|
Something like that, for example the same criteria as the vote to remove.
|
|
|
|
|
We already have "vote to remove", which should be enough, and allows Chris to decide if any further action is required.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: We already have "vote to remove", which should be enough,
IMHO, it is not enough. Some posts don't need to be removed, they should just be moved to an appropriate forum. I think the community should handle stuff like this and not just Chris.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Some posts don't need to be removed
But that's just a matter of the reader's opinion. I might see a message that I think is more appropriate to a different forum, whereas others may think it should be removed completely. How many option buttons are we going to need?
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: How many option buttons are we going to need?
Only two. Move and remove should be the only ones. I feel they should have been there from the get go. Parts of this site should be completely self moderating in my opinion, and should not be moderated by one person alone.
If the majority feel that it should be removed, then it will be. However, if the majority of the community feel that it should be in the Soapbox or a programming forum then so be it.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
As long as the "remove message" is unhooked from "remove user" then I'd agree. MM has been banned twice simply for using the language of the snooker hall in the lounge, whereas moving it to the SoapBox would have been enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and Chris has explained what happened and why. I don't think it was a big deal then, nor is it likely to be in the future. The systems in place at the moment seem to work for nearly all situations, which, given how much we have to pay to use this site, is pretty d****d good.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: The systems in place at the moment seem to work for nearly all situations,
which, given how much we have to pay to use this site, is pretty d****d
good.
There's no need to bring that up here. Different websites have different business models. Google and Facebook are free for use too (apparently). Just because CP does not have a paid subscription does not mean members should shut up about problematic site features. If that were so, Chris wouldn't even have this forum here.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: There's no need to bring that up here.
Why? I was merely making a comment on the previous discussion and it seems quite relevant to me.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Why? I was merely making a comment on the previous discussion and it seems quite
relevant to me.
Okay, I may have missed the previous discussion where the subscription model was discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: The systems in place at the moment seem to work for nearly all situations, which, given how much we have to pay to use this site, is pretty d****d good.
My suggestion was just that: a suggestion, not a criticism. I thought I'd suggest something that I think could help.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: My suggestion was just that: a suggestion, not a criticism.
So was mine.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: My suggestion was just that: a suggestion, not a criticism.
Just thought I'd point out that Chris has never ever stated that criticism is not welcome here. Most (or even all) of the criticism here has been constructive. Two of the site's biggest critics are Hans and Luc - and I can't imagine either of them worrying about how their suggestions/feedback will be taken.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: MM has been banned twice
Twice? I thought yesterday was the first and only time.
|
|
|
|
|
He was banned twice yesterday. He's now had more resurrections than Dracula.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: He was banned twice yesterday. He's now had more resurrections than Dracula.
Wow, ok. The first was for that Sharapova thread. Which was the other? 
|
|
|
|
|
Same thread. People REALLY took exception to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Same thread. People REALLY took exception to it.
Ok, thanks Pete.
|
|
|
|
|
If the "remove message" functionality is kept separate to the "remove user", I'd agree. But given what has happened to MM, then I think it could have been better handled for a "Move to SoapBox" option. As Pete mentioned, his crime was to use the language of the snooker hall, he wasn't trolling and he wasn't abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: If the "remove message" functionality is kept separate to the "remove user", I'd agree.
It is, as Chris explained. What happened was a temporary aberration that should not be repeated.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
That's like saying "Just leave your junk anywhere you want. We'll put it away neatly for you". Is it wrong to ask members to keep posts appropriate? Why encourage laziness or arrogance? My preference is to just delete stuff that's plainly inappropriate.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: My preference is to just delete stuff that's plainly inappropriate.
Then get rid of the Soapbox and Backroom completely and just have appropriate posts in the Lounge because there is a whole lot of inappropriate stuff going on in the den of sin.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Then get rid of the Soapbox and Backroom completely
This is already done if I’m not mistaken. The BR is not listed in the forums list. And the SB is nicely holding the jokes which could offend some sensitive soul.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
My suggestion was made in the light of the tie-up between "report a message" and "report a user" that caused MM to be deactivated. We've already seen what happens: MM made a "Lounge-inappropriate" message, he got blitzed and his account was fried. Twice. He wasn't abusive and he wasn't trolling. Deactivation seems a bit harsh for a relatively minor thing. OK, he was reinstated, but if people voted to move the post to the SoapBox instead the whole saga would have been prevented.
Chris Maunder wrote: That's like saying "Just leave your junk anywhere you want. We'll put it away neatly for you".
I don't see how that is different from the current situation: Alice makes a post. Bob (not CP Bob, generic Bob) thinks it shouldn't be in the Lounge so he reports it in Sugs & Bugs. The offending message is squirrelled off to the Soapbox if the powers that be agree with Bob. The current situation just takes longer, the suggested button would just remove the administrative burden and allow the community to self-police as it does with trolling and spamming accounts. At least my that was my thinking. That said, given that CP the report an accounts stuff has been re-separated out from the report a message (and I agree with the logic that if someone repeatedly offends then removing their account is reasonable) I think the button would be a bad idea.
Chris Maunder wrote: Why encourage laziness or arrogance?
Because along with impatience it might be a good thing[^]?
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: it might be a good thing
Touche!
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
