A discussion On What Constitutes Abuse And What Should Be Done About It
-
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.
-
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 KreskowiakIts NOT meant for Chris! Its meant for whoever the faceless one voters are. :) (actualy I thought it amusing, but perhaps only the English understand the English sense of humour. :) )
-
I 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 EinsteinAt least someone gets it! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :)
-
Its my doing, do you like it? I thought it humourous. :)
In fact and in contrast to your previous sign (which I didn't found abusive) this one I found abusive...And forgive me, but also a bit childish...Sorry to say, but it is much more possible that the new sign will cause a ban on you much faster than the old...
-
Does this mean then that every post that mentions politics, sex, or religion should be flagged and reported in here from now on? Or is it just the politics, sex, and religion that some disagree with that? Cos there is plenty that gets brought up in the lounge, plenty that just gets ignored, plenty that leads to interesting, adult discussions. I do not believe that anyone reported the signature in question for flouting the rules, they did so because they object to the anti Isreal sentiment of it. There was an article in the UK recently about how public figures that stand up against Isreal have an unfortunate habit of turning up dead. I myself had a link to a political petition, albeit a local one, in my sig for quite some time. There was no objection or reporting of that that I am aware of.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
And thank you for your honesty and stating what is obviously true. It isn't politics, its the anti Israel right wing sentiment that objectionable, and clearly the attempt to repress it is the most blatant form of bias and mob censoring.
-
In fact and in contrast to your previous sign (which I didn't found abusive) this one I found abusive...And forgive me, but also a bit childish...Sorry to say, but it is much more possible that the new sign will cause a ban on you much faster than the old...
Well, as someone pointed out, swear words are legal in sigs, and this is merely a pictorial representation. Anyway, its meant to be funny. Hopefully you understand that, no? :)
-
Quote:
objectionable
:laugh: I actually found the new link offensive. Now where is that "shrug" emoticon :)
-
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.
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Such a attitude should be severely dealt with.
Good job you weren't around to see CP in the old days then.
-
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 trust that if the "compassionately common sense" view of many CodeProject Members, and CodeProject staff, is that any statement is an egregious violation of the pro-social norms of the context in which it is placed: the content should be removed, and the poster warned it is inappropriate. If the poster continues to post the same kind of content, then I think the poster should be banned. I am much more concerned about the daily abuse I witness on QA, than I am about what goes down in the Lounge.
-
In fact and in contrast to your previous sign (which I didn't found abusive) this one I found abusive...And forgive me, but also a bit childish...Sorry to say, but it is much more possible that the new sign will cause a ban on you much faster than the old...
-
Well, as someone pointed out, swear words are legal in sigs, and this is merely a pictorial representation. Anyway, its meant to be funny. Hopefully you understand that, no? :)
It isn't the words that matters, but the purpose of them. Your old sig wasn't offensive, your new one was. Especially as the address was a bit unclear if you haven't followed the whole mess. Good thing you removed it.
-
Well, as someone pointed out, swear words are legal in sigs, and this is merely a pictorial representation. Anyway, its meant to be funny. Hopefully you understand that, no? :)
No problem...
