Why not assume that someone(s) finds your answers valuable ?
“Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection." Edward Sapir, 1929
A couple of hours ago, someone posted a question in which he provided a secret Twitter key. Manfred R. Bihy[^] suggested to delete his question, because even if the OP would edit his question and remove the key, the first version would still be visible. And I said that it's also possible to see deleted questions if you know the question ID (by going to the ListVersion.aspx?aid=<questionID> page and choosing the latest version). Manfred replied here[^] that he thinks deleted questions shouldn't be visible. But I use this "feature" when I report abuse if the abusive question is already deleted, to prove that it's really abuse.
So I've this suggestion: the question shouldn't be accessible if the OP deleted it, but still accessible if the question is closed after 3 reports (or perhaps when it's deleted by a Protector/Admin).
What do you think?
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
I'm receiving e-mails from elsewhere, just not CP. I've checked the settings and nowt is changed, all is correct.
There are no spam messages from you, or anyone else for that matter.
I even checked my hotmail account, with my olde e-mail, and that's fine with a couple of e-mails in today I know where forwarded.
I am confused.
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol
"Nagy, you have won the internets." - Keith Barrow
Too late. He's sold his place up the road from me in Melbourne (OK, 10 mins away, but I did bump into him a couple of times at our local cafe) and he's packed his mittens and is on your side of the pond already.
Do we really want to ban people for telling bad jokes?
Please see this post[^]which got the member banned.
Now I don't particularly like the bad jokes that blight the Soapbox but I don't think the intention of the report message button was to remove members who post them, which is what happened in this case. One poster has admitted in that thread that when he reported it he didn't think it would get the member banned, but I suspect the rest of the reporters knew that would be the result(and I reckon I could name them).
I thought that the idea when the down-voting was removed, was that if we didn't like something we should say so by replying to that member in order to educate them in the forum protocol, this has also happened in that thread but people still felt the need to remove him. The reporters will say that he has been warned before and didn't listen, but I think he is genuinely trying to fit in and his only crime is to post rubbish jokes - not really a banning criteria and a 'crime' that many others are guilty of in that forum, but they don't get banned.
When the remove power was in the hands of the admins, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have removed him, so we shouldn't remove him either. After all he marked his post with a joke icon, so members who didn't like his previous jokes could have just passed on by without reading it.
Is it worth reminding the people who reported it what the report button should actually be used for?
It's not down-voting as such as that is disabled in the Soapbox. It's people using the report button as there isn't a down-vote for them to use. Johnny J has admitted there that he reported the message but didn't want to remove the member, but that is what happened. It's suggested there that it is a bug but I don't think it is because if used on a genuine spammer i.e. the live stream ones we are getting recently then you would want the report to both remove the message and the account so that they can't repeat it.
As the message is still there, I'm assuming most people went to his profile to report him directly, which is wrong. At the end of the day I think the report button should strictly be used for genuine spammers or, more rarely, somebody comes on and starts abusing people. I believe this is what it was introduced for and not for removing people that don't fit into the clique.
He always had the potential to go troll I thought, but wasn't there yet and might never have done, so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
His account was nuked (the message still stands), so it wasn't necessarily this message, perhaps he posted something somewhere else?
I think he started some discussions which were met reasonably well in the Lounge (apart from those jokes). I see no reason why he could have become a troll. I think that joke topic made people report him?
You might not I do. Trolling can be more subtle than just winding people up. Some people spend real time and effort on it.
We've had several such people in the past: They start off with a few more-or-less reasonable posts, then the poor jokes start, then they become obnoxious (especially posting unwelcome jokes). Before the report button came into play, it could take days/weeks to get rid of them as they'd play a fine line between winding people up and getting banned. We had one repeat offender who always had this MO, though he normally distinguished himself by putting his location as Lebanon.
I'm not saying he was a troll (I actually didn't report him), just that he showed early signs of being one. Personally I didn't see anything that was worthy of him getting banned.
I understand what you mean and I agree with the points you explained. It's a real pain to get trolls off the site and harder for everyone when the person keeps doing it.
I felt it was unfortunate since he did make a effort to contribute by creating some good topics and even replying in them as well. That I feel, in my view, is someone who did enjoy the Lounge in a normal way.