Poll: If PJH is willing and able, would you hide him behind an ellipsis?
-
How about we just change the Lounge rules to what they used to be?
-
You are no longer considered sufficiently trustworthy. As active as this place has gotten, this may be difficult to remedy without resorting to trickery (i.e., using a bot to read topics on your behalf). Ironic, isn't it.
Nah, he just needs 11 more days of showing up (it might actually require more than that if he was visiting on days that drop out of the 100 day sliding window).
-
How about we just change the Lounge rules to what they used to be?
What's this we, talking bird man?
-
You are no longer considered sufficiently trustworthy. As active as this place has gotten, this may be difficult to remedy without resorting to trickery (i.e., using a bot to read topics on your behalf). Ironic, isn't it.
TRUST_NOT_FOUND
As for reading... I might be working my way through old topics and stuff just for that reason
-
How about we just change the Lounge rules to what they used to be?
What, without likes given requirement?
-
Or just make it so once earned, it can't be un-earned. That's really the bit that pissed me off.
"Oh Microsoft changed the rules for how achievements work, so all your previous achievements are now deleted, fuck you."
-
Or just make it so once earned, it can't be un-earned. That's really the bit that pissed me off.
"Oh Microsoft changed the rules for how achievements work, so all your previous achievements are now deleted, fuck you."
I can kind of understand why you can loose TL3. But you do have a point. Maybe a compromise like a grace period after a change in requirements so that you don't loose trust level just because of a change in requirements.
-
Yes, it should be like the grace period from it being granted before it's revoked. Not just the goal posts have moved so fuck you.
-
No, there should be no grace period. Once something is earned, it is earned forever. It's like becoming President of the United States. Even if you only served for three weeks 50 years ago, you are still President of the United States and people address you as such. Damnit.
-
You can't veto any laws though
-
Or just make it so once earned, it can't be un-earned. That's really the bit that pissed me off.
That would defeat the point of the badge.
Maybe a compromise like a grace period after a change in requirements so that you don't loose trust level just because of a change in requirements.
Yeah, like for two weeks! Eh...whatever, the requirements change wasn't a common thing. It was a refinement of what we had. Some people are just angry crybabies.
-
Even if you only served for three weeks 50 years ago, you are still President of the United States and people address you as such. Damnit.
But they shouldn't. Fuck that shit. Those guys are supposed to work for us!
-
Yes, it should be like the grace period from it being granted before it's revoked. Not just the goal posts have moved so fuck you.
Proposed on meta.d
TL Grace Period After Requirement Change
I know it’s been a while, but there is one user on my “home” forum who still occasionally complains about how he lost TL3 back when Likes were added to the list of requirements for that level. During the most recent conversation regarding this, we came up with an idea that we believe has continuing...
-
No, there should be no grace period. Once something is earned, it is earned forever. It's like becoming President of the United States. Even if you only served for three weeks 50 years ago, you are still President of the United States and people address you as such. Damnit.
But it is a trust level. Trust can be earned, and it can be lost. Why can't you conceive that the same might be true in an online social environment?
-
INB4:
@codinghorror said:Doing It Wrong™
-
-
Given the quasi-reciprocal nature of Improbability physics and Discourse, anything that is infinitely improbable (like the Lounge existing for me) is bound to happen almost immediately. So yes, time, the luxury I do not have, but that is also an illusion... and this will probably maybe definitely possibly be a thing.
-
Some people are just angry crybabies.
Right, but angry crybabies who earned a spot in the Lounge fair and square.
At least I should be able to view my own threads, even if I'm otherwise kicked out of the Lounge. If I had known there was a possibility I'd be locked out of my own threads, I would have never put them in there in the first place.
-
If it makes you feel better, I could move them out for you.
-
Right, but angry crybabies who earned a spot in the Lounge fair and square.
And who refuse to earn it back after it was tweaked.
At least I should be able to view my own threads, even if I'm otherwise kicked out of the Lounge.
No you shouldn't. You and @flabdablet should get together and make a club of people who refuse to believe in reality.
-
No you shouldn't. You and @flabdablet should get together and make a club of people who refuse to believe in reality.
This. Or just learn to stop worrying and love
the atomic bombthe heart icon
-
Actually I've had arguments with people about that elsewhere.
Consider the situation:
- Person creates topic in private board for co-ordinating an event
- Said thread has personal details in it
- Person leaves administration/moderator position but remains present in community - leaving private board behind
Should said person continue to have access to that privileged information just because they started the topic?
I get the argument, sure, and have argued in the same direction as blakey in the past, but it's not as simple as 'should always have access'.
-
No you shouldn't. You and @flabdablet should get together and make a club of people who refuse to believe in reality.
I'm pretty sure they both believe in reality. Theirs just happen to be private versions.
-
-
Should said person continue to have access to that privileged information just because they started the topic?
Yes.
Maybe a questionable case if the personal details were posted after the demotion. But the entire point of posting personal details would be so Person could fucking read them, right? Why else would you do it? So removing the ability for Person to read information intended to them is wrong and a bug. Regardless of what he information is.
-
but it's not as simple as 'should always have access'.
Certainly not. Needs more spittle, for instance.
-
No, it's not a questionable case if they were posted after demotion. That's a straight up 'hell no'.
But the cases where they were posted during times of holding a position where that data would be legitimately available - don't suddenly continue to be available after they leave.
Let me get this straight: if you build a product for someone in C# and then leave the role, you expect to continue to have access to that C# code afterwards, be it either partially (access to everything up to the point you left) or completely (regardless of leaving time)
-
But the cases where they were posted during times of holding a position where that data would be legitimately available - don't suddenly continue to be available after they leave.
Could make sense, especially on an automated trust-based system like this. But would be hell to track.
And on a manual demotion, I'd say you want to remove all access immediately, no discussion. Or at least be able to. Such manual demotions may be caused specifically by breach of trust.
-
No, it's not a questionable case if they were posted after demotion. That's a straight up 'hell no'.
If and only if the person posting the personal information was not aware of the demotion.
Let me get this straight: if you build a product for someone in C# and then leave the role, you expect to continue to have access to that C# code afterwards, be it either partially (access to everything up to the point you left) or completely (regardless of leaving time)
No, but I wrote that code for a third-party in exchange for money. That's not true of stuff I post here.
-
Exactly the kind of underlying point.
-
I'll buy into the whole 'only if the person posting was not aware' because that's a valid argument in reverse too - the expectation that privacy is not so private because 'the topic starter retains access'.
As for the 'for money' deal, it's not actually that different. I have had admin level access to forums to do work for them... I don't retain the details after I finish the work even if I write new code for them. Because in my world - it may be different in yours, and this is what I'm trying to get at - once I am no longer engaged in such a task, I am not entitled to access to that (code|data|whatever)
-
Well you personally can do whatever you like.
For me, if I'm writing something, even something stupid and trivial, and I haven't previously signed any kind of agreement granting ownership of that thing to someone else, that thing is mine. It doesn't belong to PJH, it doesn't belong to Boomzilla or Alex or Atwood, it belongs to me. And restricting my access to my own thing is wrong.
-
I don't buy into the topic starter having any supposed ownership or other privilege over the topic. But that might just be me.
-
For me, if I'm writing something, even something stupid and trivial, and I haven't previously signed any kind of agreement granting ownership of that thing to someone else, that thing is mine.
Here's an experiment...try downloading your posts and see if your Lounge posts are still in there. That's probably a PITA, but at least you'd have your posts then. And you could read them whenever you like.
And restricting my access to my own thing is wrong.
You posted stuff in a restricted place. By your own deeds, you have purposefully restricted your access. Was this meant to be a confession? Has it been bothering your conscience that you sinned against yourself?
It's actually pretty simple for you to get in there. Everyone assumes you like the public drama of feeling sorry for yourself too much to do it, though.
-
You posted stuff in a restricted place. By your own deeds, you have purposefully restricted your access. Was this meant to be a confession? Has it been bothering your conscience that you sinned against yourself?
I didn't know (and had no way of knowing) I'd lose access to it in the future.
It's actually pretty simple for you to get in there. Everyone assumes you like the public drama of feeling sorry for yourself too much to do it, though.
I don't give a shit about being in the Lounge, I'm talking about right and wrong. It's wrong to prevent me from accessing my posts.
-
I don't give a shit about being in the Lounge, I'm talking about right and wrong. It's wrong to prevent me from accessing my posts.
They aren't preventing you. You're preventing you. Your claim that they're preventing you is like claiming that they're preventing you because you won't log in or something.
Maybe if you got trustholed or something due to bad behavior you'd have a point.
-
They aren't preventing you. You're preventing you.
Oh right. I totally forgot that time I completely write the permissions system for Discourse. Silly me! You'd think I'd remember that.
Maybe if you got trustholed or something due to bad behavior you'd have a point.
I have a point now. I don't care whether or not you agree with it.
-
Oh right. I totally forgot that time I completely write the permissions system for Discourse. Silly me! You'd think I'd remember that.
Stop being a douche.
I don't care whether or not you agree with it.
No one agrees with it. We don't really care that you don't agree with anyone, either. But the drama queen act gets kind of old.
-
Stop being a douche.
Stop typing bullshit that's 100% wrong as if you thought I'd be stupid enough to fall for your debating "tactic". "Oh Blakeyrat's an infant, he'll certainly fall for this one, having only 4 brain cells available." Goddamned.
-
I see where you're coming from with your point. On some level I even agree with you. But the general case I've seen (bearing in mind I spent years working actually with forum software!) is that everyone else largely disagrees with you about how this should work, and the real-world-building-for-money is merely a variation on the concept.
-
Stop typing bullshit that's 100% wrong
Which parts were those? OK, I wouldn't actually be surprised if someone agreed with you. That was what someone once called hyperbole. So I guess you got me there.
as if you thought I'd be stupid enough to fall for your debating "tactic".
It's not a "debating tactic." I'm trying to explain what's going on here. I think you probably get it, but I understand that you want to stay strong on your no Likes policy.
-
Look, it's really fucking simple.
If DailyWTF wants to own and control access to the stuff I type, there has to be some kind of FAQ or documentation somewhere that says so. And if there were, I'd be perfectly fine with it, because it's really not that big a deal.
But there isn't. So what I type is mine. And limiting my access to my own property is wrong.
There's no shades of grey here. I'm not saying you should hop-to and immediately fix it, but acknowledging that I've been wronged (even in a tiny, tiny, unimportant way) would be appreciated. More-so by someone who actually made the decisions, Atwood or Alex, than you.
Which parts were those?
You're not so stupid that you think I designed the Discourse permissions system, or that I installed Discourse on this site, or that I changed the rules on how the Lounge works. You're not that stupid, Boomzilla. But you typed it anyway. So that leaves two possibilities:
- You are actually that fucking moronic, or
- It was a lame debating tactic that backfired because I saw through it instantly.
Note that number 2, the one I went with, is actually the more generous of the two.
-
You're not so stupid that you think I designed the Discourse permissions system, or that I installed Discourse on this site, or that I changed the rules on how the Lounge works. You're not that stupid, Boomzilla. But you typed it anyway. So that leaves two possibilities:1) You are actually that fucking moronic, or2) It was a lame debating tactic that backfired because I saw through it instantly.
What you did do is actively stop using likes, to the point of undoing existing likes where possible, as soon as it became known likes would become a TL3 requirement.
-
We have another case of BDGI.
-
I never undid existing likes.
Please stop posting lies about me.
-
I never undid existing likes
No?
In fact, I'm going to go out of my way and UNDO the likes I've given so far.
Shit cited.
-
You're not so stupid that you think I designed the Discourse permissions system, or that I installed Discourse on this site, or that I changed the rules on how the Lounge works. You're not that stupid, Boomzilla. But you typed it anyway. So that leaves two possibilities:
- You are actually that fucking moronic, or
- It was a lame debating tactic that backfired because I saw through it instantly.
or
3) @boomzilla meant that you actively refuse to meet the current requirements for TL3. Requirements which you are well aware of.
-
One is a statement of action, the other a statement of intention.
I never undid existing likes.
-
3) @boomzilla meant that you actively refuse to meet the current requirements for TL3, which you are well aware of.
To give a famous Blakeyrat-ism, why should I have to?
And note, again, that the rules have changed since I first posted in the Lounge. So don't say "oh you should have known that would happen". I had no way of knowing. I have no way of knowing they won't change tomorrow. I really have no interest at all in viewing the Lounge.
But none of that changes that fact that restricting me from viewing my own content is wrong.
-
My bad.
You didn't successfully undo existing likes.
Sounds like you acted upon your statement of intent and Discourse said no.Ok I'm not allowed to undo my likes. Why? Who fucking knows. I give up
