|
I have similar problems stopping all these cries of "Censor him! Quiet him! Get him away from here! I do not want opposing arguments to what I say!"
If these cries for censorship would cease, it would be much more quiet in here.
|
|
|
|
|
kalberts wrote: If these cries for censorship would cease, it would be much more quiet in here.
You need to work on your comprehension dude.
- Talking about blocking him... from me. This is not censorship. Duh.
- He is harassing me. You're not an expert on this matter. Be smarter.
- Refer to point 2.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Email: You could try webmaster@codeproject.com
Or you can use the @ notation in front of chris-maunder to summon him here
Or you could suggest it in Bugs and Suggestions[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks man.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, this is your third attempt in an hour to post this - the previous two has been removed. Expect this one to be removed as well!
The problem is that your definition of "harassment" includes stating opinions and arguments that do not agree with yours. You obviously do not want any opposition, but demand the right to have the last word.
When I do state opposition, you tell me to shut up, go away, silence. You do not accept my opinions but will censor them from the discussion.
When I refer to the right to free speech, Universal Declaration of Human Righs Article 19, you take that as "abuse", "following you around", and "insults".
It doesn't look like the admins agree with your judgement. Stating differing opinions in a follow up post, and defending it by referring to UDHR-19 (which is roughly corresponding to the First Amendment, in case you refuse to look up something non-American), seems to be within limits of the acceptable on CP.
And there is no reason to keep my user name secret. Look up all the posts I have made the last few days, but don't forget to, in every single case, look up the post I am answering to, and include that in your judgement.
I also suggest that you do not use trump case if you want to follow up.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know what abuse means, clearly. If I followed you around for months and did nothing but argue with and insult you... I bet you'd sing a different tune as to what constitutes harassment. You think you know everything because you saw one post? Perhaps you should exercise better judgement in your accusations and stop wasting my time.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
kalberts wrote: And there is no reason to keep my user name secret
Also, I'm not even talking about you. Unless you have two accounts. And if you do, just to get me to reply to this... then you're only proving how much of a stalker you are.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
How to you define "stalking"?
Is answering to several of your posts with relevant counter arguments, disagreeing with yours, considered "stalking"? Is it more so than you consistent, immediate cries of "Censor him! You be silent! Get out of here!", with no sort of rational (or for that sake, irrational) justification for your demands?
You censorship demands are making so much noise to try to get me out of CP that it is difficult to see how you can be the one being stalked. If you hadn't started your screaming, the discussions would have been calm and civilized, and noone would ever have been thinking of anything like "stalking" or "harassment" or "insults". Removing all of your censorship demands out of the discussions (along with my follow ups) would have left it as a quite normal, disciplined debate.
|
|
|
|
|
While I partly understand your frustration, I’m wondering how would you see this working from a technical point of view. Should the person be blocked from directly replying to your messages? What about replies to replies? Should his messages be invisible to you? Would the conversation still be intelligible? Not sure how this could work.
On the other hand, I feel that anyone who speaks in a public place should be prepared to hear dissenting views. I’m sure standup comedians aren’t happy when they get heckled, but that’s life 😂
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Mircea Neacsu wrote: I’m sure standup comedians aren’t happy when they get heckled
From some of the videos I have seen recently, I think they actually enjoy the challenge. I saw one where the comedian said to the heckler, "Give up now mate, you will lose.". And true to his word he destroyed the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
There are a couple of videos like that running the net... and they are all worth viewing. I whish I could counteranswer with that souveranity while destroying the other person without getting emotional.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, stand-ups have some very special talents.
|
|
|
|
|
Mircea Neacsu wrote: While I partly understand your frustration, I’m wondering how would you see this working from a technical point of view. Should the person be blocked from directly replying to your messages? What about replies to replies? Should his messages be invisible to you? Would the conversation still be intelligible? Not sure how this could work.
This has been handled on every social site. It's not a new model. In short, replies to replies are generally passed through but direct ones are blocked.
Mircea Neacsu wrote: place should be prepared to hear dissenting views.
If it were a dissenting view that would be one thing. This has crossed over to harassment. Anyone who's not socially awkward (not saying that's you) knows the difference. Unfortunately, programmers typically have no social skills.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I was debating if I should reply but I have a bad day and, against my better judgment, I decided to answer.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Anyone who's not socially awkward (not saying that's you)
Maybe this kind of passive-aggressive comments create some of the friction... just a thought.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Unfortunately, programmers typically have no social skills.
Cura te ipsum.
Mircea out.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Mircea Neacsu wrote: Maybe this kind of passive-aggressive comments create some of the friction... just a thought.
100% agree with you. I'm not even saying it's mature of me to say that. So, totally agree. It doesn't mean I'm wrong though. You could argue I'm wrong for pointing it out. But, in my world, that's a benign statement. I find the less mature a person is the more they are taken aback by talk of such nature. Just keeping it real man.
Mircea Neacsu wrote: Cura te ipsum.
It's not a matter of curing myself, per se. I have nothing in common with the average person on CP, and I never will unfortunately. My only cure would be to stop coming here or just blacklist people.
Anywho, thanks for disagreeing with me civilly at least. Hope your day gets better.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So, totally agree. It doesn't mean I'm wrong though. You could argue I'm wrong for pointing it out
Jeremy, from my humble "external" point of view:
- Both of you are intelligent enough to get really good discussions
- Both of you can be as nitpicky as the other
- Both of you can be as stubborn as the other
- Both of you can be like a that kind of dog that once it bites, you can't lose it until it decides it has had enough
What I what to mean is... both of you are similar enough in your way that you actually potentiate your differences logaritmically.
My parents have always told me: "Two don't fight, if one of them doesn't want it".
What it can be translated to (and I am pretty sure each of you see the other as one of the kind): DNFTT
I haven't looked for your conversations of the last days (and I won't do it) but from what I have observed in the messages I can remember from both of you. You usually are harsher than him, in the way you communicate. I do know, that he can be very insulting if he wants to, but (I tell again, from what I have seen) he does it with a lower profile than you.
Said that...
this is not going to get a response on the usual way.
At the moment, blocking users have already been discussed a couple of times and discarded every one of them.
I fear that the typical "abuser" report doesn't apply here.
The only thing I can think of is to summon the big cahoonas @sean-ewington and / or @chris-maunder and let see what they have to say.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Can't disagree with anything you said, man. And it was very well written. There will always be personality differences, and Lord knows I'm not perfect.  I personally draw the line when someone asks to be left alone that it gets respected, however. That line was crossed over and over for months where he just refused to leave me alone.
I did speak to someone about this, it's just no longer a public discourse. A blocking feature would solve all of this though. Every social site has one. I could tell you reasons why programming sites don't, but it's been my observation not everyone is observant when it comes to matters of internal focus. So, that type of chat may have to be reserved for a few rather than public forum.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I personally draw the line when someone asks to be left alone that it gets respected, however.
As it should be.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: That line was crossed over and over for months where he just refused to leave me alone.
That's something I would dislike too.
Blocking users, could make it somehow easier, but creating new accounts (fire and forget) would not be that difficult and render the block function useless. We have it everyday with the spammers that annoy CP.
We (many users) have already come with different suggestions to address this topics and Chris have always spoke with us, but at the end of the day, with the pragmatism that define most of us, the topics were rejected with really good argumentations by the Staff, mostly within the comparison work-benefit and keeping the site relatively user friendly for people looking for help.
You would say, people coming here are techies and shouldn't have any problem with such "steps". The easiest answer to that is: Go to the Q&A and see it by yourself 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
To me, there is a big difference between being "stalked", "harassed", ... and having reactions to a publicly made statement. The statement / posting is a public thing. The person making it public cannot deny others the right to have reactions to it, and cannot deny those reactions to be made similarly public. Leaving a person alone does not imply that you must be totally silent about that person's public statements.
|
|
|
|
|
If only public posts are done... yes, you are right.
On the other hand, it still is one's decission to continue doing something that is not desired and has been (hopefully) asked politely
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Notice he continues to stalk. He's reading my messages still and replying to you now, defending stalking behavior. He already has two accounts I've seen, so yeah it wouldn't "stop" a techie, but it would send a message and make it obvious that he a techie did create several accounts that he clearly needs his account removed (articles and all). However, that's also the crux of the situation why CP will never do that... articles. Still remains though, this guy needs to go away.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It has been suggested that "replies to replies are generally passed through but direct ones are blocked". One problem is to stay in step. It could lead only the censor getting through, telling someone to get away, shut up, or whatever, and you don't know who the censor is yelling at.
Or possibly that poster presenting an undesired counter argument is the one passed through, with then 'Censor him!' cries being blocked.
When a thread spreads in multiple levels, there is a problem of defining the base for "direct replies" to be blocked and "replies to replies" being let through. Also, to make "replies to replies", the first reply must be available, and how can it be if it is blocked?
So I do not have any confidence in this solution.
Don't forget UDHR-19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
