|
This blog is in moderation queue but is an old version of the currently published one.
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/ArticleVersion.aspx?waid=156474&aid=867470[^]
[Edit] The link now points to the published version but for some hours was as above.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
modified 20-Jan-15 0:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed fat_boys temporary demise and checked his latest messages and saw that he has attracted himself a univoter.
I can't look at the messages as they're gone, but from the context of the answers he got I'm fairly certain that there should be no reason for reporting them.
Funny thing though, they all have just one downvote/report, and if I haven't misunderstood that there is a need for more than one report to kill a message, it implies a bug or that there is a protector malfunction.
|
|
|
|
|
The one I replied to had nothing wrong with it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe so, but a single report, be it from a platinum member or not, is to quick.
|
|
|
|
|
Only on reputation, not on spam reports, you still need 10 or more. If I should ever downvote you you would lose 16 rep, while a golden member will make you lose only 8. That's it, nothing more - in fact kicking REAL spammers is tough enough.
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Platinum level have the ability to close messages with one hit.
We've gone back and forth on this a few times: we need to allow members to kick spammers immediately, but we need top rep members to behave sensibly too.
Sometimes you don't get everything you wish for.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
As a personal opinion I find this situation quite ridiculous, FB isn't doing a personal attack on anyone, someone else is just having a different opinion and decides to nuke every message from him. And BTW, FB gets his messages nuked in the soapbox too, so any claims from the perp about lounge rules is just bs.
Thoughts,
Would it be a big deal to add the possibility to revoke those rights on a person to person basis in the case of misuse, but leave reputation and other stuff alone?
Since it's apparently the signature that is the problem and it's the same signature in all forums there should be a separate guideline for signatures.
There's for example plenty of sigs out there with spammy links that's not bothered with in the spam hunt. And probably shouldn't be bothered with, but it's your call.
|
|
|
|
|
I've already spoken to the person who's been doing the nuking. Simply talking it through can do amazing things sometimes.
With regards to sigs: Outright spam shouldn't be tolerated. Links to your company or the product you write are fine. Devs should be proud of their work and where they work. Using it to sell? Not cool. If you see users doing this then call them out and we can chat about them on the Spam and Abuse forum.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Simply talking it through can do amazing things sometimes.
Ah, but sometimes it makes a big difference who's doing the talking. 
|
|
|
|
|
My posts are still being deleted, in all forums, so it seems there is either another party doing it or your chat had no effect.
The problem with allowing this kind of behaviour is that it sterilises CP of any personality outside of some perceived 'norm' and the reason most of us come here is for general discussion, and as much as we might disagree with someone elses opinion they have as much right to it as I do to mine and must be allowed it and not subjected to some sort of 'mobocratic mundanity'.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: The problem with allowing this kind of behaviour is that it sterilises CP of any personality
This argument again, eh?
CodeProject is a site for software developers. We welcome discussions on other stuff, we welcome debate on interesting stuff, we welcome a bit of to-and-for-ing.
However, leave your baggage and political, racial or religious issues at the door. We all get along here. Doesn't mean we agree with each other, but it means we don't bait, provoke or use CodeProject as your own personal Soapbox (there's a private soapbox for that).
If you have an axe to grind then head on over to one of the zillion sites that can accommodate this. In the meantime please remove your signature. It's blatantly political and could even be considered an advertisement.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: CodeProject is a site for software developers
And accountants.
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, a message of yours I can still see.
|
|
|
|
|
You know what Chris, the reason I was attracted to CP was the variety and frankness of the discussions here. It always was far more than a coders site, and was the better for it. If that's going to go then I don't see much value in CP.
Sorry, but that's the way it is, and I know a lot of others feel the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoy the openness and frankness too.
But let's get back to you: you signature is political and inflammatory. You're welcome to enjoy the openness and frankness of the Soapbox to push your agenda but again I ask that you don't use CodeProject in general to grind your axe.
This isn't about frankness and free speech. It's about appropriateness.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still waiting for you to respond to my comments about appropriateness and respect for the community.
I, too, enjoy open discussions. There's a way to do that in a way that let's other's enjoy the site, too.
It's not about you. It's about helping software developers.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: It's about helping software developers
The community clearly wants freedom of speech Chris, and my sig to be allowed. It is in fact a small minority who don't, so perhaps you should ask that minority to respect the wishes of the wider community?
|
|
|
|
|
You have freedom of speech.
13 upvotes isn't a majority, especially since there isn't the option of downvoting.
Now: what about appropriateness? Do you feel you should respect the community and the site, and myself personally, and keep discussions in the appropriate (yet still very public) places we've asked you to?
Or does that not apply to you?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
13 upvotes is about as high as any post gets voted so clearly it shows a major agreement, which is also evident in the various discussions this has given rise to where there have been only I think one or two people agreeing with censorship, and all the rest saying my sig is OK.
Chris Maunder wrote: Do you feel you should respect the community
it is clear the community want the sig to stay Chris.
Anyway, why do you find a request to uphold international law offensive? How about if the sig said "sign a petition to have Blair prosecuted for war crimes"? Would that be acceptable? (And be careful how you answer, I might just try it. )
|
|
|
|
|
Where is this "censorship" when I'm asking you to keep political discussions out of the Lounge?
Munchies_Matt wrote: Would that be acceptable?
Absolutely not.
Anyway, and again: Do you feel you should respect the community and the site, and myself personally, and keep discussions in the appropriate (yet still very public) places we've asked you to? Or does that not apply to you?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I dot see a sig as discussion Chris.
You are perfectly happy to let people use swear words on their sigs, yet I have seen you ask people to control their language when they use swear words in posts in the lounge. Therefore clearly a post is NOT a sig and a sig is NOT a discussion.
Anyway, as I said, it is clear the community doesn't mind my sig, just one or two individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you feel you should respect the community and the site, and myself personally, and keep discussions in the appropriate (yet still very public) places we've asked you to? Or does that not apply to you?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't discuss politics in the lounge Chris, but you do admit that swear words are allowed in sigs, yet not in lounge conversations. Why not apply the same logic to my sig?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
