Generally images displayed on a page should match their served size. HTML scaling is not generally appropriate. Most page speed ranking services will also tell you this. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/optimizing-content-efficiency/image-optimization#delivering-scaled-image-assets They will even take it a step further and go into sprite use depending on your sites use of images. As it is, for years I have had to work around this in IPB by manually editing various templates, system files and settings to pull my images from a caching resize script. These are some of the optimization techniques I would rather see implemented in IPB. The example on page 1 of this thread is simply HTML scaled and is the same as the full size image. Instead of using 150KB it should probably use 50KB. If you have 10 images like this, now you're up to 1 MB of unnecessary extra transfer for the page.
When I use the default + sign, hardly anyone clicks on it or understands it. I have since replaced it with a huge green thumbs up with the word Thanks under it (about 8x bigger than the +). Doing this made the response rate go way up (probably 50 or 100x more than before). It would be good to consider something more like this.
I'm running the stopforumspam hook from the marketplace plus the IPB spam service. The hook itself stops about 30 spammers per day. That way it has to get past two systems.
Also, I have found the option to ban spammers who signup as problematic in a practical sense. This relates to the option in the third party stopforumspam hook and the IPB spam service.
What I've found is I really need to only have people banned who are problems at the site. Otherwise, the ban database gets too big. When I go to clear it out, I don't remember who is in there for what.
The best option for me is to reject the registration. Either that, or have some kind of automatic temporary bans that clear out after a week or month or so.
That's probably an easy way to get it started. When the room is moderated, anyone who comes in that's not a moderator, can only see messages, but can't post.
The moderators then just enable which users they want to talk. Perhaps just a toggle by clicking on the user names in the chat window along with kick, ban, etc.
Although, there probably needs to be a moderated queue. People who can't talk in the channel have all their messages go in a single queue window that only the mods can see. Private message windows would be too much if there are a large number of people.
That way the mods can know who to let talk based on what they're saying, or what the question is. Otherwise if you have a meeting of say 50 people, you don't really know who to give voice to if you don't know what they might be wanting to say.
So, I would think these things are needed, at least to get something like this started:
1. A toggle ideally in the room (rather than ACP) for the mods to switch the mode to moderated mode.
2. All non moderators then can not talk in the channel. But can view it. When moderated mode goes off, everyone can talk again.
3. Any messages they do try to type, go into a single window that only the mods can see. Or perhaps they would type their message in that other window. But they could only see their messages.
4. The moderators would toggle who to talk and who not to talk. Ideally on a per user basis so it could be multiple people talking.
5. Optionally, turn off private messaging while this is going on. Or at least, only enable it if moderators initiate it. Otherwise, it might get overwhelming if too many people are messaging during this. I think this function is already in ACP. But it might be easier to have some of that accessible in the chat page for moderators to see. So perhaps just a temporary toggle between the way it is in the ACP to just no private messages unless initiated by moderators.
I recently switched from vb 3.8 to IPB. My system only had about 100k posts and 1000 users to migrate though. The main reason for switching was my old hardware failed. And rather than reinstalling vb 3.8 on the new server (plus the probably 50 mods), I decided to go with IPB. Not to mention the dread of what was going to happen with VB4 with all these mods.
On an I7 processor running Linux, the topics/threads/posts took maybe 15 minutes to migrate for 100k posts.
Almost everything migrated over very cleanly.
The one thing I was very surprised at was how few modifications I needed with IPB. Most of the things I needed all kinds of mods for with VB were built in or available as a simple app.
Instead of about 50 mods with VB, I think I've got maybe 5 mods/third party apps with IPB. About the only functions I couldn't move over were the thanks and the gift/ecommerce system. Not really major losses.
Some things I could never even get a mod to work right in VB, such as throttling the number of messages per time based on post cost - built in and works fine on IPB.
The warn system in IPB is a little different than VB. In some respects it is better. You can issue various warnings to people similar to infractions. They do not automatically trigger, but on each warning you issue there are a bunch of options you can pick from (see attached image). There is also a flag as spammer option which you can set to immediately trigger repercussions.