To be exact, Wakky was being sneaky and tried to use it for subliminal advertising, but ended up linking to the wrong thing, while I was just trying to show how he did it.

And by the way, both of the future-timestamped posts still exist.

Wakky’s will come in the 24th, while mine will come today.

Heh.  I noticed that edit, Kevan.

Ah, I must have hit submit seconds after your first comment. (I was just editing the flavour text to clarify things a bit; I can’t remember exactly what it said before.)

Hmm…this doesn’t prevent people from posting things with odd timestamps…just from editing timestamps.

By “edit the field” I just mean “change the value in the form”, rather than “load it in and save a different one”. When you create a new post, it has a current timestamp; you have to edit that to give a new post an odd timestamp.

I’m just going to test something quickly.

I’ll delete my test post afterwards.

Thing tested.

Seconds are editable, making edited timestamps indistinguishable from real ones.

And normal posts always have a timestamp that puts them before the exact posting time (I’ve seen a few that were a few hours old when they were first posted).

I refer you to the fair play section of the Glossary:
“A Scripter should not deliberately exploit bugs or unexpected behaviours in the software running the game”

It’s arguable whether this is an “unexpected behaviour”; it’s obviously an intentional feature of the blog software.

Wak knows perfectly well not to do this, it was one of the things we went over back in the horrible DoV days.

Incidentally, remember the time before when I claimed Wak had been editing timestamps, and Darknight was like, “Do you have any proof?” Well, here’s the proof.

I do not expect posts to be dated to times that they are not actually from. If someone were to alter the date, I would see this as exploiting the unexpected behavior of EE.

Thus, to add this to the Ruleset would be redundant.

Anyway, I was inly useing it for subliminal advertising, as can be proven by Josh. I made that same comment to Josh as well, qwaz. Anyway, cool.

P.S. I wasn’t scamming or anything… “The manner in which they chose to do so is of their own choosing, but it must be present in the content of the scene, must be observable when pointed out, and must encourage the purchase of an actual, real-world product.” I just tried to find a good message like Josh’s.

Though I must say, Wak you have way too much time on your hands if your diging that deep into the inner workings.

Actually, it was discovered completely by accident when I was trying to post a proposal to appear a day later since I already had 3 proposals. I’m not digging at all.

LOL, ok so in this case it was one of those *stuck a hidden pipe of oil* lol.

Hey, I resent that! I don’t mess with EE “experiments.” That kind of stuff hasn’t happened for a long time.

(This issue also came up during the Gostak Metadynasty.  It was used then in order to insert a proposal in the middle of the proposal queue.)