A discussion On What Constitutes Abuse And What Should Be Done About It
-
I was just saying that in the old days CP was much rowdier than it is today, and that if you found my sig so shocking then if yo9u were here in 2006/2007 you would have been mortified!
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Community always runs on majority concensus
And the majority concenss is that my sig is perfectly valid thus you have to go along with that. :)
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Chris,even if he is Admin and owner of this place
He is, but also has to follow the rules of the members, because without members, there is no CP.
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Why not a single effort to win all's heart
Because some people, like me, aren't interested in 'winning hearts'. We are interested in challenging the system, pushing boundaries, upsetting apple carts. Its my generation, the generation that gave the world the sex pistols and punk rock. Its just the way we are, ok? :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
We are interested in challenging the system
Don't try this on Codeproject.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Its my generation, the generation that gave the world the sex pistols and punk rock. Its just the way we are
You should better be at home than a CP and keep your generation with you. Push boundaries at home.
-
I was just saying that in the old days CP was much rowdier than it is today, and that if you found my sig so shocking then if yo9u were here in 2006/2007 you would have been mortified!
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Community always runs on majority concensus
And the majority concenss is that my sig is perfectly valid thus you have to go along with that. :)
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Chris,even if he is Admin and owner of this place
He is, but also has to follow the rules of the members, because without members, there is no CP.
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Why not a single effort to win all's heart
Because some people, like me, aren't interested in 'winning hearts'. We are interested in challenging the system, pushing boundaries, upsetting apple carts. Its my generation, the generation that gave the world the sex pistols and punk rock. Its just the way we are, ok? :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Because some people, like me, aren't interested in 'winning hearts'. We are interested in challenging
Congratulations. You succeeded. Sigs are turned off.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Because some people, like me, aren't interested in 'winning hearts'. We are interested in challenging
Congratulations. You succeeded. Sigs are turned off.
What did I succeed at? I didn't intend for sigs to be disabled, just for CP to maintain its lively character. Chris asked the community what it thought and it said my sig was OK. Clearly Chris is planning something for sigs, perhaps enabling them only in SB and BR, perhaps something else. Perhaps he wants to punish the community for not agreeing with him and has thus turned them off completely. Don't know, what do you think?
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
We are interested in challenging the system
Don't try this on Codeproject.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Its my generation, the generation that gave the world the sex pistols and punk rock. Its just the way we are
You should better be at home than a CP and keep your generation with you. Push boundaries at home.
We got rid of disco didn't we? :) (and prog rock).
-
I was just saying that in the old days CP was much rowdier than it is today, and that if you found my sig so shocking then if yo9u were here in 2006/2007 you would have been mortified!
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Community always runs on majority concensus
And the majority concenss is that my sig is perfectly valid thus you have to go along with that. :)
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Chris,even if he is Admin and owner of this place
He is, but also has to follow the rules of the members, because without members, there is no CP.
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Why not a single effort to win all's heart
Because some people, like me, aren't interested in 'winning hearts'. We are interested in challenging the system, pushing boundaries, upsetting apple carts. Its my generation, the generation that gave the world the sex pistols and punk rock. Its just the way we are, ok? :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
... in the old days ... 2006/2007 ...
Great, now I really feel old! :rolleyes:
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
... in the old days ... 2006/2007 ...
Great, now I really feel old! :rolleyes:
Indeed, tempus fugit. They were good days though, the original SB, it was a fun place.
-
What did I succeed at? I didn't intend for sigs to be disabled, just for CP to maintain its lively character. Chris asked the community what it thought and it said my sig was OK. Clearly Chris is planning something for sigs, perhaps enabling them only in SB and BR, perhaps something else. Perhaps he wants to punish the community for not agreeing with him and has thus turned them off completely. Don't know, what do you think?
You succeeded in "not winning hearts" and "challenging the system". Chris asked you to remove your sig. You changed it much later and we now have a lot of posts and threads. What I think: At the beginning I sympathised with you because I did not accepted the message deletions. But you still do not understand that a community requires backing down sometimes.
-
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.
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!"
-
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 EinsteinThat's not the backroom.
-
I was just saying that in the old days CP was much rowdier than it is today, and that if you found my sig so shocking then if yo9u were here in 2006/2007 you would have been mortified!
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Community always runs on majority concensus
And the majority concenss is that my sig is perfectly valid thus you have to go along with that. :)
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Chris,even if he is Admin and owner of this place
He is, but also has to follow the rules of the members, because without members, there is no CP.
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Why not a single effort to win all's heart
Because some people, like me, aren't interested in 'winning hearts'. We are interested in challenging the system, pushing boundaries, upsetting apple carts. Its my generation, the generation that gave the world the sex pistols and punk rock. Its just the way we are, ok? :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
I was just saying that in the old days CP was much rowdier than it is today, and that if you found my sig so shocking then if yo9u were here in 2006/2007 you would have been mortified!
Yes, and CP survived and thrived, just as other groups always survive and thrive through such things. For many members, a little antagonism and controversy between members is the making of the group. I have yet to witness a group survive an attack of "the Blue Meanies", though. Such collapses always start with a minor group forcing their wishes on other members of the group by abusing one small rule, and end with... Well, they end with everyone of value upping pegs and moving on. Here, we have religious factions taking the Blue Meanie role. You'd think the world had had enough of religions trying to force their ways on everyone.
-
You succeeded in "not winning hearts" and "challenging the system". Chris asked you to remove your sig. You changed it much later and we now have a lot of posts and threads. What I think: At the beginning I sympathised with you because I did not accepted the message deletions. But you still do not understand that a community requires backing down sometimes.
Jochen Arndt wrote:
But you still do not understand that a community requires backing down sometimes.
That's something he's not good at, but a personal smack on the hand is a better solution than the creation and enforcement or rules and processes.
-
-
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!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
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.
And there you go. Someone has decided to flag my above posting as abuse. The question we need to ask appears to be: Does CP need people who behave like that?
-
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
First: I haven't read the whole thread so if I'm repeating something then I'm sorry. As to the discussion I have a few remarks. The first (and probably the most important one) is something that has been said but I'd like to repeat it As Richard Deeming says in this post[^] "On this site, your word is law". I can't agree more. Further, your reply to him is one of the reasons I like CP so much. As to this particular case, there are several ways to look at this. - He posted a link to a possibly inflammatory site, but the way he posted it somewhat negotiates this (not completely tho) He didn't just make it a "click here" link, but the text explained what the link was about so everyone could decide for them self if they are interested in something like that or not - strangely enough the previous point is probably what caused all the commotion, because of it there was a political message in the lounge (several cause it was in his signature). This being said I still prefer the way he posted it than the 'click here' way. - to me posting a link to a petition that offends me (wouldn't know what petition that would be cause I don't get offended that easy) isn't offensive (the posting of the link). This person is entitled to his / her opinion, and can so voice this, and in the end that's all it is, a opinion from this one person. The way he posted it (not a 'click here' link) allowed me to just ignore it (k I can ignore the 'click here' link as well but ...). As to this discussion in general: This is a community of millions from all over the world. It's simply impossible to please all off them. For example: I have absolutely no interest in the CCC and the one about the movies, so I just ignore them. It's possible that this post offends someone (I wouldn't know why but...). We'd all be much better off if people just ignored the things they didn't like and moved on but well this is the internet so... In short it all comes down to this: This is your site, you make the rules, when someone breaks those rules you are entitled to take action (or no action). What that action is, is again up to you, the community can help you and maybe advice you but in the end it is your decision. In this case it seems it's very clear. Lounge = No politics. The
-
You succeeded in "not winning hearts" and "challenging the system". Chris asked you to remove your sig. You changed it much later and we now have a lot of posts and threads. What I think: At the beginning I sympathised with you because I did not accepted the message deletions. But you still do not understand that a community requires backing down sometimes.
Chris asked me to remove my sig a long time after the noise and discussion initiated between both camps. I actually changed it quite soon after he asked, and if you go back to ' is this a bug' you will see that is the case. And then we cone to the 'community'. Chris posed the question here, and clearly the majority of people are un favour of allowing my sig, even if not agreeing with the content, so should I abide by the communities wish and reinstate it?
-
Jochen Arndt wrote:
But you still do not understand that a community requires backing down sometimes.
That's something he's not good at, but a personal smack on the hand is a better solution than the creation and enforcement or rules and processes.
But the community is clearly in favour of allowing my sig if you look at the responses in this thread. Anyway, I have changed it, since it was getting a bit old anyway (yes, I have had that sig for a long time).
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
I was just saying that in the old days CP was much rowdier than it is today, and that if you found my sig so shocking then if yo9u were here in 2006/2007 you would have been mortified!
Yes, and CP survived and thrived, just as other groups always survive and thrive through such things. For many members, a little antagonism and controversy between members is the making of the group. I have yet to witness a group survive an attack of "the Blue Meanies", though. Such collapses always start with a minor group forcing their wishes on other members of the group by abusing one small rule, and end with... Well, they end with everyone of value upping pegs and moving on. Here, we have religious factions taking the Blue Meanie role. You'd think the world had had enough of religions trying to force their ways on everyone.
I quite agree. Vivre le difference! as they say in my adopted country, and as the Dutch are also very good at observing. It wold be a sad and sterile place if we all had to toe the middle line, the world AND CP.
-
BillWoodruff wrote:
I am much more concerned about the daily abuse I witness on QA, than I am about what goes down in the Lounge.
Now, that is certainly something I agree with.
What sort of abuse, people name calling? :wtf:
-
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!"
-
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.
Rohan Leuva wrote:
I condemn your reaction
Oh do you now. Who made you the judge and jury? You are just like many other people in the world, you cant abide difference. Well you are wrong in so many ways I am not even gong to bother pointing them out to you.
