|
we should also ban all negative words. So whenever one of:
abominable, amiss, atrocious, awful, bad news, beastly, blah, bottom out, bummer, careless, cheap, cheesy, crappy, cruddy, crummy, defective, deficient, diddly, dissatisfactory, downer, dreadful, erroneous, fallacious, faulty, garbage, godawful, grody, gross, grungy, icky, imperfect, inadequate, incorrect, inferior, junky, lousy, off, poor, raunchy, rough, sad, slipshod, stinking, substandard, synthetic, the pits, unacceptable, unsatisfactory, damaging, dangerous, deleterious, detrimental, hurtful, injurious, ruinous, unhealthy, base, corrupt, criminal, delinquent, evil, iniquitous, mean, reprobate, sinful, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked, wrong, moldy, off, putrid, rancid, rotten, sour, spoiled, disastrous, distressing, grave, harsh, intense, painful, serious, terrible, adverse, disagreeable, discouraged, discouraging, displeasing, distressed, gloomy, grim, melancholy, troubled, troubling, unfavorable, unfortunate, unhappy, unpleasant (the list goes on, message is getting too long)
appears, either the sentence or the entire message should be removed automatically.
Next we must ban all negations of positive sentences.
And that isn't enough either, as the lack of a sufficient number of positive words could be interpreted as a disapproval. Therefore all adjectives should be banned.
That will make an interesting read.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
|
|
|
|
|
Not working Luc. Neither funny nor helping you establish whatever the heck it is that you are trying to prove here.
If you've got some actual criticism that makes sense, I'll be happy to listen.
|
|
|
|
|
You could always downvote him... 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Truly, you are the master.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I just don't agree with them
Then debate them; show them and the world where they are wrong.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
|
|
That same argument could be used against upvoting, or against voting in general.
And sometimes you don't want to convince someone they are wrong because they may not be "wrong", they may just have an opinion that differs from you.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: That same argument could be used against upvoting, or against voting in general.
Yep. I have no problem with that. I think the voting in the chat forums is just wrong.
Chris Maunder wrote: they may just have an opinion that differs from you.
And because they expressed it, you vote them down??? So if I think Java is an antiquated language, I should downvote every article in here that talks about it, in hopes that everyone will stop using it or at least stop talking about it?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say someone says something along the lines of "VB is the best language ever" and there's a huge debate on the pros and cons. Let's say I read through it all and - surprise, surprise - I can't add anything because everything in this argument has already been said in the thread. 10 times. I would like to quitely just vote this bold and clearly dellusional statement a "1".
Now let's say someone says "I think Starbucks coffee is the nectar of the Gods". I'll vote it down and then spend 3 pages drilling into exactly how misguided and patently absurd this statement is.
I'm saying I like the option of participation by adding my coin to the pile without having to hang around and get caught up in the deluge.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: 10 times
at least
Chris Maunder wrote: Now let's say someone says "I think Starbucks coffee is the nectar of the Gods". I'll vote it down and then spend 3 pages drilling into exactly how misguided and patently absurd this statement is.
I didn't know you had studied theology.
Chris Maunder wrote: I would like to quitely just vote this bold and clearly dellusional statement a "1".
Whereas I would have ignored the entire thread since I'd know from the subject that everyone would be talking out of the wrong end of the GI tract.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, everything you're saying made good sense ... when you started CodeProject. The kind of rational, reasonable scenario you describe existed then; you didn't have fun-seeking trolls lobbing anonymous downvote grenades into the crowds.
Who does downvoting hurt? The people you are trying to attract to CodeProject, new members who don't understand what they have done wrong, and sometimes (rarely) end up on this forum, asking for help or at least an explanation.
Who wants downvoting? Every explanation I've heard boils down to one thing: I like downvoting because I want to vote without participating. It's all about me. I want it, and I feel sorry for those who suffer from it, but it's what I want.
Does downvoting help the CodeProject community? No. Not in any way. Whatsoever.
Does downvoting hurt the CodeProject community? Yes. You've seen the posts on this forum. I believe these posts represent just a fraction of the members who are affected by this. Do you honestly believe the benefits of downvoting outweigh the loss of potential contributing members?
Let it go, Chris. Let's move on. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Just to backup and clarify here:
Are you talking about removing downvotes for articles only, for articles and programming Q∓A, or for everything including the lounge and soapbox?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
This might not sit well with some, but I believe consistency offers more value than trying to preserve some small piece of downvoting in some corners of CodeProject.
So yes, I would like to see no downvoting on anything, anywhere.
Again, if you want to apply this only to members below a status of [fill in color here], then I will trust your judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I still like to vote someone a 1
The problem is not and has never been a Chris Maunder 1-vote. I know that you would never vote 1 in a mean-spirited or troll-ish way. The problem is the many members here who have no respect for other members. A 1-vote is just another toy for these people.
I would like to leave you and other responsible members the ability to 1-vote, because I do understand why you want this. But the anguish that 1-voting causes is not IMHO worth it. As Nish says, the site would be better off without it.
Glad you're back. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think we're getting somewhere. And thank you, North America, for your insanely cold welcome.
What about upvotes only for < bronze, all voting options for Bronze+?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: What about upvotes only for < bronze, all voting options for Bronze+?
Bronze is too low. I think you become Bronze just by spending a day or two here. Silver and higher (and Silver in at least 2 categories, for further filtering).
|
|
|
|
|
My sense is that Nish is right, bronze is way low. I'll be happy with whatever you decide.
Let me ask this: is it possible - in special circumstances - to set this threshold on a per-member basis? If a - say, gold - member starts throwing 1-votes around, would it be possible to prevent him from doing that, without affecting other gold members? Just thinking this might be a helpful tool.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: Let me ask this: is it possible - in special circumstances - to set this threshold on a per-member basis? If a - say, gold - member starts throwing 1-votes around, would it be possible to prevent him from doing that, without affecting other gold members? Just thinking this might be a helpful tool.
I second this.
Now that you can see what reputation a vote comes with, I've been quite surprised by how often it's a gold or platinum guy that votes you down without any provided/valid reason!
People blame the new bronze signups, but often enough, it's some of the seniors here who indulge in petty voting games.
|
|
|
|
|
Heh. I'm thinking of the James Bond film Goldeneye, where they sent a "spike" to mess with the other guy. I think platinum members should have the ability to send a spike to 1-voters.
What you're saying makes sense, though. Recently I was shocked that John C started 1-voting people who were annoying him in a thread, as if he thought the thread was his own personal property. I think anyone can have a bad day, and that includes senior members. If that happened to someone in my family, I would step aside with that person, and ask what was going on. Anonymity appeals to the dark side.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: I think platinum members should have the ability to send a spike to 1-voters.
And then who gets to spike the platinums. Don't we have enough thought police in the world?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: Recently I was shocked that John C started 1-voting people
How exactly do you find that out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: set this threshold on a per-member basis
No thanks. If a gold member starts throwing around 1-votes it's usually with a reason. However, if a gold member is on a rampage then his account gets suspended. I simply do not have the resources to manually tune that number of accounts.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I've just modified the code so that those with Silver status in "Author", "Authority", "Editor", "Organiser" no longer have restrictions. I'll have this update posted tomorrow.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That's good - thanks!
Best regards
Espen Harlinn
|
|
|
|
|
Judging from the Lounge, the "Let's use the Indian Forum" idea has fallen flat.
Let's get back to the idea of a separate sports forum.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
