Woah, Nice Shootin' Tex!
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I'm not advocating flaming somebody for posting a programming question, although it's less of an evil than letting programming questions get answered in the Lounge.
And yet it's just as much against "the rules" as posting programming questions: The Rules: Posting Guidelines: The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct and please don't post ads. Please do not post programming questions here.
Yeah, I think they are both evils that balance each other out pretty well... kinda like the death penalty. Only those in the proper position should be able to apply the death penalty, otherwise it is a violation of the law. In a self-governing community, I think that pretty much falls on the senior members. But I personally choose humorous responses unless they still don't get it, then I get explicit... further infractions may lead to name calling and other word-fare.
-
There was a time, long, long ago when people treated other loungers with a modicum of respect. I say modicum, because there were some right ding-dongs at times - but generally it was an interesting and amusing place to visit. Sadly no longer. The more trigger happy voters delete posts before almost anyone has a chance to read them, leaving an ugly sea of grey "Message Automatically Removed" stubs, flames admonishing posters for daring, daring!, to post a programming question here (instead of, say, just ignoring the question and/or directing the user to the correct forum)and who have formed a self-appointed clique to target and remove posts (and posters) that do not warrant removing. So please, before you spam the voting options, consider the words of Peter Venkman:
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nice shootin', Tex!
-
I don't think the problem is that common, and I think that's because we flame people when they post programming questions in the Lounge. And I'd rather see a bunch of "message removed" messages rather than have the Lounge flooded with programming questions. I suppose it's a bit like law enforcement. If you don't have it, anarchy can reign. But there are different ways of going about it. We are a self-governing community, so things can get out of hand. I'm not advocating flaming somebody for posting a programming question, although it's less of an evil than letting programming questions get answered in the Lounge. If we don't make it clear that programming questions aren't welcome, they will get answered more frequently (given that the Lounge is probably the most visited place on CP) and so will occur more frequently. We can't let that happen. We could go about it in a nicer way though, but I kinda like a mixture of responses. I personally am currently into posting answers to an incorrect interpretation of the question (see my answer to the programming question below). But a "don't post in the Lounge" here and there seems appropriate too. Though I'd say "you are such a stupid idiot who has a dumb mother if you think it was a good idea to post a programming question here" responses should be kept to a minimum. I see your post as part of our self-governing community, but I see this response as one too. I say, keep a little bit of flaming, just so long as we don't burn our whole town down. :)
From the Lounge Guidelines:- Please do not post programming questions here Your quote:-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
we flame people when they post programming questions in the Lounge
From the Lounge Guidelines:- No flame wars Which is worse? Both as bad in my opinion...
-
You're wasting your breath: the Loungerati now rule this place so expect to be univoted (as do I).
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Sadly there are also some who think they can trample over others like obnoxious drunks in a pub. Yes, there are also amusing drunks but a balance must be struck.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Doesnt it depend on ones sense of hunmour? Whats obnoxious to one might be ammusing to another. I happen to know that myself and jew_boy DigitalMan have a 'robust' sense of humour that others dont seem to understand. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
There was a time, long, long ago when people treated other loungers with a modicum of respect. I say modicum, because there were some right ding-dongs at times - but generally it was an interesting and amusing place to visit. Sadly no longer. The more trigger happy voters delete posts before almost anyone has a chance to read them, leaving an ugly sea of grey "Message Automatically Removed" stubs, flames admonishing posters for daring, daring!, to post a programming question here (instead of, say, just ignoring the question and/or directing the user to the correct forum)and who have formed a self-appointed clique to target and remove posts (and posters) that do not warrant removing. So please, before you spam the voting options, consider the words of Peter Venkman:
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nice shootin', Tex!
Pretty much everyone is missing an opportunity for fun here. I've decided that when people do something like that, it's much more fun to give them a humorous non-answer than to offer up well-deserved criticism.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
From the Lounge Guidelines:- Please do not post programming questions here Your quote:-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
we flame people when they post programming questions in the Lounge
From the Lounge Guidelines:- No flame wars Which is worse? Both as bad in my opinion...
Probably best to just down-vote them until the message is removed, though it is usually not a flame war (which requires two sides fighting) if they tuck their tail between their legs when they realize they've violated a Lounge rule. And of course humorous responses are always welcome, just so long as they don't really answer the programming question.
-
Pretty much everyone is missing an opportunity for fun here. I've decided that when people do something like that, it's much more fun to give them a humorous non-answer than to offer up well-deserved criticism.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Indeed :thumbsup:
-
Pretty much everyone is missing an opportunity for fun here. I've decided that when people do something like that, it's much more fun to give them a humorous non-answer than to offer up well-deserved criticism.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
They are both pointless to me. Ignoring is still the best strategy, I guess. I am in general against any kind of censorship. Let people decide if they want to read or not.
I'd rather not have the dross at all, so you don't have to trawl through it to get to the interesting posts. After all, it's hard to know if you want to read something or not until after you've read it...
-
Probably best to just down-vote them until the message is removed, though it is usually not a flame war (which requires two sides fighting) if they tuck their tail between their legs when they realize they've violated a Lounge rule. And of course humorous responses are always welcome, just so long as they don't really answer the programming question.
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
Probably best to just down-vote them
Absolutely not! The best approach is to ignore.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
And of course humorous responses are always welcome
Except they rarely are humorous.
Caslen wrote:
Absolutely not! The best approach is to ignore.
I feel the poster should be informed of his/her mistake, and ignoring the post is not going to do that.
Caslen wrote:
Except they rarely are humorous.
I disagree, but that is completely subjective, now isn't it?
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
Probably best to just down-vote them
Absolutely not! The best approach is to ignore.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
And of course humorous responses are always welcome
Except they rarely are humorous.
Caslen wrote:
Absolutely not! The best approach is to ignore.
Also, not only should they be informed, but other Lounge readers should be informed too. Coder B sees Coder A post a question and thinks it's OK, so he posts a question, which Coder C sees... that's a cycle best avoided.
-
Doesnt it depend on ones sense of hunmour? Whats obnoxious to one might be ammusing to another. I happen to know that myself and jew_boy DigitalMan have a 'robust' sense of humour that others dont seem to understand. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Who you accusing of having a sense of humour you complete ******* **** of a **** faced ******? :mad::mad::mad: Yes, I believe that good old piss taking banter is not oft understood. Pity: tis the backbone of multi-culturism. :-)
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Does the criticism involve weapons? :)
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
No - that would be a definitive solution to the problem.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Who you accusing of having a sense of humour you complete ******* **** of a **** faced ******? :mad::mad::mad: Yes, I believe that good old piss taking banter is not oft understood. Pity: tis the backbone of multi-culturism. :-)
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Pretty much everyone is missing an opportunity for fun here. I've decided that when people do something like that, it's much more fun to give them a humorous non-answer than to offer up well-deserved criticism.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Constructive non-informative responses rock!
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
Caslen wrote:
Absolutely not! The best approach is to ignore.
I feel the poster should be informed of his/her mistake, and ignoring the post is not going to do that.
Caslen wrote:
Except they rarely are humorous.
I disagree, but that is completely subjective, now isn't it?
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I disagree, but that is completely subjective, now isn't it?
OK I'll give you that one - probably better to say that some peoples attempt at humour isn't always original and quickly becomes as annoying as the troll posts eg repeated references to hamsters, liquid nitrogen, Chuck Norris, DDs drinking etc Lets at least be original, then if it's not funny - well have a 5 for trying!
-
Caslen wrote:
Absolutely not! The best approach is to ignore.
Also, not only should they be informed, but other Lounge readers should be informed too. Coder B sees Coder A post a question and thinks it's OK, so he posts a question, which Coder C sees... that's a cycle best avoided.
