|
A bit flat, but I can't see how one can find THAT abusive! 
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you realize that no signatures displayed now... 
|
|
|
|
|
It seems as if we have all lost our signatures. 
Has Chris done a blanket ban on them despite the overwhelming support for my sig in this thread? Seems so.
|
|
|
|
|
He maybe wanted a silent night
|
|
|
|
|
My half cent:
The link is to support a cause. So if someone really cares for animals he could have a link to support PETA - even if that would offend ME (as PETA is aginst scientific experimentation on animals), or some other could have a link to a petition for gay rights in some country and that could offend some extra-conservative user.
Now, would you really want to ban anything not related to technical topics only because a limited number of users brought in the "abuse report" war?
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
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not even sure why this is being discussed so much. In fact, almost all of the discussion is on whether it is offensive or not. That is not the point, as I see it. In fact I see it very black and white. The Lounge rules state no politics and the sig clearly had a political message in it. Case closed. It violates the lounge rules.
Now, do I personally care enough to mark it abusive, no. But it is against the rules so if anyone marks it abusive, then they are correct.
I say leave it all as is.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Your words, I fully support.
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
So everything that anyone decides to perceive as breaking the rules should be voted as abuse?
Right.
Might as well quit the site today, because it'll turn into an unbearable rat-hole within a couple of months.
Or did you mean that it's only the things that you decide to perceive as breaking the rules should be voted as abuse?
If so, I'll quit the site right this minute, because it'll turn into an unbearable rat-hole within a couple of weeks.
"Playing nicely with the other children" does not include the statement "I'll decide what's right and wrong!"
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: So everything that anyone decides to perceive as breaking the rules should be voted as abuse?
|
|
|
|
|
It is very hard to define what is _not allowed_. Personally I would define what is allowed: In technical section only technical things are allowed, no matter it is an answer, comment, signature *) or what else.
*) Now the question remains: Is a signature very different from the user profile - where one can put "everything"? Either by text (in worst case a "special" user name) or an "special" picture...
It becomes a never ending storry.... I'm hoping that users here are that polite simply to accept the rules. If not, abuse reports have to be taken into account.
Conclusion: Only neutral things in technical part!
Take an example from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry[^]
Bruno
[sorry for my strange English, I hope you can understand my message]
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
While I agree that considering the rules, the link is breaking them and as such shouldn't be allowed. However, to say that the Matt is doing so just to bring attention to himself I think is incorrect. This came to a head, in my opinion, because a certain individual (or individuals) is making this personal against Matt because he (or they) perceives Matt as being anti-Semitic and have come to have a personal vendetta against Matt. There have been quite vigorous fights in the backroom considering the Israel/Palestinian issue. And it is clear to me there is the desire to silence Matt at all costs.
While the link text is political and so is the petition, I don't think any reasonable person would find it offensive. Even to those who are quite on the opposite side of the issue from Matt but are fair-minded.
As such, I think Matt or anyone else should be allowed to link to a petition they feel strongly about.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: to say that the Matt is doing so just to bring attention to himself I think is incorrect
Fat_Boy has already said that he just likes a good, hearty debate.
So we're having one 
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
That is true. It seems the signature was more about taking a stand...
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I've said it before I'll say it again. Ignore it. My observation is that it'll go away.
Look, the level of engagement that fluctuates at any given time in any given post is driven by personal interest in the post. To hit that reply rectangle is to make some judgement about the content of the post that is personal. And even if the responder could reply without any feeling about what it was he was typing into the message space, the new addition to the "discussion" (how it goes ... left-to-right indentation not as ergonomically salient as my eye would like it, but hey) makes for great voir dire.
I don't use that courtroom term lightly either. And I am not at all glib aout this post though I can see some, at this position in the spagetti line, are. We're developers. Perhaps we're programmers, although that's debateable. What machines do is advance the rights of mankind. But not without us.
I would submit that no machine, not even Watson, is smart enough to skim through hateful tirade, diatribe, dogma, and the like and successfully determine that it wasn't any of the just typed in words that describe the dark content which is ultimately the issue here.
Watson would flip a coin. Or just void a judgement and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The signature breaches the rules of the Lounge
Dunno.
If sigs are to be treated as content, then quite a number of them breach the rules of the Lounge.
That will require policing by official moderators, because the only other alternative is to allow the voting system to be abused as it was in this case, and allow the content of messages to be deleted because a few members disagree with the content of a sig.
The intent of FB's sig was to express his opinion and rattle cages, sure, but that's who he is and what he does; if we can't accept diversity in a group with 11M members, then we're pretty well screwed.
It was just a sig, however, not a discussion, and it was not he who used the CP abuse/spam mechanism to "black-mark" people who disagree with his opinions.
That is what it appears other members did to him -- the abuse votes were not entered because he broke CP rules, they were entered because the "voters" disagreed with his politics.
So the "abuse" votes effectively created a discussion where previously there was only an opinion. People who would escalate a situation in such a way are equally as culpable as he who put his opinion where they would see it.
If you want to construct processes and rules to handle that kind of thing (and the escalation of abuses of privilege that always follow, when people get away with one small one), be my guest, but it will probably result in you spending the larger proportion of your time debating petty points brought up by both sides in the situation.
I would suggest that you simply rule, as the boss of the site, what the outcome(s) of this one particular situation must be.
E.g. if it were up to me, I would rule:
1. That F_B make an effort to try not to be quite so persistently annoying, i.e. if other members make it clear to him that they find the subject of any of his content- or non-content text to be inappropriate, then he take it that he has already made his point well enough, and desist.
2. That no mechanism that is part of the CP infrastructure be used as an underhand way of abusing other members, as they were in this case.
It's up to you what to rule, though. But make sure you think through point 2 well. I've seen quite literally dozens of message boards and newsgroups go down the tubes because "a happy few" decided that they had the right to run roughshod over other members -- whereas a members or two being a pain in the @rse rarely does much damage.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: That is what it appears other members did to him -- the abuse votes were not entered because he broke CP rules, they were entered because the "voters" disagreed with his politics.
Couldn't agree more! 
|
|
|
|
|
I belive my opinions should be well known by now, and I could probably just say that Bassam and Mark Wallace covers well what I feel and think.
But I would still like to ask if the rules are supposed to be strictly implemented or are they rather more intended to be a guideline.
As a followup question, are we really supposed to report every message that doesn't follow the rules as we interpret them, or would you prefer that we just tell people to bring it to the soapbox instead and bring out the heavy artillery for repeat offenders that simply don't care.
And should it really be enough to kill a post if just one person decides that they feel offended whether real or imagined.
On a personal note, opinions seldom offend me, but abusing the system does.
And removing someones post on just the basis that you disagree, is really offensive to me.
Asking someone drop it and move it somewhere else is not.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: I would still like to ask if the rules are supposed to be strictly implemented or are they rather more intended to be a guideline
The only rule I ask everyone to stick to diligently is the rule of common sense. It's usually obvious when someone is just mentioning something without intent to make a big deal about it and when someone is just looking for attention and stirring the pot just for the sake of it.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: As a followup question, are we really supposed to report every message that doesn't follow the rules as we interpret them, or would you prefer that we just tell people to bring it to the soapbox instead and bring out the heavy artillery for repeat offenders that simply don't care
That's pretty much how it works now, and it seems to work well.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: And should it really be enough to kill a post if just one person decides that they feel offended whether real or imagined
That's the tricky bit. Yes if it's a spammer. No if it's a person venting frustration. If only I could write code that could tell the two apart (though our spam blocker is getting better and better)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with common sense is that it isn't that common.
It's mostly culturally determined.
|
|
|
|
|
I think his signature is like a bumper sticker - It's a way of sticking his point of view in someone's face that they can't do anything about it.
Bumper stickers are allowed on private vehicles, but if you don't own the vehicle, you probably shouldn't put your own stickers on it.
I say that he doesn't own this vehicle, and so should abide by the wishes of the owner - Code Project ownership and staff.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I think your analogy shoots itself in the foot -- which is a shame, because I like it.
If a message were a car, it would be owned by the poster; CP would be the road network.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Just kick him man. Just just kick him. Such a attitude should be severely dealt with. Even he has removed his signature, the current one points to the image that is also objectionable.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: objectionable
 I actually found the new link offensive. Now where is that "shrug" emoticon 
|
|
|
|
|
Its supposed to be funny, seeing it is aimed at the univoters.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
