SocketIO is not compatible with C2's WebSocket plugin, unfortunately. Either you have to use a 3rd party plugin, or use a different Node.js library such as SockJS which I created a test project of a while back and it works perfectly.

https://github.com/sockjs/sockjs-node

This is my recommendation. There really aren't man WebSocket Node.js resources that have many recent update commits, or are even minutely usable by beginners. But I do like SockJS.

Tom lil' suggestion here: when selecting quantities of more than 1 of an asset, update the "only $XX.XX amount to reflect the total. That or perhaps say "Only $XX.XX each" instead.

Ugly example:

Johncw87 Wow, I've never noticed it before, thanks! I would still prefer an editor feature to mark specific events and actions to get even more nitty gritty (since "Is in debug" still requires its own event), so my request still stands, but this helpful.

"Is in debug" would also be useful.

I'm sure some of you are familiar with IDEs that use this, where you can set up a release and a debug version of your project using marked code.

Currently, when I want to create code I use only for debug purposes, I go back and forth between toggling blocks disabled and it becomes a real hassle.

What I would like is the ability to mark events and actions with some sort of marker as so[attachment=0:1aarysag][/attachment:1aarysag]in order to specify whether or not the code will only be active in debug mode only, and left out of any export version.

Thoughts?

I just use: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... ihlkkiljbi

Worked like a charm when enabled.

Yttermayn I have absolutely no idea why. That being said, it has been around for a long time, so maybe Ashley can clarify why it is the way it is.

I believe that this is deliberate. When a sprite is mirrored, the width is flipped, and negative, so only decreasing width will actually make the sprite larger.

>

>

>
• When a post or thread is in the moderation que, it will not show up to normal users on the forum instead of sitting out as an ugly sight.

>

>

So, the post would go up, & it would only go to moderation if it was flagged by a user that the community entrusted with the power to flag?

orrect.

> That or grant this small privilege of forcing thread approval to a select few users. They'd be like Mods but with but one small power, and easily manageable.

>

That's how Spriter does it: new threads have to be approved. It took 12 hours for my 1st (& only) question to get approved. Kind of turned me off from the company.

miketv Actually this is what I am suggesting:

• User A gains low-level moderation privilege to flag posts/threads he/she determines against the forum rules
• When A flags a post, it goes into a moderation que where only higher-level moderators/admins (Kyatric, Arima, Tom, Ashley, & etc.) can review the post. They take a course of action depending on the severity of rules broken (and if no rules have been broken, contact the low-level moderator who flagged it).
• When a post or thread is in the moderation que, it will not show up to normal users on the forum instead of sitting out as an ugly sight.
• Normal users may still report posts/threads, but this will continue as it has been.

That is it broken down. I can't imagine programming this would take much, but it has to be weighed against its worth and how much spam there actually is. Because when mods are on, spam threads usually disappear fairly fast. It's only when we get waves of spam that it helps to have a cleanup crew.

Seconded.

... So did you?

See I just do all editing on files within my Dropbox folder. So I don't worry about the automated backups. Not sure if that'd work for you guys, but for my small projects it's worked just fine.