|
Oh yeah...well your cat's so fat only two legs touch the ground at the same time. 
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
When you are dead you don't know it, it's only difficult for others.
It's the same when you're stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yo mama so fat she's on both sides of the family.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm taking my ball and going to the house. (Stomps feet and walks away)
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
When you are dead you don't know it, it's only difficult for others.
It's the same when you're stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you eventually celebrated your 1,234,567 rep points ?
|
|
|
|
|
No, I was busy yesterday and missed it! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm offended that I am offended at your offense. 
|
|
|
|
|
I rarely use the spam/abuse option, but, having said that, I have used it.
Within 'The Lounge', certain topics are supposed to be avoided, but, people being what they are, post what they want anyway.
For the most part, I will ignore their posts, however, if spelling is changed to avoid filters, but the pronunciation and meaning remain and are offensive, then, yes, the spam/abuse option will be used.
Some people have been banned because of their choice of words and then their ban is rescinded and their general abuse continues. So... the option is used again.
While I would like to address them directly about WHY I voted as I did, I suspect it would result in a barrage of abuse directed specifically at me and then the 'revenge' factor would be played to ban me as well.
So... how do you proceed?
|
|
|
|
|
So your personal taste in word usage is more important than other people's right to communicate within a forum that you do not own.
Interesting.
Note that "abuse" is not concerned with your preferences in word usage, but to abuse of the forum or its members.
I would classify denying members their right to communicate within the forum (that you do not own) as abusive toward those members, and would posit that they should have the right to respond to your abusive behaviour.
You should know that until I read your posting, I was against the idea in the OP, because of the potential for schoolyard fights.
If it helps expose hidden abusive behaviour, however, then I can only come out in favour of it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I do not own the site.
The site has rules as stated in each forum.
Disregarded the rules is abuse of the site.
The author and owner has provided a feedback mechanism to report such.
People have taken to using 'elephanting' and 'sunshine' in place of other words that are considered unacceptable in this forum. The word I took exception to was along the same lines.
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that you object to a word used by another human being does not give you the right to attempt to harm him or his reputation.
What kind of world would it be if everyone behaved like that?
A sh*tty, crappy, f***ing horrible world, that's what kind.
You do not own the site, and you do not own the English language, so do not assume that you are allowed to control either.
Try looking for ways to make the day better, not more miserable. The abuse option is to prevent abuse, not to prevent discussion.
Don't abuse your fellow members by telling what they are and are not allowed to say.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, you petty little wanker. I can't believe that I'm wasting my free moments on morons like this.
Tim Carmichael wrote: The author and owner has provided a feedback mechanism to report such.
Yes, it's called "writing a message".
"Abuse" is another thing altogether.
Using the abuse system because someone says things that you don't like or uses words that you don't like is:
- Abuse of the abuse system.
- Abuse of the forums
- Abuse of the laws of the country that you live in.
You Do Not Have The Right To Tell Anyone What They Are Allowed, Or Not Allowed, To Say.
Go live in Stalin's Russia, if that's the life you want to live.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I would only be concerned if you get a number of abuse reports. I think you have to remember there are probably a lot of newbies experimenting on how the site works.
Hang on.. I've just spotted a red flag, I wonder what happens when I click it.. Oops wheres the undo button!
modified 8-Apr-15 17:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
RossMW wrote: Hang on.. I've just spotted a red flag
So it's those bluddy Chinese, again!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
More likely USA Air Force who have combat training called red flag exercise.
Practicing on CP again... Abuse, Abuse , shoot, shoot, Got that red flag Sir.
|
|
|
|
|
Any community such as this relies on the good sense of its members to avoid "abuse wars", and similar behavior, the problem being the small minority of abusers. The problem with giving everyone the right to report spam/abuse is not the false negatives - most spam that makes it through the automatic filters disappears very quickly - but the false positives. It is these "spam wars" that should be avoided.
What I suggest is that a certain threshold of reports be required before a member is banned. This should work something like this:
- The "abuse report" should be disabled for older messages
This would limit "abuse wars" where someone goes back and tags all of a poster's messages. - The filter should have a time component
There is a difference between someone who posted two abusive messages in the last year, and someone who posted two abusive messages in the last day. - The filter should allow for the number and quality of messages posted
This allows for human error - in both directions. A prolific poster is more likely to be tagged by accident than an occasional poster, and is also more likely to say something to which objection may be taken. - The filter should require reports from more than a small number of people
This would tend to filter out "abuse wars", where a group of friends attempt to get someone banned. - Human judgment should be exercised
This is the most problematic part.
As we are dealing with people's reputations, I feel that a human should review the reports before someone is tarred, feathered, and ridden out of CP on a rail  . This is especially true in borderline cases.
I am aware that "tuning" such a filter would take some time and effort, but I believe that the results would justify the effort.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
And one more I could think of (I am not sure if this is already in place):
- Reset the abuse votes (and the rep points thereof) after say, 5 days, if the reported message doesn't get the predefined number of abuse votes (so as to get nuked off).
-- EDIT
There's something that is preventing me from starting the list from 6 (the item is appearing as 1). 
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Agent__007 wrote: Reset the abuse votes (and the rep points thereof) after say, 5 days, if the reported message doesn't get the predefined number of abuse votes
The idea is a nice one, but this would require keeping a log of the time of each abuse vote on a per-message basis (an extra table in the message database), as opposed to keeping a count of the abuse votes (an extra field per message). You would also need a periodic task running that performs the cleanup, reposting of rep points, etc. Building all this mechanism just for a few rep points seems a bit of overkill.
Please note that point (1) on my list ensures that "abuse wars" cannot affect older messages, so the damage to a poster's reputation is minimal in any case.
Banning someone, OTOH, is serious enough to warrant more effort.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: this would require keeping a log of the time of each abuse vote on a per-message basis
Unless it's already in place.
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Any kind of user moderation is tricky: ultimately there is no safe way to distinguish the serious reports from the abusive ones. We'll have to live with a certain amount of abuse and hope the filters will keep their effects low.
I believe CP does a very decent job at filtering: a single abusive report won't normally* change a lot, and, in most places, when there are multiple reports, some moderator will look into it before taking action.
*: One part of the system where I feel it isn't working all that well is voting on tips and articles: I've been subject to one ab-user who deliberately sought out all of my published tips and articles to downvote them. Since some of them did have no votes at all, they are now filtered out from view for the majority of users who might otherwise have taken advantage of it. On another occasion, I've published a few tips, but within minutes they were hit by some anonymous user in a downvoting spree, resulting in 3 tips that never saw the light of day. I've reported both cases in the support forum, but since there is no official channel for reporting that kind of abuse it went unnoticed.
I realize that my contributions really weren't that important, and the CPians will not suffer for the lack of it. But for me the experience was frustrating, and it discourages me to post further articles. 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm experimenting with displaying articles using ASP.NET 5, VS15, and EF7.
Keep getting distracted by the content of the CodeProject Articles from 1999 ![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of a cool distraction, I would imagine; memory lane.
|
|
|
|
|
Shhh... I'm trying to write some ODBC 3.5 code... I've had this big damn book since 1999 and it won't read itself...
|
|
|
|
|
Guilty as charged....
Life's like a nose, you've got to get out of it whats in it!
|
|
|
|
|
That's the fault of the algo...... oh look an advert for something I don't need but with a lovely coloured boarder
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
