|
It will exclude people who do not feel strongly enough to (or are not able to adequately) back up their decisions, so it will improve accuracy and appropriateness.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Will downvoting be restored with public accountability?
|
|
|
|
|
Downvoting where?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the problem that some of our longest serving members do things that could be classed as abusive sometimes and we are being asked to 'vote abusive' rather than vote for a 'member to be removed for abuse'.
I'm assuming this change in thinking has been triggered by recent high profile members accounts being removed.
I'm also assuming that these were closed because of Abuse votes rather than Spam votes and that these abuse votes were collected over a period of time.
I also get the impression from some of your comments in this thread that there were some high-ranking or 'upstanding' members amongst those who voted for those accounts to be removed. (I'm guessing that if you looked back at why they voted at that point in time there will be a genuine reason for it)
For example a long-standing member might call someone an 'anal-pore' or get drunk and make a post with a lot of unnecessary swearing in it or be condescending to someone in Q&A.
a.) Do we vote those as abusive.
b.) Or do we say to ourselves he's made a big contribution in the past so we ignore it.
Now nobody wants those members to removed, but at the same time the posts still can be classed as abusive. If we select b.) then we are being asked to judge members differently, depending on who they are.
I guess what I am trying to say is 'vote abusive' gives the impression that your single vote will go straight to an admin, who will read it immediately and then give the recepient a scolding and a warning for being abusive. It doesn't imply that your vote will go on some database somewhere and it will stay there and not be looked at until sometime, far of in the future, when that account has accumulated enough votes to be closed.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent points.
Part of my motivation is to provide you guys with the tools to protect the site and community without us needing to intervene. I don't want to spend my days reviewing every complaint against a member, and you guys don't want to have to wait for me or Sean to get around to reviewing complaints.
P0mpey3 wrote: Now nobody wants those members to removed
This is the crux, and it's probably best solved by adding an "immune" flag to accounts that are above a certain threshold.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
My concern is that without additional changes it will only encourage more bad behavior. Currently if Idiots 1-N gang up on Respected Member Y and suspend Y's account; the peanut gallery in the Lounge is limited to raging about the idiots in a new thread. If you make the votes public I worry that Peanutters 1-M will instead go on a rage banning rampage against Idiots 1-N creating a larger mess at least in the short term.
My bigger worry is that letting spammers/trolls know who's repeatedly nuking them until they glow will end up with them creating a swarm of sock puppets to wage banfare back.
To limit the problems I'd suggest:
0) Preventing new/low rep accounts from being able to raise abuse flags entirely. (Or at least limiting their ability to do so severely; reduced weight and unable to do anything without at least one flag from a more senior account.)
1) Don't allow any number of flags to kill platinum (and gold?) members accounts without confirmation from at least one CP Staff Member or user with Protector status. (I'm assuming that you've kept any of the flag abusers out of that group since the last thing they need is more power on the site.)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: Preventing new/low rep accounts from being able to raise abuse flags entirely
Already in place. You need to be silver or above.
Dan Neely wrote: Don't allow any number of flags to kill platinum (and gold?) members accounts without confirmation from at least one CP Staff Member or user with Protector status
This is something we need to add.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
You afraid it'll clash with your outfit?
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: You afraid it'll clash with your outfit?
I'm afraid it would pinch me in the buttons. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I will be chortling at that image for a few minutes. Carry on without me.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems someone in the organisation can't keep surprises.
Plan B, Sean. Plan B.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
OMG
|
|
|
|
|
Casual Day at CP HQ has gone too far.
|
|
|
|
|
I can see how they will be shocked at the post office - I have a P.O.Box...No letters come to home...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that a REALLY bad case of the crabs?
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good. Adding a little responsibility to authority is an excellent idea.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
clickity[^]
So in other words. Ecuador.
Ecuador[^]
To err is human to really mess up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Pfft - needs more fjords. Slartibartfast would not be impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find, from time-to-time, that my mind will go off on some strange meanderings based on some seemingly innocuous trigger.
On Saturday morning, as I was getting up, my wife came into the bedroom carrying a laundry basket and said "I have some underwear and clothes here if you're short", and so off it goes:
- Is underwear not a subclass of clothes?
- What has my height got to do with it?
- The state of not being short is undefined, but is it that, if I'm not short
- She does not have underwear and clothes?
- She still has them, but I'm not going to be allowed them
- She has only underwear or clothes
All is well as:
- I'm a tad below average height which probably means I'm short
- I wasn't short of clothes or underwear, so it didn't matter
A little later we're on a 45 minute drive (I'm driving) and she asks me this bizarre question "Are you tired because if you aren't I'm going to sleep?" What was her logic:
- She's tired but it would be unfair of her to sleep when I can't?
- She needs to stay awake so that if I drop off she can grab the steering wheel?
- She's too terrified of going to sleep as she knows we're going to crash and die?
- She actually meant to say "I'm tired, so I'm going to sleep"?
In the event, she went to sleep and her snoring kept me awake, so all ended well.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: What was her logic
Female 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
They didn't teach that in my Propositional Calculus class.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
