A discussion On What Constitutes Abuse And What Should Be Done About It
-
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
-
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's a difficult one - it's clearly political, and that is against the lounge rules. If it breaks the site T&C (and I don't know which part it breaks, but I assume you mean "12. YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES") then it's clear cut: lose it or lose the account. What is abuse? That's always going to be a difficult one, because it depends on your personal feelings on the matter: for a Palestinian, it's not abuse. For an Israeli, it probably is. I'd say in this case that it's inappropriate outside the soapbox, and he should remove it (though my personal feelings would be to side with the Palestinians rather than the Israelis on this one) But it's not that simple. What about links in sigs in general? Most are innocuous, some are charitable, some are advertising. Should those be banned as well? Or even just ban sigs completely? My feeling is that banning sigs would be the better way to go: that way the content of the message is all you can be judged on, rather than matters which may be incidental to the purpose of the post.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
It's a difficult one - it's clearly political, and that is against the lounge rules. If it breaks the site T&C (and I don't know which part it breaks, but I assume you mean "12. YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES") then it's clear cut: lose it or lose the account. What is abuse? That's always going to be a difficult one, because it depends on your personal feelings on the matter: for a Palestinian, it's not abuse. For an Israeli, it probably is. I'd say in this case that it's inappropriate outside the soapbox, and he should remove it (though my personal feelings would be to side with the Palestinians rather than the Israelis on this one) But it's not that simple. What about links in sigs in general? Most are innocuous, some are charitable, some are advertising. Should those be banned as well? Or even just ban sigs completely? My feeling is that banning sigs would be the better way to go: that way the content of the message is all you can be judged on, rather than matters which may be incidental to the purpose of the post.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
That's always going to be a difficult one, because it depends on your personal feelings on the matter
I think of it differently. It's not about the parties involved. It's about the intent of the person posting, and the intent is to go against the posting guidelines. It's abusing the site and the community. I'm not sure I'd consider the sig per se actually offensive. Inflammatory, divisive, reactionary, and totally without context, absolutely. This is the internet, after all. Implicitly, though, it's directed at a single country and religion, and posting that on CodeProject is offensive. That's not the community I work for.
OriginalGriff wrote:
What about links in sigs in general?
Yeah, right? The can of worms opens. I've said I'm happy for someone to have a link back to their company or product. They should be proud. They just can't blatantly advertise it. This is the second issue I have with the given signature: it's a direct call to action; an advertisement. Not cool.
OriginalGriff wrote:
My feeling is that banning sigs would be the better way to go
Interesting throught. I'm not willing to block everyone's sig, though. I'd rather simply have it be a benefit we remove for individuals if abused.
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
My opinion: His statement is just a link to support something he believes in. I've seen much worse insults and attacks on cultures, beliefs, and opinions here in the lounge, directly and indirectly. In some cases, they flat out refuse to "agree to disagree" or move on. As long as it is not an active attack on someone, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? No political debate, no joke, or anything non-IT could be discussed here since it is "attacking" someone else's belief. If we're to ban his sig, I request the following words be banned from this site: shiite, Lesbanese, BFE (Egypt), and philistine. Note the trend. Someone in the recent past tried using the term Syrian(ac) in a derogatory way as well. :| :rolleyes: Shrug and move on. We need a shrug emoticon.
-
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:
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
-
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, you've already replied to my post on the thread in Soapbox, but I wanted to record my vote here. I have no problem with Matt's sig. Having said that, it's not something that I'd use and in Matt's shoes I'd change it. I'm not Matt though and I don't want him to read that as applying pressure for him to do so. Thanks for tackling this and for speaking not only to Matt, but also to the parties involved in the down-voting.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
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:
aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world
I must remember to stop answering Windows Kernel questions then lest I be too useful. :)
Chris Maunder wrote:
a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive
That's one way of looking at it. The other is that its a request to enforce international law. So pretty much the entire issue of extremist Islam, which is killing people right now, all round the world, stems from Israel and me like many other people, jews aswell[^], think that returning to the 67 borders with recognition of Palestine and Israel on both sides, and internationally would go a long way to achieving peace (in fact this is Hamas' new position). So actually I think this petition is fairly important and might help the world achieve peace. If that's offensive to anyone then I am surprised.
Ignore this, it has nothing to do with Israel and its borders.
-
My opinion: His statement is just a link to support something he believes in. I've seen much worse insults and attacks on cultures, beliefs, and opinions here in the lounge, directly and indirectly. In some cases, they flat out refuse to "agree to disagree" or move on. As long as it is not an active attack on someone, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? No political debate, no joke, or anything non-IT could be discussed here since it is "attacking" someone else's belief. If we're to ban his sig, I request the following words be banned from this site: shiite, Lesbanese, BFE (Egypt), and philistine. Note the trend. Someone in the recent past tried using the term Syrian(ac) in a derogatory way as well. :| :rolleyes: Shrug and move on. We need a shrug emoticon.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
everyone's entitled to their opinion
Absolutely. The issue, which seems to always get pushed to the back, is that the lounge isn't for political or religious discussions. We have the soapbox for that. I know, however, that the Soapbox doesn't get the attention some people want it to have. They want more exposure for their time on the soapbox and so bring the discussions into the Lounge. It's like asking someone to respect a house and remove their shoes when they come in, yet a few keep tromping through in their muddy boots.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
If we're to ban his sig,
Again, the point isn't his sig. It's where he's using it. Further, it's not words that get banned, it's the context in which they are used. I do, however, appreciated the concept of a slippery slope. Nobody wants that.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
That's always going to be a difficult one, because it depends on your personal feelings on the matter
I think of it differently. It's not about the parties involved. It's about the intent of the person posting, and the intent is to go against the posting guidelines. It's abusing the site and the community. I'm not sure I'd consider the sig per se actually offensive. Inflammatory, divisive, reactionary, and totally without context, absolutely. This is the internet, after all. Implicitly, though, it's directed at a single country and religion, and posting that on CodeProject is offensive. That's not the community I work for.
OriginalGriff wrote:
What about links in sigs in general?
Yeah, right? The can of worms opens. I've said I'm happy for someone to have a link back to their company or product. They should be proud. They just can't blatantly advertise it. This is the second issue I have with the given signature: it's a direct call to action; an advertisement. Not cool.
OriginalGriff wrote:
My feeling is that banning sigs would be the better way to go
Interesting throught. I'm not willing to block everyone's sig, though. I'd rather simply have it be a benefit we remove for individuals if abused.
cheers Chris Maunder
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.
-
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
I'll let you hunt for the non-response yourself. And yes, I can ban someone, but while I own the hardware and software, I don't own you guys. This is your community too. You're all clever, you all have great insights that I may have missed, and I want to hear as many differing views as possible. I also want you all to understand why we make certain decisions when we do, so talking it through first is never a bad idea.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world
I must remember to stop answering Windows Kernel questions then lest I be too useful. :)
Chris Maunder wrote:
a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive
That's one way of looking at it. The other is that its a request to enforce international law. So pretty much the entire issue of extremist Islam, which is killing people right now, all round the world, stems from Israel and me like many other people, jews aswell[^], think that returning to the 67 borders with recognition of Palestine and Israel on both sides, and internationally would go a long way to achieving peace (in fact this is Hamas' new position). So actually I think this petition is fairly important and might help the world achieve peace. If that's offensive to anyone then I am surprised.
Ignore this, it has nothing to do with Israel and its borders.
Rules #4 of the lounge: No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions. Or if you must, use the Back Room[^] - but enter at your own risk. It's very, very simple.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Rules #4 of the lounge: No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions. Or if you must, use the Back Room[^] - but enter at your own risk. It's very, very simple.
cheers Chris Maunder
Is a sig a discussion? You allow swear words in sigs, but not in posts in the lounge. Clearly the two re different.
Ignore this, it has nothing to do with Israel and its borders.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
everyone's entitled to their opinion
Absolutely. The issue, which seems to always get pushed to the back, is that the lounge isn't for political or religious discussions. We have the soapbox for that. I know, however, that the Soapbox doesn't get the attention some people want it to have. They want more exposure for their time on the soapbox and so bring the discussions into the Lounge. It's like asking someone to respect a house and remove their shoes when they come in, yet a few keep tromping through in their muddy boots.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
If we're to ban his sig,
Again, the point isn't his sig. It's where he's using it. Further, it's not words that get banned, it's the context in which they are used. I do, however, appreciated the concept of a slippery slope. Nobody wants that.
cheers Chris Maunder
The thing is, his signature isn't abusive. The topic however is a hot one and people will always think it's abusive if it doesn't automatically support their opinion. Setting different rules for each forum is the right choise. You either have to start having separate sigs for each forum, delete them entirely, or accept that if they're allowed in any one (Soapbox), they should be accepted for all. If his sig was in the Soapbox as a message, it would be a hot topic and marked as spam incorrectly. If his post or signature was actively condemning someone, then I agree it should be removed.
-
Rules #4 of the lounge: No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions. Or if you must, use the Back Room[^] - but enter at your own risk. It's very, very simple.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
The thing is, his signature isn't abusive. The topic however is a hot one and people will always think it's abusive if it doesn't automatically support their opinion. Setting different rules for each forum is the right choise. You either have to start having separate sigs for each forum, delete them entirely, or accept that if they're allowed in any one (Soapbox), they should be accepted for all. If his sig was in the Soapbox as a message, it would be a hot topic and marked as spam incorrectly. If his post or signature was actively condemning someone, then I agree it should be removed.
:thumbsup:
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Rules #4 of the lounge: No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions. Or if you must, use the Back Room[^] - but enter at your own risk. It's very, very simple.
cheers Chris Maunder
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.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
aren't interested in a person who just wants to increase my workload without giving back anything to the software developer world
I must remember to stop answering Windows Kernel questions then lest I be too useful. :)
Chris Maunder wrote:
a link to an online petition that is clearly political, religious and divisive
That's one way of looking at it. The other is that its a request to enforce international law. So pretty much the entire issue of extremist Islam, which is killing people right now, all round the world, stems from Israel and me like many other people, jews aswell[^], think that returning to the 67 borders with recognition of Palestine and Israel on both sides, and internationally would go a long way to achieving peace (in fact this is Hamas' new position). So actually I think this petition is fairly important and might help the world achieve peace. If that's offensive to anyone then I am surprised.
Ignore this, it has nothing to do with Israel and its borders.
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.
-
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.
Those rules are for the lounge, so you can move politics and others to the soapbox... The problem is that a signature containing politics going with you everywhere...
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
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
My half cent: The link is to support a cause. So if someone really cares for animals he could have a link to support PETA - even if that would offend ME (as PETA is aginst scientific experimentation on animals), or some other could have a link to a petition for gay rights in some country and that could offend some extra-conservative user. Now, would you really want to ban anything not related to technical topics only because a limited number of users brought in the "abuse report" war?
Geek code v 3.12 GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
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'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.
