My apologies to all
-
I certainly had no intention of stirring up another bout of the vigilantism that recently made its way through the lounge with my response to Dato (it was intended only as a joke in the same vein he posts). The guy is a joke and an idiot, but harmless and does not deserve banishment by mob rule or similar mistreatment. At any rate I certainly don't want to participate in such self nominated elitist games. If he bothers you, be an adult and ignore him (and those who respond to him). I see him as a joke, and respond to him as such. Your mileage may vary. In any case persecution is wrong, on any excuse. I think we should either individually ignore him or respond in kind. He is only a small noise in a very noisy place. Those who can't manage the self-discipline can simply use Diego's script to hide the posts of those who annoy you beyond control.
-
I certainly had no intention of stirring up another bout of the vigilantism that recently made its way through the lounge with my response to Dato (it was intended only as a joke in the same vein he posts). The guy is a joke and an idiot, but harmless and does not deserve banishment by mob rule or similar mistreatment. At any rate I certainly don't want to participate in such self nominated elitist games. If he bothers you, be an adult and ignore him (and those who respond to him). I see him as a joke, and respond to him as such. Your mileage may vary. In any case persecution is wrong, on any excuse. I think we should either individually ignore him or respond in kind. He is only a small noise in a very noisy place. Those who can't manage the self-discipline can simply use Diego's script to hide the posts of those who annoy you beyond control.
Rob Graham wrote:
I certainly had no intention of stirring up another bout of the vigilantism that recently made its way through the lounge with my response to Dato Jane Austen.
Fixed that for you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I certainly had no intention of stirring up another bout of the vigilantism that recently made its way through the lounge with my response to Dato (it was intended only as a joke in the same vein he posts). The guy is a joke and an idiot, but harmless and does not deserve banishment by mob rule or similar mistreatment. At any rate I certainly don't want to participate in such self nominated elitist games. If he bothers you, be an adult and ignore him (and those who respond to him). I see him as a joke, and respond to him as such. Your mileage may vary. In any case persecution is wrong, on any excuse. I think we should either individually ignore him or respond in kind. He is only a small noise in a very noisy place. Those who can't manage the self-discipline can simply use Diego's script to hide the posts of those who annoy you beyond control.
Not entirely sure what you're talking about, but if the "kayleee" post below was posted in The Lounge then that is unacceptable, and its deletion was deserved. I'm not sure why you would go out of your way to defend such vulgar drivel... :~
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I certainly had no intention of stirring up another bout of the vigilantism that recently made its way through the lounge with my response to Dato Jane Austen.
Fixed that for you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Nah, the Jane Austen post brought out the "I'm more literate than you" elitists. The Dato must go post seems to have stirred suggestions of various mechanisms for banishment, some of which were recently directed at a user with obvious English as a second language issues and an overblown obsession with gold status. In the end the chap was persecuted off the site by the vigilantes. That was bad enough happening in the Lounge, but would be a tragic destruction of the unencumbered freedom of stupid expression that makes the soapbox so much fun. If this place wasn't contentious, it would have no reason to exist at all.
-
Not entirely sure what you're talking about, but if the "kayleee" post below was posted in The Lounge then that is unacceptable, and its deletion was deserved. I'm not sure why you would go out of your way to defend such vulgar drivel... :~
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
It wasn't posted in the lounge. And I'm not defending the substance of the post, rather the poster's right to be an idiot. And the (now deleted) KAYLEE post was dumb, and in poor taste, but no more vulgar than many posts I've seen here that drew no ire. If it were posted in the lounge, it would have been appropriate to move it here, but once it is here, it should be left alone. Now that it is the victim of vigilante deletion, no one can judge for themselves, and I resent the self-elected guardians of propriety that decided for everyone else that it should go.
-
It wasn't posted in the lounge. And I'm not defending the substance of the post, rather the poster's right to be an idiot. And the (now deleted) KAYLEE post was dumb, and in poor taste, but no more vulgar than many posts I've seen here that drew no ire. If it were posted in the lounge, it would have been appropriate to move it here, but once it is here, it should be left alone. Now that it is the victim of vigilante deletion, no one can judge for themselves, and I resent the self-elected guardians of propriety that decided for everyone else that it should go.
Rob Graham wrote:
I resent the self-elected guardians of propriety that decided for everyone else that it should go.
Rob, I will defend to my death your right to be offended, but the ability to delete posts is built into this site by the owner of the site. Presumably he did not spend the programming and testing time on that feature because he didn't want it used. Indeed, in some of the debates about CSS ubiquitous childishness, he seemed to make it clear that he expected the group to use the provided tools to 'self-police' the forums. So, in my humble opinion, it would appear to me that your beef is not with those who voted to 'report' the Kaylee post but with Chris since he chooses to make the mechanism available. I.e. if the combination mayor/policechief/firemarshall/saloonkeeper says this is how he wants things done, it can hardly be called vigilantism but rather it should be named a posse comitatus of fine upstanding citizens. ;) I note that Ilion, in spite of usually drawing some 1-votes seldom if ever is group-deleted. Nor is Stan, nor -- for that matter -- am I or you. This suggests that folks in here are pretty tolerant even when they don't agree with what someone else is posting. Dato, in my humble opinion, deserves to be deleted. He is a spammer who may be mentally ill. If he realises that most of his posts will disappear, he will move on and bother someone else - or at least that is my hope. Since this website is private property, there is no issue of free speech here. We all post at the sufferance of Chris and if he chooses to delegate a fraction of his power to the users, I appreciate his trust.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
It wasn't posted in the lounge. And I'm not defending the substance of the post, rather the poster's right to be an idiot. And the (now deleted) KAYLEE post was dumb, and in poor taste, but no more vulgar than many posts I've seen here that drew no ire. If it were posted in the lounge, it would have been appropriate to move it here, but once it is here, it should be left alone. Now that it is the victim of vigilante deletion, no one can judge for themselves, and I resent the self-elected guardians of propriety that decided for everyone else that it should go.
Rob Graham wrote:
It wasn't posted in the lounge.
The thread below this one was still visible when you posted your apology (else i would have no idea what you were talking about), while the one in The Lounge had been removed. How many times has the guy re-posted this crap?
Rob Graham wrote:
And I'm not defending the substance of the post, rather the poster's right to be an idiot.
Oh, come off it Rob - the right to be an idiot isn't the right to be free of the consequences of being an idiot. If i decide to take a nap on the freeway, you gonna come by and stop traffic 'till i wake up? According to his profile, this idiot has been a member for almost seven years - if he doesn't understand how the site works by now, i don't see how it's your responsibility to shepherd him through it.
Rob Graham wrote:
Now that it is the victim of vigilante deletion
Stop. Please. There is no vigilante deletion. No one is hacking into the CodeProject servers, or stealing passwords, or anything else that subverts the rules of the site or takes responsibility for enforcement out of the hands of its governing software. If the post is deleted, it's because a significant number of readers decided it should be. Call it mob rule if you will, but the behavior is in keeping with the rules of the site and ultimately relies on the site itself for enforcement of its verdicts. Pilot washed his hands, but it was still the Romans who crucified Christ...
Rob Graham wrote:
I resent the self-elected guardians of propriety that decided for everyone else that it should go.
So do something about it. Again, the post was still visible when you posted this apology - if you really resented its impending deletion, you could easily have copied the contents into a new post, wrote a short introduction noting the author and stating your belief that his words should remain visible regardless of how irritating they might be. But you didn't. Hypocrite! You wanted the post gone as much as any of the rest of us, but feel guilty about sparking a reaction. Even your apology reeks of preachy, self-righteous indignation, a "how DARE you" to those lesser individuals who followed your lead but didn't get the "joke". Where's the apology to Dato, who you feel has been so wronged? I see your baitin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I resent the self-elected guardians of propriety that decided for everyone else that it should go.
Rob, I will defend to my death your right to be offended, but the ability to delete posts is built into this site by the owner of the site. Presumably he did not spend the programming and testing time on that feature because he didn't want it used. Indeed, in some of the debates about CSS ubiquitous childishness, he seemed to make it clear that he expected the group to use the provided tools to 'self-police' the forums. So, in my humble opinion, it would appear to me that your beef is not with those who voted to 'report' the Kaylee post but with Chris since he chooses to make the mechanism available. I.e. if the combination mayor/policechief/firemarshall/saloonkeeper says this is how he wants things done, it can hardly be called vigilantism but rather it should be named a posse comitatus of fine upstanding citizens. ;) I note that Ilion, in spite of usually drawing some 1-votes seldom if ever is group-deleted. Nor is Stan, nor -- for that matter -- am I or you. This suggests that folks in here are pretty tolerant even when they don't agree with what someone else is posting. Dato, in my humble opinion, deserves to be deleted. He is a spammer who may be mentally ill. If he realises that most of his posts will disappear, he will move on and bother someone else - or at least that is my hope. Since this website is private property, there is no issue of free speech here. We all post at the sufferance of Chris and if he chooses to delegate a fraction of his power to the users, I appreciate his trust.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the ability to delete posts is built into this site by the owner of the site.
A recent change, done after much howling by a few dozen (at most) frequent users. I would argue that Chris has actually abrogated both his authority and responsibility with the implementation of this vigilante tool. It is not a substitute for responsible moderation, does not actually keep away the CSS's and Datos (they are still here, many months since, and will remain, I would bet). I think it encourages the worst side of some of our natures. I am only surprised that CSS and his ilk have not started turning it on the rest of us. It has no place in the soapbox, which was intended by Chris to provide a "safety valve" for the lounge and programming forums - a place where we contentious types could take our rants (and Dato's posts are classic rants, if a bit insane). It needs protection from those who might put the site at risk with libelous or dangerous posts (report post with prompt administrative attention, perhaps even temporary obfuscation while awaiting review). The only common characteristic of posts subjected to 'user sponsored deletion' seems to be that they abuse the caps lock key, and have poor sentence construction skills. It certainly has little or nothing to do with the content of their posts.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It wasn't posted in the lounge.
The thread below this one was still visible when you posted your apology (else i would have no idea what you were talking about), while the one in The Lounge had been removed. How many times has the guy re-posted this crap?
Rob Graham wrote:
And I'm not defending the substance of the post, rather the poster's right to be an idiot.
Oh, come off it Rob - the right to be an idiot isn't the right to be free of the consequences of being an idiot. If i decide to take a nap on the freeway, you gonna come by and stop traffic 'till i wake up? According to his profile, this idiot has been a member for almost seven years - if he doesn't understand how the site works by now, i don't see how it's your responsibility to shepherd him through it.
Rob Graham wrote:
Now that it is the victim of vigilante deletion
Stop. Please. There is no vigilante deletion. No one is hacking into the CodeProject servers, or stealing passwords, or anything else that subverts the rules of the site or takes responsibility for enforcement out of the hands of its governing software. If the post is deleted, it's because a significant number of readers decided it should be. Call it mob rule if you will, but the behavior is in keeping with the rules of the site and ultimately relies on the site itself for enforcement of its verdicts. Pilot washed his hands, but it was still the Romans who crucified Christ...
Rob Graham wrote:
I resent the self-elected guardians of propriety that decided for everyone else that it should go.
So do something about it. Again, the post was still visible when you posted this apology - if you really resented its impending deletion, you could easily have copied the contents into a new post, wrote a short introduction noting the author and stating your belief that his words should remain visible regardless of how irritating they might be. But you didn't. Hypocrite! You wanted the post gone as much as any of the rest of us, but feel guilty about sparking a reaction. Even your apology reeks of preachy, self-righteous indignation, a "how DARE you" to those lesser individuals who followed your lead but didn't get the "joke". Where's the apology to Dato, who you feel has been so wronged? I see your baitin
Shog9 wrote:
The thread below this one was still visible when you posted your apology
Not to me, it wasn't. Perhaps on another server...
Shog9 wrote:
There is no vigilante deletion.
I don't know what else one could call this:
Shog9 wrote:
If the post is deleted, it's because a significant number of readers decided it should be
Shog9 wrote:
I see your baiting posts remain...
So use your mob rule to remove them. Obviously they offend you.
-
Shog9 wrote:
The thread below this one was still visible when you posted your apology
Not to me, it wasn't. Perhaps on another server...
Shog9 wrote:
There is no vigilante deletion.
I don't know what else one could call this:
Shog9 wrote:
If the post is deleted, it's because a significant number of readers decided it should be
Shog9 wrote:
I see your baiting posts remain...
So use your mob rule to remove them. Obviously they offend you.
Rob Graham wrote:
Not to me, it wasn't. Perhaps on another server...
Fair enough.
Rob Graham wrote:
I don't know what else one could call this:
So if i call the cops, tell 'em my neighbor is playing his music too loudly, and he gets a citation as a result - that's vigilantism? The posts are deleted in response to complaints from site users, but are not deleted by said users. A fine distinction, perhaps - but important: if posts are being removed inappropriately, responsibility rests ultimately with the site administration, who can and have adjusted the criteria by which deletion is accomplished. Site users have only one duty: to report posts they feel are inappropriate; whether or not such posts are eventually removed is outside of their control. Indeed, it is not even possible to know whether or not any other user has reported a given post.
Rob Graham wrote:
So use your mob rule to remove them. Obviously they offend you.
I don't really care. Were it not for this thread, i would never have read the one preceding it - i don't respect Dato enough to read his nonsense, but you generally produce posts thoughtful enough to warrant attention. Regardless, i lack the power to delete posts - as you know full well. If i did, i would remove the thread entirely or leave it alone completely; it is what it is, for better or worse.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Oakman wrote:
the ability to delete posts is built into this site by the owner of the site.
A recent change, done after much howling by a few dozen (at most) frequent users. I would argue that Chris has actually abrogated both his authority and responsibility with the implementation of this vigilante tool. It is not a substitute for responsible moderation, does not actually keep away the CSS's and Datos (they are still here, many months since, and will remain, I would bet). I think it encourages the worst side of some of our natures. I am only surprised that CSS and his ilk have not started turning it on the rest of us. It has no place in the soapbox, which was intended by Chris to provide a "safety valve" for the lounge and programming forums - a place where we contentious types could take our rants (and Dato's posts are classic rants, if a bit insane). It needs protection from those who might put the site at risk with libelous or dangerous posts (report post with prompt administrative attention, perhaps even temporary obfuscation while awaiting review). The only common characteristic of posts subjected to 'user sponsored deletion' seems to be that they abuse the caps lock key, and have poor sentence construction skills. It certainly has little or nothing to do with the content of their posts.
Rob Graham wrote:
The only common characteristic of posts subjected to 'user sponsored deletion' seems to be that they abuse the caps lock key, and have poor sentence construction skills.
Both are indicative of the one universal capital crime: stupidity. However, I have seen posts deleted where the grammar and typing was acceptable but the sentiments - usually racist - were not. Of course, the belief that Mother Nature convenient color-coded the human race is, itself, a sign of stupidity You may wish to argue that some of it suggests that they are not fluent in the English language. Well, this is an English language website and they are at liberty to go annoy their countrymen at a website where they speak the language. To do otherwise is, again, an indication of stupidity. (None of the preceding should be understood as my having anything other than great respect for the language skills of the numerous english-as-a-second-language posters who hang out on CP. Their skills far outshine mine.) At any rate, it still seems to me that your beef is with Chris. Calling people names because they use a mechanism he expects to be used is, at best, not productive.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I certainly had no intention of stirring up another bout of the vigilantism that recently made its way through the lounge with my response to Dato (it was intended only as a joke in the same vein he posts). The guy is a joke and an idiot, but harmless and does not deserve banishment by mob rule or similar mistreatment. At any rate I certainly don't want to participate in such self nominated elitist games. If he bothers you, be an adult and ignore him (and those who respond to him). I see him as a joke, and respond to him as such. Your mileage may vary. In any case persecution is wrong, on any excuse. I think we should either individually ignore him or respond in kind. He is only a small noise in a very noisy place. Those who can't manage the self-discipline can simply use Diego's script to hide the posts of those who annoy you beyond control.
Do you also want to apologize for spam filters while you're at it? If the tool ever becomes abused to censor someone's opinion then it may become an issue. So far, the only two times I've seen it used systematically it wasn't to prevent people from expressing their opinion, but to prevent them from flooding the board. Flooding is a form of abuse, therefore I see no problem with people marking it as such.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Not to me, it wasn't. Perhaps on another server...
Fair enough.
Rob Graham wrote:
I don't know what else one could call this:
So if i call the cops, tell 'em my neighbor is playing his music too loudly, and he gets a citation as a result - that's vigilantism? The posts are deleted in response to complaints from site users, but are not deleted by said users. A fine distinction, perhaps - but important: if posts are being removed inappropriately, responsibility rests ultimately with the site administration, who can and have adjusted the criteria by which deletion is accomplished. Site users have only one duty: to report posts they feel are inappropriate; whether or not such posts are eventually removed is outside of their control. Indeed, it is not even possible to know whether or not any other user has reported a given post.
Rob Graham wrote:
So use your mob rule to remove them. Obviously they offend you.
I don't really care. Were it not for this thread, i would never have read the one preceding it - i don't respect Dato enough to read his nonsense, but you generally produce posts thoughtful enough to warrant attention. Regardless, i lack the power to delete posts - as you know full well. If i did, i would remove the thread entirely or leave it alone completely; it is what it is, for better or worse.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
So if i call the cops, tell 'em my neighbor is playing his music too loudly, and he gets a citation as a result - that's vigilantism?
No, the key difference being that you called the authorities, rather than recruited the rest of your neighbors to beat the offender int submission.
Shog9 wrote:
The posts are deleted in response to complaints from site users, but are not deleted by said users.
It is my understanding that this is automatic, requiring only some minimal number of reports. The automatic mechanism, with no requirement for review or qualification of the reporter is what makes it vigilantism in my view. A single user with sufficient logins could easily abuse this. And, with the possible exception of driving away TWD, there is no indication that it accomplishes any purpose other than arbitrary censorship.
Shog9 wrote:
Regardless, I lack the power to delete posts -
I did not mean to suggest you did, nor that you would abuse such power if you had it. "your mob rule" was meant in the plural sense of the present mechanism, not in a personal sense. I regret that I worded it sufficiently poorly that you might take it as a personal attack. In any case, I think enough has been said on the topic. It doesn't warrant any further angry words amongst us.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The only common characteristic of posts subjected to 'user sponsored deletion' seems to be that they abuse the caps lock key, and have poor sentence construction skills.
Both are indicative of the one universal capital crime: stupidity. However, I have seen posts deleted where the grammar and typing was acceptable but the sentiments - usually racist - were not. Of course, the belief that Mother Nature convenient color-coded the human race is, itself, a sign of stupidity You may wish to argue that some of it suggests that they are not fluent in the English language. Well, this is an English language website and they are at liberty to go annoy their countrymen at a website where they speak the language. To do otherwise is, again, an indication of stupidity. (None of the preceding should be understood as my having anything other than great respect for the language skills of the numerous english-as-a-second-language posters who hang out on CP. Their skills far outshine mine.) At any rate, it still seems to me that your beef is with Chris. Calling people names because they use a mechanism he expects to be used is, at best, not productive.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
:rose: And canceled the inexplicable 1 votes.
-
Shog9 wrote:
So if i call the cops, tell 'em my neighbor is playing his music too loudly, and he gets a citation as a result - that's vigilantism?
No, the key difference being that you called the authorities, rather than recruited the rest of your neighbors to beat the offender int submission.
Shog9 wrote:
The posts are deleted in response to complaints from site users, but are not deleted by said users.
It is my understanding that this is automatic, requiring only some minimal number of reports. The automatic mechanism, with no requirement for review or qualification of the reporter is what makes it vigilantism in my view. A single user with sufficient logins could easily abuse this. And, with the possible exception of driving away TWD, there is no indication that it accomplishes any purpose other than arbitrary censorship.
Shog9 wrote:
Regardless, I lack the power to delete posts -
I did not mean to suggest you did, nor that you would abuse such power if you had it. "your mob rule" was meant in the plural sense of the present mechanism, not in a personal sense. I regret that I worded it sufficiently poorly that you might take it as a personal attack. In any case, I think enough has been said on the topic. It doesn't warrant any further angry words amongst us.
Rob Graham wrote:
The automatic mechanism, with no requirement for review or qualification of the reporter is what makes it vigilantism in my view.
I'm not aware of the exact mechanism. While i do believe it is automatic, the specific rules as to voter requirements or required number of votes are not, to my knowledge, public. Given the relatively small number of posts actually removed, i have a hard time believing that either organized groups of censors or sock-puppets are actively removing them.
Rob Graham wrote:
I regret that I worded it sufficiently poorly that you might take it as a personal attack.
Apology accepted. For what it's worth, i've not "reported" any messages on the site in several weeks; my criteria for reporting messages are my own, and i take the responsibility, small though it is, seriously.
Rob Graham wrote:
In any case, I think enough has been said on the topic. It doesn't warrant any further angry words amongst us.
Agreed. Furthermore, i apologize if i've offended you in any of my previous replies - my intention was to further discussion, but i suspect i've been more abrasive than what was called for. :-O
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Do you also want to apologize for spam filters while you're at it? If the tool ever becomes abused to censor someone's opinion then it may become an issue. So far, the only two times I've seen it used systematically it wasn't to prevent people from expressing their opinion, but to prevent them from flooding the board. Flooding is a form of abuse, therefore I see no problem with people marking it as such.
The nutcase has made exactly 11 posts (in all forums, mostly here and the lounge) in 2 days. Hardly "Flooding". In any case, I have been sufficiently chastised. Report away.
-
The nutcase has made exactly 11 posts (in all forums, mostly here and the lounge) in 2 days. Hardly "Flooding". In any case, I have been sufficiently chastised. Report away.
Rob Graham wrote:
The nutcase has made exactly 11 posts (in all forums, mostly here and the lounge) in 2 days. Hardly "Flooding".
The definition of "flooding" isn't clear cut, but as I see it the content of the posts matters. Writing a large number of posts which actually show some level of thought went into individualizing them is not necessarily abusive. Posting what is more or less the exact same rant multiple times is, even if the posts are separated by a day or two.
Rob Graham wrote:
In any case, I have been sufficiently chastised. Report away.
I didn't report him.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The nutcase has made exactly 11 posts (in all forums, mostly here and the lounge) in 2 days. Hardly "Flooding".
The definition of "flooding" isn't clear cut, but as I see it the content of the posts matters. Writing a large number of posts which actually show some level of thought went into individualizing them is not necessarily abusive. Posting what is more or less the exact same rant multiple times is, even if the posts are separated by a day or two.
Rob Graham wrote:
In any case, I have been sufficiently chastised. Report away.
I didn't report him.
:rose:
-
It wasn't posted in the lounge. And I'm not defending the substance of the post, rather the poster's right to be an idiot. And the (now deleted) KAYLEE post was dumb, and in poor taste, but no more vulgar than many posts I've seen here that drew no ire. If it were posted in the lounge, it would have been appropriate to move it here, but once it is here, it should be left alone. Now that it is the victim of vigilante deletion, no one can judge for themselves, and I resent the self-elected guardians of propriety that decided for everyone else that it should go.
Rob Graham wrote:
It wasn't posted in the lounge
Actually, it was. He reposted it in the soapbox. People are just sick of him. For the same reason they are sick of Illion, he posts here constantly on a single theme, and refuses to actually talk to the community. If we were willing to engage in conversation then I'd feel more willing to entertain his delusional drivel.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
:rose: And canceled the inexplicable 1 votes.