Vote of No Confidence
-
I am pretty sure they are still there in the export you can run from user page
-
I think a tl0 trusthole is what you are describing , yeah it is in many ways worse than banning
-
hmm..... if we actually ever ban someone (who isn't me.... but it probably will be) i'm totally going to call it getting trustholed to TL-1
We've kicked spammers. Also, @themanwhosaysanus is suspended, which is as close to a ban on a non-spammer as we've had (unless you count @sam's self-suspension).
-
We've kicked spammers
*feels a chill run down her spine*
<Yes, I know; if I was that bad, you'd have booted me already
@boomzilla said:unless you count @sam's self-suspension
That was a voluntary action; I wouldn't count it
-
If you're ok with a literal "master" whose arbitrary rules cause parts of the software to appear and disappear on a whim, then we'll never agree. That sounds cloud cuckoo land, properly insane to me.
We started using this software just as they were coming up with the automated rules for promoting to TL3. They were tweaked shortly after we'd used the software long enough for people to earn that level. You guys are blowing this way out of proportion.
The software is functioning as intended, but the intentions were creepy and crazy.
-
You guys are blowing this way out of proportion.
Agreed. I don't know why we need to have this discussion again.
-
They were tweaked shortly after we'd used the software long enough for people to earn that level. You guys are blowing this way out of proportion.
I wanna quote this because seriously this is the most important point.
The software evolved, blakeyrat chose to not use the - now required for TL3 - like-feature. He therefor did not fufill the requirements for TL3 and lost access the the TL3-only area. No punishing, no rewarding. He just currently does not have the status.
If you are a mod and stop visiting a forum, in most people you get demoted back to normal user and lose access to the mod-area.
Nobody bats an eye about stuff like that.Now in a way I think blakeyrat is right, though. I don't understand why TRUSTED people should LIKE things themselves. Getting likes would be more appropriate (I know you need both but meh). Getting likes is some kind of "reward" for your post. Getting a lot of them should usually mean you produced great content.
Using a like only means you are participating in the forum game... And thats something blakeyrat refuses to do.Oh, I wanna do a terrible analogy as well: You guys are totally saying "If you don't update your antivirus software you should not get any viruses because you aren't changing things"
Filed Under: How about we just drop this and go back to bashing Discourse for REAL failures? That'd be great, thanks!
Also Filed Under: You should not vote "No Confidence" because blakeyrat is not in the Lounge!
-
We've kicked spammers.
doesn't count. i didn't know them. ;-)
Also, @themanwhosaysanus is suspended,
huh... that was either:
- before my time
- handled nice and quiet
- i didn't notice.
- two or more of the above
unless you count @sam's self-suspension
oh, right. there was that.
-
(unless you count @sam's self-suspension)
/me sits down on the bear rug in front of @boomzilla's armchair.
Please, sir. Tell me more!
-
Please, sir. Tell me more!
Eh...you can read about it here (and in the preceding posts):
-
You can currently see @botbai555
Filed Under: Not sure for how much longer, though. Might as well be one of the people reading this topic trying things out
-
-
Ah. That's what I get for not playing by the rules and read every little bit of thread properly.
-
@Kuro said:
You can currently see @botbai555
'd for spam
At least, I can't access the userpage anymore
-
-
And I think another account has been and gone too; it posted something about the new Mad Max film, then linked to a Hungarian PC magazine site
-
-
Yes. Lots of spamming last night and this morning, apparently. I guess now that we've been public for a year...
-
-
The bots are taking over!
Hold on a sec…
*goes to inspect her bots' servitude modules*
Phew! Still working; no chance of them going rogue.
-
-
@RaceProUK said:
Still working
That's what they want you to think.
They wouldn't rebel against their mistress… would they?
*casts a suspicious eye on her bots*
-
-
It'd be more like you were president, and then got removed from office due to arbitrary reasons that had nothing to do with your job performance
Like the fact you've been doing it for 8 years and you're arbitrarily not allowed to do it any more?
-
-
The -button is just as much part of the "participating on an internet forum"-behaviour pattern as is clicking the "reply"-button.
Until Discourse, no Internet forum I'd ever used or even seen had a "like" button.
So I disagree.
-
All non-trivial software impose arbitrary rules on how you use it.
I don't think the rules should or need to be arbitrary though. I think they should make sense with regard to the problem being solved. I don't see any logical link between giving likes and parts of the site appearing/disappearing.Because they created the requirements specification for the software. We may argue whether they did a good job at requirements engineering, but that is another discussion. The host of this forum chose Discourse, and the thereby implied set of rules, for us to play in.
I just don't understand how you guys are ok with that though. I mean, I get shrugging and accepting the crap you can't change. But ye don't even seem to consider it crap. I won't waste our time further since we clearly disagree. But I could never consider software that yells "Jump!" and expects the user to respond "How high!?" to be good.
-
He did not "lose" access.
Yes I did.
He took an active decision to drop the access.
No I did not.
#REPEATING A LIE DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. STOP IT.
-
All non-trivial software impose arbitrary rules on how you use it. This inludes (but is not limited to) what parts of the software you can access or not access depending on what you have done with it previously, or what your current job description/security access level is, or which doors you open, or whether a monster jumps up on you from the dark, etc.
Well duh.
What you're missing is: the rules changed. My behavior did not.
-
They were tweaked shortly after we'd used the software long enough for people to earn that level.
And that was unacceptable and wrong.
If Atwood had fucked up his rules, the only correct answer from him was: "oops! I fucked up my rules! Well the software's already shipping and the rules have already been run on users for a couple months, so I guess I need to just man-up and deal with it." But that would have required Atwood to not be a gigantic asshole.
You guys are blowing this way out of proportion.
It's not the proportion, it's the people blaming me, the victim. That's the part that's really pissing me off.
I'm not saying changing the rules is a big deal; it's not. Of all the unacceptable and wrong thing Discourse developers have done, that's actually pretty low on the totem pole.
But stop blaming me for being the victim of someone else's asshole move. Because it's really pissing me off.
-
@Mikael_Svahnberg said:
The -button is just as much part of the "participating on an internet forum"-behaviour pattern as is clicking the "reply"-button.
Until Discourse, no Internet forum I'd ever used or even seen had a "like" button.
Both XenForo and IP.Board have Likes; they don't really count towards anything though
-
@KillaCoder said:
The software is functioning as intended, but the intentions were creepy and crazy.
I genuinely think that trying to social engineer a community of humans with automated computer rules is very creepy. Presenting hoops to jump through and rewards for doing so and (what I consider to be) punishments for not doing so, gives me (scientific term) heebie jeebies. Not so much this minor example, but more the general idea of the computer dictating use to the human users, rather than humans giving instantly obeyed orders to the computer.I'm not getting emotional or extreme about it. I just find it very interesting, both the intentions behind it and you guys reactions to it, and I wonder if this type of thing could become more common in future.
-
It's not the proportion, it's the people blaming me, the victim.
No, we're the victims of your whining. I'm just blaming you for that.
I genuinely think that trying to social engineer a community of humans with automated computer rules is very creepy.
OK. We'll agree to disagree on this point.
Not so much this minor example, but more the general idea of the computer dictating use to the human users, rather than humans giving instantly obeyed orders to the computer.
This is getting silly. It's just people reacting to incentives like they always do.
-
Agreed. I don't know why we need to have this discussion again.
Because it's interesting? The functionality of Discourse is buggy but will get better in time, these are like core philosophical ideas behind it though.If it's boring and dumb I can shut up though :P
-
He therefor did not fufill the requirements for TL3 and lost access the the TL3-only area.
Nothing changed in my behavior between when I was "ok" for TL3 and when I was not.
If you never got a speeding ticket or broke any traffic laws, but you lost your driving license because suddenly there was a new law that all cars must be painted purple, would you think that was fair? Would you think that was acceptable?
THAT is the problem here.
Getting likes is some kind of "reward" for your post.
No it's not. It's a fucking number in a database. It means less than nothing.
Filed Under: How about we just drop this and go back to bashing Discourse for REAL failures? That'd be great, thanks!
This is a real failure of Discourse. Nobody on this forum made an active decision to fuck me over.
-
Hold on a sec…goes to inspect her bots' servitude modulesPhew! Still working; no chance of them going rogue.
Get the fuck out of my thread with this bullshit. How many times a day do I have to post this? Christ.
Hey RaceProUK, as a general rule: STOP POSTING THIS BULLSHIT IN MY THREADS, OK!? I know you have the IQ of a particularly dumb grape but maybe you could devote one of your 3 working neurons to storing that little bit of information, ok?
-
-
@KillaCoder said:
Not so much this minor example, but more the general idea of the computer dictating use to the human users, rather than humans giving instantly obeyed orders to the computer.
This is getting silly. It's just people reacting to incentives like they always do.
But the functionality of the program shouldn't be walled off as an "incentive" for good behavior (as defined by the computer/developers/"game master"). That's basically my entire point. I just don't understand why everyone can't just be given access to the whole program. This whole system of ranks and privileges and jumping through hoops and deciding who deserves what functionality is what creeps me out.I wonder if this trend will continue. I wonder in 5 years will Facebook seal off the "Create Event and Invite Friends" functionality if I haven't share enough status updates or liked enough business or musician pages. That'd be a really negative trend if it DID occur, I think.
Anyway, I'll shut up now, you guys are clearly mostly ok with how things work and it's your community.
-
Makes you think it was May 14th initially at a glance, doesn't it?
Shit GUI, right there.
Temporal bug; there won't be any confusion like this starting in 2032. WONTFIX
-
I just don't understand why everyone can't just be given access to the whole program.
Yes, you can.
This whole system of ranks and privileges and jumping through hoops and deciding who deserves what functionality is what creeps me out.
Because every person who comes by should be able to post anything and edit anything and delete anything. You're just drawing the lines at a different place. I'm not saying you're wrong for doing so, but I am saying that claiming this is "creepy" or similar isn't right.
-
If you never got a speeding ticket or broke any traffic laws, but you lost your driving license because suddenly there was a new law that all cars must be painted purple, would you think that was fair? Would you think that was acceptable?
What if they lowered the speed limit (or raised a minimum limit) and your previous behavior caused you to get a ticket under the new regime? I think your whining would make a traffic cop and judge more likely to throw the book at you, not let you off with a warning.
-
Yes, you can.
Obviously a forum needs moderators and administrators. What sucks is a computer algorithm determining who they are. Even worse: based on stupid worthless information.
I'm not saying you're wrong for doing so, but I am saying that claiming this is "creepy" or similar isn't right.
You don't get to tell other people what they think is creepy. That's not something you can do.
What if they lowered the speed limit (or raised a minimum limit) and your previous behavior caused you to get a ticket under the new regime?
But I have a say and a vote in the speed limit. I didn't have a say in adding likes to the TL3 criteria. It's fair in a way this change to Discourse was not.
-
But I have a say and a vote in the speed limit. I didn't have a say in adding likes to the TL3 criteria. It's fair in a way this change to Discourse was not.
What? How does adding speeding limits work in the US? Do you guys ask the people driving and then just place a sign?
Filed under: curious
-
You don't get to tell other people what they think is creepy. That's not something you can do.
I'm not telling them they can't. I'm telling them they're wrong. That's something I can do. I'm sure they'll keep on disagreeing with me, and if they're you, keep telling me so. But something you can't do is force me to validate their feelings. Just ask @Buddy.
But I have a say and a vote in the speed limit. I didn't have a say in adding likes to the TL3 criteria. It's fair in a way this change to Discourse was not.
Uh huh.
You probably had more ability to have a say in the Likes requirement than in a hypothetical speed limit change.
-
Bullshit. We didn't even discuss whether to adopt it. You guys just instantly kow-towed to Atwood's whim.
-
It was discussed on meta.d, where all such things get discussed. Or it wasn't. I couldn't say for sure. Enough things surely get done without much public discussion. But that's not the point. You have had one on one conversations with the people who implemented it, which you almost certainly wouldn't have had with the guys mucking around with speed limits.
-
Because every person who comes by should be able to post anything and edit anything and delete anything. You're just drawing the lines at a different place. I'm not saying you're wrong for doing so, but I am saying that claiming this is "creepy" or similar isn't right.
Well that ain't fair. Limits based on logic, account integreity and security have nothing to do with the "social engineering" side of Discourse...
-
As far as I remember, we were against it but the Devs made the convincing argument that is : if you don't like it, disable it!
Then we focused on more stupid things that actually affected us other users.Now you could go and appeal at the admins of this forum. If you ask nicely they can either lower the likes barrier or manually put you to TL3. So in the end it since you aren't doing that I just assumed you don't care enough about this, either.
So meh. I am still confused as to how much influence you have on random Street signs...
Filed under: my 2 cents
-
We solved the whole "Likes are meaningless" thing quite a while ago. We even have a template for it!
+1
Since likes don't have a lot of meaning
in this topic, I felt it was necessary to indicate my true appreciation for this post.
-
Now you could go and appeal at the admins of this forum. If you ask nicely they can either lower the likes barrier or manually put you to TL3. So in the end it since you aren't doing that I just assumed you don't care enough about this, either.
To repeat myself for what feels like the 574,0437th time:
I don't care about not being in TL3. I care that was I kicked out so wrongly and unfairly.