A discussion On What Constitutes Abuse And What Should Be Done About It
-
NO, but you're putting your political message, regardless of how passively you present it, into every single post, even if it is not an appropriate forum for such statements. Oh, and changing your sig to a picture that is CLEARLY meant for Chris is not going to win you any friends here.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave KreskowiakI think the picture is meant for the univoter. At least I hope so...
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 -
http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Soap-Box-1-0[^]
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 think the picture is meant for the univoter. At least I hope so...
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 EinsteinIn any case, it's inappropriate for a signature, no matter who it's meant for.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave Kreskowiak -
How's that for a catchy title? CodeProject is for software developers to discuss software development and their lives as software developers. We all have a broad range of interests, but the focus is on software and we have very deliberately asked the community to keep the discussions vaguely technology related with the emphasis on being respectful and inclusive. Discussions that are controversial or where a more open, direct, glove-off conversation is needed (or wanted) go in the Soapbox. Everyone has the right to free speech. Everyone has the responsibility to respect the site and the community. If you have an axe to grind then take it elsewhere. There are a million sites more suited to political or religious (for example) debates, or at worst start your own blog. That's your right. If you do want to discuss politics or religion (or whatever) then discuss it in the right place, be respectful, and keep those discussions in the forums best suited. That's your responsibility. The specific issue I'd like to address is Munchies_Matt's signature. It's statement and a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive. It's there purely for attention, and I'm sure he's wriggling with joy that we're discussing him. That's the only purpose of the sig: to stir up a fight. The reaction has been varied. The signature breaches the rules of the Lounge and can be interpreted to breach the site's Terms of Service and I've asked him to remove the signature. Other reactions have ranged from pointing out that the sig should be changed to wholesale closing of all messages by the user. I, personally, aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world. There are way too many extremely talented, generous and generally wonderful human beings contributing day in and day out who I need to give my time to. However, before I do anything I wanted hear from the community. Society evolves, as do we, so let's hear from you as to how we as a community should approach a situation like this.
cheers Chris Maunder
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]
-
How's that for a catchy title? CodeProject is for software developers to discuss software development and their lives as software developers. We all have a broad range of interests, but the focus is on software and we have very deliberately asked the community to keep the discussions vaguely technology related with the emphasis on being respectful and inclusive. Discussions that are controversial or where a more open, direct, glove-off conversation is needed (or wanted) go in the Soapbox. Everyone has the right to free speech. Everyone has the responsibility to respect the site and the community. If you have an axe to grind then take it elsewhere. There are a million sites more suited to political or religious (for example) debates, or at worst start your own blog. That's your right. If you do want to discuss politics or religion (or whatever) then discuss it in the right place, be respectful, and keep those discussions in the forums best suited. That's your responsibility. The specific issue I'd like to address is Munchies_Matt's signature. It's statement and a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive. It's there purely for attention, and I'm sure he's wriggling with joy that we're discussing him. That's the only purpose of the sig: to stir up a fight. The reaction has been varied. The signature breaches the rules of the Lounge and can be interpreted to breach the site's Terms of Service and I've asked him to remove the signature. Other reactions have ranged from pointing out that the sig should be changed to wholesale closing of all messages by the user. I, personally, aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world. There are way too many extremely talented, generous and generally wonderful human beings contributing day in and day out who I need to give my time to. However, before I do anything I wanted hear from the community. Society evolves, as do we, so let's hear from you as to how we as a community should approach a situation like this.
cheers Chris Maunder
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 -
Chris Maunder wrote:
I've asked him to remove the signature
What was the response? On this site, your word is law. If you ask someone to remove or change their signature for any reason, the user must comply. If they don't like your reasons, they're free to go elsewhere. If they refuse to cooperate and follow your rules, even after you've had a word with them, then I don't see how they can continue to be a part of the site.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
On this site, your word is law.
And that is exactly the way to do it. Setting up processes/rules/laws to govern what may and may not be done introduces a never-ending stream of problems, because what is written can be intentionally misread and misrepresented -- and there are always plenty of people who just love misreading and misrepresenting stuff, to give themselves imaginary rights to treat others badly.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
In any case, it's inappropriate for a signature, no matter who it's meant for.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave KreskowiakI disagree. If swear words are allowed then so should this picture be allowed. Words are just pictures in textual form.
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 -
How's that for a catchy title? CodeProject is for software developers to discuss software development and their lives as software developers. We all have a broad range of interests, but the focus is on software and we have very deliberately asked the community to keep the discussions vaguely technology related with the emphasis on being respectful and inclusive. Discussions that are controversial or where a more open, direct, glove-off conversation is needed (or wanted) go in the Soapbox. Everyone has the right to free speech. Everyone has the responsibility to respect the site and the community. If you have an axe to grind then take it elsewhere. There are a million sites more suited to political or religious (for example) debates, or at worst start your own blog. That's your right. If you do want to discuss politics or religion (or whatever) then discuss it in the right place, be respectful, and keep those discussions in the forums best suited. That's your responsibility. The specific issue I'd like to address is Munchies_Matt's signature. It's statement and a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive. It's there purely for attention, and I'm sure he's wriggling with joy that we're discussing him. That's the only purpose of the sig: to stir up a fight. The reaction has been varied. The signature breaches the rules of the Lounge and can be interpreted to breach the site's Terms of Service and I've asked him to remove the signature. Other reactions have ranged from pointing out that the sig should be changed to wholesale closing of all messages by the user. I, personally, aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world. There are way too many extremely talented, generous and generally wonderful human beings contributing day in and day out who I need to give my time to. However, before I do anything I wanted hear from the community. Society evolves, as do we, so let's hear from you as to how we as a community should approach a situation like this.
cheers Chris Maunder
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.
-
How's that for a catchy title? CodeProject is for software developers to discuss software development and their lives as software developers. We all have a broad range of interests, but the focus is on software and we have very deliberately asked the community to keep the discussions vaguely technology related with the emphasis on being respectful and inclusive. Discussions that are controversial or where a more open, direct, glove-off conversation is needed (or wanted) go in the Soapbox. Everyone has the right to free speech. Everyone has the responsibility to respect the site and the community. If you have an axe to grind then take it elsewhere. There are a million sites more suited to political or religious (for example) debates, or at worst start your own blog. That's your right. If you do want to discuss politics or religion (or whatever) then discuss it in the right place, be respectful, and keep those discussions in the forums best suited. That's your responsibility. The specific issue I'd like to address is Munchies_Matt's signature. It's statement and a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive. It's there purely for attention, and I'm sure he's wriggling with joy that we're discussing him. That's the only purpose of the sig: to stir up a fight. The reaction has been varied. The signature breaches the rules of the Lounge and can be interpreted to breach the site's Terms of Service and I've asked him to remove the signature. Other reactions have ranged from pointing out that the sig should be changed to wholesale closing of all messages by the user. I, personally, aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world. There are way too many extremely talented, generous and generally wonderful human beings contributing day in and day out who I need to give my time to. However, before I do anything I wanted hear from the community. Society evolves, as do we, so let's hear from you as to how we as a community should approach a situation like this.
cheers Chris Maunder
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
-
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 EinsteinTheGreatAndPowerfulOz 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
-
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 -
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
Well said. And heartily agree. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
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 -
How's that for a catchy title? CodeProject is for software developers to discuss software development and their lives as software developers. We all have a broad range of interests, but the focus is on software and we have very deliberately asked the community to keep the discussions vaguely technology related with the emphasis on being respectful and inclusive. Discussions that are controversial or where a more open, direct, glove-off conversation is needed (or wanted) go in the Soapbox. Everyone has the right to free speech. Everyone has the responsibility to respect the site and the community. If you have an axe to grind then take it elsewhere. There are a million sites more suited to political or religious (for example) debates, or at worst start your own blog. That's your right. If you do want to discuss politics or religion (or whatever) then discuss it in the right place, be respectful, and keep those discussions in the forums best suited. That's your responsibility. The specific issue I'd like to address is Munchies_Matt's signature. It's statement and a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive. It's there purely for attention, and I'm sure he's wriggling with joy that we're discussing him. That's the only purpose of the sig: to stir up a fight. The reaction has been varied. The signature breaches the rules of the Lounge and can be interpreted to breach the site's Terms of Service and I've asked him to remove the signature. Other reactions have ranged from pointing out that the sig should be changed to wholesale closing of all messages by the user. I, personally, aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world. There are way too many extremely talented, generous and generally wonderful human beings contributing day in and day out who I need to give my time to. However, before I do anything I wanted hear from the community. Society evolves, as do we, so let's hear from you as to how we as a community should approach a situation like this.
cheers Chris Maunder
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.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
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.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
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
-
How's that for a catchy title? CodeProject is for software developers to discuss software development and their lives as software developers. We all have a broad range of interests, but the focus is on software and we have very deliberately asked the community to keep the discussions vaguely technology related with the emphasis on being respectful and inclusive. Discussions that are controversial or where a more open, direct, glove-off conversation is needed (or wanted) go in the Soapbox. Everyone has the right to free speech. Everyone has the responsibility to respect the site and the community. If you have an axe to grind then take it elsewhere. There are a million sites more suited to political or religious (for example) debates, or at worst start your own blog. That's your right. If you do want to discuss politics or religion (or whatever) then discuss it in the right place, be respectful, and keep those discussions in the forums best suited. That's your responsibility. The specific issue I'd like to address is Munchies_Matt's signature. It's statement and a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive. It's there purely for attention, and I'm sure he's wriggling with joy that we're discussing him. That's the only purpose of the sig: to stir up a fight. The reaction has been varied. The signature breaches the rules of the Lounge and can be interpreted to breach the site's Terms of Service and I've asked him to remove the signature. Other reactions have ranged from pointing out that the sig should be changed to wholesale closing of all messages by the user. I, personally, aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world. There are way too many extremely talented, generous and generally wonderful human beings contributing day in and day out who I need to give my time to. However, before I do anything I wanted hear from the community. Society evolves, as do we, so let's hear from you as to how we as a community should approach a situation like this.
cheers Chris Maunder
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.
-
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
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! :thumbsup:
-
How's that for a catchy title? CodeProject is for software developers to discuss software development and their lives as software developers. We all have a broad range of interests, but the focus is on software and we have very deliberately asked the community to keep the discussions vaguely technology related with the emphasis on being respectful and inclusive. Discussions that are controversial or where a more open, direct, glove-off conversation is needed (or wanted) go in the Soapbox. Everyone has the right to free speech. Everyone has the responsibility to respect the site and the community. If you have an axe to grind then take it elsewhere. There are a million sites more suited to political or religious (for example) debates, or at worst start your own blog. That's your right. If you do want to discuss politics or religion (or whatever) then discuss it in the right place, be respectful, and keep those discussions in the forums best suited. That's your responsibility. The specific issue I'd like to address is Munchies_Matt's signature. It's statement and a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive. It's there purely for attention, and I'm sure he's wriggling with joy that we're discussing him. That's the only purpose of the sig: to stir up a fight. The reaction has been varied. The signature breaches the rules of the Lounge and can be interpreted to breach the site's Terms of Service and I've asked him to remove the signature. Other reactions have ranged from pointing out that the sig should be changed to wholesale closing of all messages by the user. I, personally, aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world. There are way too many extremely talented, generous and generally wonderful human beings contributing day in and day out who I need to give my time to. However, before I do anything I wanted hear from the community. Society evolves, as do we, so let's hear from you as to how we as a community should approach a situation like this.
cheers Chris Maunder
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.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
intent is to go against the posting guidelines. It's abusing the site and the community
You are wrong Chris.
Ignore this, it has nothing to do with Israel and its borders.
I condemn your reaction that you are not even ready to listen to Admins. I think you are the first to ignore the advise from them and have such an attitude. So called 'freedom of speech' has nothing to do with this discussion or the issue we are discussing on. What do you mean by your current signature? All i want to say is, you should be ready to face the consequences in form of account cancellation.
-
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.
-
Your current signature-link (as in this post) is your doing, or someone hacked in?
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
