|
If the average reader is offended or considers a post offensive and racist then saying "you read it wrong" is a moot point. This is a site for software developers to share code. What on Earth is something that even comes close to the line of racism doing on our site?
I didn't see the post but I back Sean 100%. We don't ask much, but we do ask for a little class.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
*sigh* admined.
Could you make the rules of the backroom a bit clearer then?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: we do ask for a little class
class little{}
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: but we do ask for a little class
Like wearing a tux in the Lounge. 
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In that case I vote for the Back Room (and possibly the SoapBox) to be removed forthwith. As I stated in the thread that caused all the fuss, there has been far worse than this in the Back Room in the past which has not been moderated out. I don't in any way support the views of the people in question but you either allow all or none.
Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I didn't see the post but I back Sean 100%.
I didn't see the original post either and I am sure Sean acted with good reason. But if the post got removed merely because he used the n-word then I am sure there are other posts (several of them) that may be requested to be removed. So at some point you'll have to officially tell everyone what words are not allowed.
Otherwise I am not sure why you even have the Back Room forum for. Why not just remove it then? I thought the purpose of that forum was so people could abuse each other with the stupidest vulgarities and be as racist, abusive, and politically incorrect as they wanted to be without affecting the rest of the site.
Personally I don't like having that forum here. The crap that gets posted and discussed there is absolutely not suited for Code Project. The whole idea that it helps keep the crap to that one forum is kinda regressive. The correct way to deal with abusive members (in my opinion) is to warn them once or even twice, and then to ban them after they ignore the warnings. Right now the idea you are pushing is that it's okay to be dicks as long as you do it in that particular forum.
As a final argument, here's a question. Will MSDN forums ever have a forum that allows this sort of content? The answer to that should be the answer to this problem too.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: The correct way to deal with abusive members (in my opinion) is to warn them once or even twice, and then to ban them after they ignore the warnings.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Will MSDN forums ever have a forum that allows this sort of content?
MSDN is very sterile. At least, I don't know that the people on MSDN know eachother like we do here at Code Project. Is there an MSDN Lounge for friendly banter?
Allowing this informal stuff is both a good and a bad thing. On the one hand, it strengthens the community. On the other hand, it can lead to bitter rivalries. Having some place where people can release that negativity seems like a good solution. Supposing the admins did just disable their accounts, they might just come back again with new accounts (as I've heard CSS has done a few times). The backroom seems like the perfect containment-through-freedom solution. When people get roudy in the Lounge, they are free to "take it outside" (the backroom).
Though, to improve CP's image, it may be advisable to handle the backroom differently. For example, don't let it be Google indexed. And require login to see it. But for all I know, that may already occur.
Oh, and for the record, I don't think the backroom should be selectively moderated, unless the content could concievably be construed as illegal (I suppose racist comments may be seen as illegal in some places). On the other hand, I wouldn't complain if some of the inappropriate content were deleted. Conversely, I wouldn't think everything somebody doesn't agree with should be reported in site bugs/suggestions either. Basically, I think we should avoid interferring with the nonsense in the backroom (so it doesn't burden the site admins and so the rivalries have an outlet away from the rest of the site).
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, that was well said. 
|
|
|
|
|
If it were possible to ban people once and for all then your argument holds.
Every post in that forum is subject to the terms and use of our site. I've deliberately left it to the community to self police but it seems this isn't being done.
Who wants to put their hand up to be a backroom moderator?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I missed the use of to be in that sentence. I initially read this as "Who wants to put their hand up a backroom moderator?" I thought you were inviting people to take up practical puppetry.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I've deliberately left it to the community to self police but it seems this isn't being done.
There is no 'Vote to Remove' button in the Backroom, so I fail to see how we can Self Police that forum.
If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: If it were possible to ban people once and for all then your argument holds.
Okay, but you already ban spammers. You don't redirect them to the back room. And there are far many more spammers than there are people who go beyond acceptable limits of forum behavior.
I still don't see one valid reason to keep that forum alive.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: I still don't see one valid reason to keep that forum alive.
Because if it was deleted, the undesirables will surface in the more prominent forums. Chris can ban their IP address, but as you know, there are ways they can side-step this and rejoin. Although not ideal the backroom serves its purpose of keeping the undesirable people and topics away from the main throughfares.
If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.
|
|
|
|
|
Pompeyboy3 wrote: Chris can ban their IP address
He can't even really do that, I think. What if it's a company behind a single external IP address, and he ends up banning everybody at Microsoft?
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: you already ban spammers
Assuming you are talking about advertisers, they are a bit of a different story. They have less of an emotional investment, so they are less likely to be a repeated burden and they are less likely to keep signing up. They also don't create as offensive of content. And the other spammers -- say, the people asking the same thing over and over -- will go away when they find their problem not being solved or when they are late (on their work or homework) and no longer have a problem to solve.
Also, some people who use the backroom are actual contributors. If we can let them talk amongst themselves (without us having to go there), then we get their contributions without much effort.
|
|
|
|
|
aspdotnetdev wrote: they are a bit of a different story
Exactly.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I push on the "class" boundary quite often.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
LunaticFringe wrote: This crossed the line.
Different people draw this line differently.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't be disingenous. This exceeded what any reasonable person would consider acceptable. The hamsters' and Chris' reactions should have made that clear.
[edit]
Clarification.
[/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 10:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
There's a shock. 
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Use of the N word, is not "politically incorrect". That's the kind of "mild mannered wordplay" that old school bigots use to try to excuse what is just straight up racism ("Oh it's those people with their politically incorrect detectors on again").
From the title of the message it sounded like an irredeemable racist & sexist rant. If it wasn't, then it shouldn't have had an offensive title, the original poster only has themselves to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
So according to you, the N word is always irredeemable straight up racism?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I stand by what I said.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a bit old fashioned..
What do you suggest I call them, then?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
