The Cyberix Network, although operating as a refuge for people interested in the true old Internet, fucking sucks in its website's design when compared to genuine examples from that era.
In contrast to actual old Internet websites, Cyberix consistently employs design techniques and decisions similar to modern websites and retro larpers, despite avoiding some of the more egregious pitfalls seen on places like Neocities.
Observe the following websites:

https://celephais.net/board/forum.php – unchanged since 2002, featuring a text-heavy layout with functional navigation via simple HTML links, no apparent large padding. Desktop-centric structure simplicity without any need for JavaScript.
https://megatokyo.com/strip/1 – unchanged since 2007, with multi-section organization (news, console, credits) using basic spacing, straightforward hyperlink navigation. Relies on direct URLs rather than "modern" interactive elements.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080703202514/http://www.php.net./ – 2008 PHP.net, structured around textual headings and lists for content like news and events. Embodies a simple, information-focused design typical of the time.
https://web.archive.org/web/20031001182919/http://www.txraves.org/main.php – a 2003 rave forum (replaced by chink porn, do not visit the modern site), displaying densely packed text, minimal padding, standard system fonts, and horizontal text-link navigation that's not friendly for phoneposters but Perfectly Functional without JS.

All these sites share sensible, computer-first design principles absent in Cyberix. They feature compact layouts without large bunches of padding, unique yet intuitive layouts easy to navigate, and a focus on dense, efficient design that loads SEAMLESSLY in old browsers.

Cyberix's design, by comparison, is a padded, bloated, flat mess that would never have been built in the early Internet. https://cy-x.net/ uses categorized sections with markdown-like formatting that implies modern structural organization. There is a lot of unnecessary spacing and flat aesthetics not seen in the references. Forum topics, example being https://cy-x.net/forum?t=278 rely on contemporary styling leading to bloat, unlike the straightforward, JS-free navigation in the old examples.

Admin should take these references into heavy consideration for a total remake. Cyberix is missing KEY efficiencies like minimalistic spacing, pure text-based hierarchies, and browser-agnostic simplicity. Meanwhile it is failing horribly in areas that could be fixed by direct comparison. The astounding fact that it won't even load properly in an era-accurate browser, despite not requiring JS in modern ones, makes it painfully obvious how far it strays from authentic old Internet principles.

Intriguing points. I'll definitely chew on this some more. I see the stark differences between Cyberix and those older sites, but I'm still set on keeping the design usable for mobile users. That doesn't mean settling for shitty design, though. Plenty of old-school sites like the ones you mentioned manage to look nice without being a complete fucking nightmare on phones. (On-the-go moderation shouldn't be a pain in the ass, either.)

maybe.PNG

Perhaps. I'll keep experimenting with this.

front page redesign.PNG

Concept 2

Concept 3.

I like this one the most.

concept 3 frontpage.PNG

why do you want the website to be accessible for phoneposters?
phones are for consumption, not creation
seems pretty antithetical to this website's goal, doesn't it?
at best you get useless lurkers
at worst you get zoomers impulsively shitting out meaningless babble on their school break https://cy-x.net/forum?t=283

>phones are for consumption, not creation

>seems pretty antithetical to this website's goal

Yes, that is true, and I agree with you completely on this. I fucking hate phoneposters - there has not been a single phoneposter on this site (to my knowledge) that has been able to contribute on the same level as a poster who used a regular computer.

The only reason I am trying to maintain compatibility with these devices is so I don't have to waste time navigating a desktop-centric layout on my phone to quickban child porn or some punk who is trying to derail a thread or two.
If I didn't have to worry about that, then I wouldn't care at all. Unfortunately I have to check in every now and then and sometimes I don't always have a computer near me to check the site with.

You give me a good idea, though. Maybe posts made using a mobile devices should be given a or tag next to it in the same way proxies are publicly marked (, ). It's going to be used to directly help me and every single person on this site easily notice patterns and trends and take immediate action when it comes.

Update in 5 minutes.

Nevermind. Update now, at 06:50 on October 5th.

https://cy-x.net/forum?t=243 is broken, the table is way too wide. I assume it's because of the

 block. The font is too thin for white on black too.</p>
<p>I can't say I agree with "trying to look old" through non-semantic HTML btw. You don't have to imitate old sites being broken, use a CSS grid ffs.</p>

</pre>
Wtf, sanitize your inputs.

Thread is locked, lol

Dammit, doesn't work

Why did it work before?

Test post

Bold text
Italic text
Strikethrough
Inline code

1. First item
2. Second item
3. Third item

CSS quick-fix for https://cy-x.net/forum?t=243 being too wide:

pre {
max-width: 800px;
overflow-x: scroll;
}


And for greentext not flowing properly:

.greentext {
display: block;
color: #789922;
}

Why is the color set as inline style for each line?

Should be fixed, now

Thanks for fixing
>ban

Wow, no fun allowed

>Wow, no fun allowed

???

malding

>>Wow, no fun allowed
>???

I got a message saying I was banned, which I assumed was due to me trying to exploit the >pre< bug on this page.

I did not ban you. You must've got unlucky and hit a Tor GOP that WAS banned, but I have only banned CP posters in the last couple of weeks.

In hindsight I think banning Tor users in the first place is extremely ineffective

Since this is the redesign cybertruck.win/forum post:

Make the navigation panel horizontal, and let the threads be full width. This will be especially useful when posting articles, which look cramped in the current setup.

Either go full grayscale, or tone down some of the colors. Overall good choices, then, suddenly BRIGHT GREEN (for no reason).

Threads are a bit noisy; horizontal bars divide posts, but attachment box adds complexity. Posts lack the identifiable header of 'chan's with a line of (yous), and the distinct box for each post. Things look fine until there's inline images and attachments. The design is missing secret sauce here.

Make it possible to reply to specific posts, in part so users can track visually which posts are most interesting

> https://cy-x.net/articles?id=26

Why do people have to email you to send you a piece of writing? Just let people send a post and add a random number to the URL to protect it. Authors can return to that page to get editorial feedback.

> example: https://cy-x.net/forum?t=176

Can't we adapt the title into a slug so URLs are semi legible? How about
> https://cy-x.net/t/mission-nostalgiafaggotry-cyberix-needs-to-be-redesigned

Append 4 digits of the posts hash to distinguish between identical slugs:
> https://cy-x.net/t/mission-nostalgiafaggotry-cyberix-needs-to-be-redesigned/4be0

> https://cy-x.net/forum?t=191

> Prohibited Content Illegal Material

> Absolutely no illegal content whatsoever

> No child pornography or any content sexualizing minors

> No linking to illegal material or discussing how to obtain it

> This includes anything that could compromise the site's legal standing

So aside from the interest in self-protection, I find the "any content sexualizing minors" to be a problem. Many movies "sexualize" minors, or, rather, explore the sexuality of minors. For example
> You Are Not Alone (1978)

> Young Hearts (2024)

Both of these films contain nudity and kissing between pubscent boys (12-14y). Do these count as "sexualizing minors" and are they therefore "illegal" on cy-x.net and is it therefore prohibited to link to them or discuss how to get them?
In Australia the Swedish film Barnen's O is illegal, but it was originally released in Sweden in 1980 as a 7+ film, as appropriate for children 7 and up. The film shows a boy masturbating. Is discussion of that film banned on cy-x.net, even though it is legal throughout the rest of the world?
Bernardo Bertolluci's 1900 has a scene where a boy plays with his erection and discusses masturbation with his friend. The film is legal everywhere. Is it considered "illegal" on cy-x.net?
Is a picture of a 13 year old boy in speedos swimming in a public space "sexualizing" and thus "illegal"?
Is a picture of a shirtless boy "sexualizing" and thus "illegal"?

To me, "sexualizing" is a feminist term of political art, which, like codes of conduct, indicates a good reason to not invest time and energy in a project. It is a push button solution handed off to (lazy) people looking to solve a hard problem. I therefore strongly advise you to clarify the "illegal content" section. Instead of conflating everything you don't like as "illegal"--most of it is not--just have a list of things you don't want to deal with, and specify them. That will provide users with more freedom to discuss things you do allow, rather than be restricted by vague language and the false claim that everything that "sexualizes minors" is illegal (it's not).
To give you some guidance, I suggest you look at kohlchan's (legal) shota thread:
> https://kohlchan.net/b/res/10546052.html

None of that is illegal, but it does require moderator attention to ensure that the content never crosses a line. On the other hand, by enforcing a rule that all such content has to be in that thread and nowhere else, it simplifies moderator responsibilities. And, of course, it means that people of that persuasion are also included in the site and find some interest there.

Since the purpose of cy-x-net isn't to replicate the standard chan format, and since it's focus is on tech (for now), and has a limited population, I suggest three things.
> First, since you deliberately choose to privilege text over images, it makes sense that cy-x.net isn't about posting huge dumps of kid image content of any kind, legal or illegal. But that would also be true of adult porn, and other kinds of image dumps. I suggest being principled here. Maybe apply Sharia law here and restrict specifically pointless image dumps of human beings so we can still get image dumps of computer setups and other niceties.

> Second, allow all non-erotic discussions of kid content, and allow links to kid content so long as it's not illegal, for example to IMDB pages of banned films

> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080419/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1

> Third, allow images of non-nude non-lewd kid content that is illustrative of the topic being discussed. Non-nudity generally solves the problem, and you can deal with issues as they come up. If it's not illustrative, then delete it. If it's illustrative but lewd, delete it.

These choices get you away from conflating everything you don't like with illegality, it closes some doors as a matter of policy, and leaves others open as a matter of policy.

are we gonna return to pic rel

cyberix rules july sojmething something.png