
My point is don't be a jerk to other members, nobody likes that. So "don't give me that."

Look, I understand. I just... :mad: Lol:)

Fanta_Lover44
June 10th, 2013, 11:21 AM
Hey, i know the feeling... I'm a fast typer, perhaps when you know you have to wait... Why don't you answear a post or something to let the time fly past? (Just an idea..)

confusedteen33
June 12th, 2013, 02:07 AM
Yeah that would make it aside in everyone

Goonch97
June 12th, 2013, 08:18 AM
Same here, at least Facebook is much better

Infidelitas
June 12th, 2013, 08:45 AM
Same here, at least Facebook is much better

We aren't Facebook.

SniperKing
June 12th, 2013, 08:35 PM
We aren't Facebook.

VT is better than facebook! :P

confusedteen33
June 16th, 2013, 02:16 AM
VT is better than facebook! :P
I agree with that

RunnerRunner
June 16th, 2013, 07:29 PM
I agree too. I always check vt through my phone and im a fast typer.

Purplebunny
June 18th, 2013, 01:31 AM
It would be great to shorten the amount of time you have to wait to send a private message. What I mean is, instead of 45 seconds per message, 30 seconds would be better. I am a relatively fast typer and I always have to wait 15-20 seconds when sending messages. I don't think many other people have mentioned this so it probably isn't highly relevant...

Also it should not be 100 post before you are able to send PM's that is extremely horrible.

britishboy
June 18th, 2013, 01:52 AM
Also it should not be 100 post before you are able to send PM's that is extremely horrible.

100 posts is nothing, you could get in a few days and its to stop spamers

SniperKing
June 18th, 2013, 08:27 AM
Also it should not be 100 post before you are able to send PM's that is extremely horrible.

I got my 100 posts in like a day. its east and is highly necessary. according tk recent requests and threads, mods will not be changing this anytime soon.

Jess
June 18th, 2013, 09:18 AM
Also it should not be 100 post before you are able to send PM's that is extremely horrible.

It is not horrible, it's set at 100 for a reason.

Rayquaza
June 18th, 2013, 01:46 PM
I got my 100 posts in like a day.

Spamming to 100 posts in one day really isn't a good idea.

DerBear
June 18th, 2013, 01:59 PM
Obviously spamming to 100 isn't a great idea. However if you do make posts that are relevant and aren't all one word answers then its most likely you're a fast poster which isn't a bad thing.

However if you started bumping a lot of threads to get to a 100 posts and your answers weren't relevant and all one word then you're likely to be caught and your posts will be deleted and if it is very severe then you might be issued with an official warning/infraction.

SniperKing
June 20th, 2013, 07:38 AM
Spamming to 100 posts in one day really isn't a good idea.

I didn't spam... haha I replied to a lot of threads with relevant information.

Fanta_Lover44
June 21st, 2013, 10:35 AM
Hey guys i've been thinking about this and for those who disagree with the inboxing system why dont we see if we can change it, here are some ideas.
1) Add verifacation (The box where you type a word to prove your not spamming etc)
2) Use Skype

What do you ugys think of the first idea? I persanly think that it wont work any better then the 45 seconds, actually i think i would prefer the 45 seconds... What do you think?

Jess
June 21st, 2013, 10:36 AM
No thanks, I'll rather have the 45 seconds...

Fanta_Lover44
June 21st, 2013, 11:03 AM
No thanks, I'll rather have the 45 seconds...

I could not agree more, i don't know why i even thought of that.....

ImCoolBeans
June 21st, 2013, 11:08 AM
It exists to cut down on spam, not just to annoy you. Imagine the amount of spam PMs you could send? It's like getting spammed on Aim when there was no spam filter on it :P