Now testing civilized mute on meta
-
I don't consider "seeing my own posts" as an extra privilege.
Yes, I know, that's why I keep saying that you're wrong. Of course, you're deliberately omitting key facts about this particular case when you say that.
I just want people to stop acting like I did something wrong when I didn't.
We're just saying that some of your assumptions are wrong and you're wrong to annoy people about this stuff.
I'm not "making" anybody do anything. What "demand" have I made here? Quote me, I dare you.
From the same post, you're demanding that the site show you certain things:
don't consider "seeing my own posts" as an extra privilege. I consider it a basic bedrock feature of any forum system.
QED.
If people dance around the issue without giving any actual rational arguments, what else am I supposed to believe?
Again, we agree and wish you'd cut it out.
I've been wronged.
And yet, you're the only one who thinks so.
-
-
We're just saying that some of your assumptions are wrong and you're wrong to annoy people about this stuff.
You don't have to reply to me.
In any case, I have a bus to catch so I'm done now.
From the same post, you're demanding that the site show you certain things:
Oh man I can't wait to see what kind of firm demand you dug up to support thi--
I don't consider "seeing my own posts" as an extra privilege. I consider it a basic bedrock feature of any forum system.
That's... that's a demand? That's not a demand. It's not even an "ask". It's a simple statement of opinion.
because it's getting old and i'm asking nicely?
Why don't you civilized mute me.
-
You don't have to reply to me.
You don't have to keep bringing up your refusal to click the Like button, either.
That's... that's a demand? That's not a demand. It's not even an "ask". It's a simple statement of opinion.
So you don't really think the site should show all of your posts?
de·manddəˈmand/nounnoun: demand; plural noun: demands- 1.an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right.
I think that fits.
-
So you don't really think the site should show all of your posts?
I think it should, yes.
I'm not demanding it to be changed to do so. I'm not even requesting it. Much less "insistently" requesting it.
-
Why don't you civilized mute me.
That only stops notifications; we still have to read this drivel. Well, OK, we don't have to, but it's right there on the screen, so…
@blakeyrat said:I'm not demanding it to be changed to do so. I'm not even requesting it. Much less "insistently" requesting it.
And yet you won't shut up about it…
-
Why don't you civilized mute me.
Because i'd rather not have to deal with that. If I have to resort to muting someone in order to continue participating in a particular community than it would probably be better if i didn't participate in that community at all.
Because I think you are better than this.
because I refuse to believe that you are so myopic that you cannot see that your point has been summarily rejected not only by the developers of this forum (and in fact all forums that i am aware of from PHPBB to discourse) but also by the members of this community. I'm not sure why you think continuing to yell about your moral rights being violated will make a bit of difference, particularly given that there are at least three easy ways to regain access to your posts that you appear to reject as firmly as we have rejected the idea that you have been wronged by loosing access to your posts in the lounge due to your refusal to play by the rules that have been implemented to gain access to that place
-
I'm not demanding it to be changed to do so.
The point is that you're talking about something that's referred to as a positive right. That's putting a demand on someone else to act. In this case, to serve up everything you posted.
-
That only stops notifications; we still have to read this drivel. Well, OK, we don't have to, but it's right there on the screen, so…
You could just ignore it.
Because i'd rather not have to deal with that.
As could you.
Seriously. People stop replying to him, he stops replying to them. No-one has to read pointless circular arguments every time blakey gets sand in his vagina about something.
-
@RaceProUK said:
That only stops notifications; we still have to read this drivel. Well, OK, we don't have to, but it's right there on the screen, so…
You could just ignore it.
A point implied by the very statement you quoted
-
I was just emphasising the point.
-
I know ;)
But I like to help people, even if they don't appreciate my efforts.
-
l[b]oo[/b]sing access to your posts
I assume making your access more loose is something like sharing your account's password?
<Grammar Nazi>
-
yes, yes. me am is good spellar.... i get it.
if you want a spellar flag from me pick on someone elses posts!
-
Surprised everyone is so against Blakeyrat on this one. Whatever about accessing other people's content, your own should always be accessible without jumping through hoops. Granted, simple and innocuous hoops they are, but I can see why he's annoyed.
-
I dunno...it just seems like an obvious consequence of security. Like...if you saved a document in a folder somewhere and then you lost whatever permission allowed you to get to that folder, you'd no longer have access to the document there.
You could either save it somewhere else where you aren't in danger of losing permissions or reacquire permissions. Poking holes in other permissions seems like a bad way to do things.
-
In America (probably lots of your little countries out there have been, too), we've been working hard to remove consequences from actions.
Has there been any progress on getting reality to play along with this?
-
No way dude, security and permissions are completely logical. But this isn't a security thing, this is an arbitrary attempt to force him to "use our like feature!".
If he lost his Discourse account details and could no longer see his content, fair enough. That would be HIS fault. This case here isn't his fault though.
I don't understand why the software is hiding his content because Blakeyrat doesn't want to use one feature. Imagine if your phone started hiding text messages you'd written because you hadn't looked at your calendar for a while? It'd be crazy, who cares if you look at your calendar or not, just show me my texts!
-
In other words, the permission being arbitrarily taken away by the software is the issue, NOT the fact that permissions exist at all.
-
In other words, the permission being arbitrarily taken away by the software is the issue, NOT the fact that permissions exist at all.
Nothing was arbitrarily taken away.
-
Like...if you saved a document in a folder somewhere and then you lost whatever permission allowed you to get to that folder, you'd no longer have access to the document there.
But should you?
In an ideal system, I would say you should not. You should lose the ability to edit the document, or to see other people's edits to the document, but I see no reason you should lose access to the document itself.
You could either save it somewhere else where you aren't in danger of losing permissions or reacquire permissions. Poking holes in other permissions seems like a bad way to do things.
Right; but this argument is just "we've always done it that way", which is a shitty argument.
I don't understand why the software is hiding his content because Blakeyrat doesn't want to use one feature. Imagine if your phone started hiding text messages you'd written because you hadn't looked at your calendar for a while? It'd be crazy, who cares if you look at your calendar or not, just show me my texts!
Thank you.
Nothing was arbitrarily taken away.
What changed in my behavior between the time I could post to Lounge and could not post to Lounge?
-
Whatever about accessing other people's content, your own should always be accessible without jumping through hoops.
well, think of it from the point of view of the coder writing the forum.
i have user X who is, let us say a moderator. so they get access to a moderator section of the forum.
they use it for a while and then for one reason or another (what reason is irrelevant) are demoted to a non moderator status: obviously they lose access to the moderator stuff. what happense to their posts in the moderator section. some of them could be security related and something that they shouldn't have access too. others could be "secret" chatting.
how do you resolve that. furthermore even if you allow them access to their own posts there how do you solve the issue of cotnext. if they can see their posts/threads, should they be able to see the replies to those posts threads? and if they can't (which is i would argue the correct answer) then what good is it seeing their posts if they can no longer see the larger conversation?
this is the same issue with TL3 and TL4 here. when you are granted TL3 you gain a certain amount of moderator power. when you lose it you lose that power. TL4 even more so.
or, another analogy, what about in a business? if you work for HR and have documents saved in the HR share for your work and you transfer to Accounting, should you keep access to your HR work?
-
But should you?
In an ideal system, I would say you should not. You should lose the ability to edit the document, or to see other people's edits to the document, but I see no reason you should lose access to the document itself.
So we're in agreement here.
Right; but this argument is just "we've always done it that way", which is a shitty argument.
No, that's not what the argument is at all. I can almost see why you would say that, but it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying complexity and a habit of poking holes in permissions is dangerous and likely to cause lots of bugs and probably compromise other things.
What changed in my behavior between the time I could post to Lounge and could not post to Lounge?
Nothing changed. The site changed. That doesn't make it arbitrary. They updated the proxy statistics for "constructive community member," (formerly Leader, currently Regular).
-
how do you resolve that. furthermore even if you allow them access to their own posts there how do you solve the issue of cotnext. if they can see their posts/threads, should they be able to see the replies to those posts threads? and if they can't (which is i would argue the correct answer) then what good is it seeing their posts if they can no longer see the larger conversation?
-
I'm talking ideals not technical implementation details.
-
Maybe there is no point to seeing those posts divorced from content; that doesn't change the fact that the user should still have access to those posts.
or, another analogy, what about in a business? if you work for HR and have documents saved in the HR share for your work and you transfer to Accounting, should you keep access to your HR work?
Documents they create? Yes, they should absolutely have access.
Documents they work on on behalf of a company? No, they should not.
So we're in agreement here.
Are we?
I'm saying complexity and a habit of poking holes in permissions is dangerous and likely to cause lots of bugs and probably compromise other things.
Possibly. But now you're back to arguing implementation details instead of ideals. I'm telling you how the ideal permissions system should be implemented.
They updated the proxy statistics for "constructive community member," (formerly Leader, currently Regular).
Right; and in the process they wronged me.
-
-
Are we?
According to the words you typed, yes.
Possibly. But now you're back to arguing implementation details instead of ideals. I'm telling you how the ideal permissions system should be implemented.
I think that's true of a platonic permission system, too. Because even aside from coding mistakes, you get weird edge cases and unintended consequences.
Right; and in the process they wronged me.
Now we disagree again.
-
Because even aside from coding mistakes, you get weird edge cases and unintended consequences.
Like what?
-
Like what?
Like access to stuff that you should really have but something in the complicated design lets you and no one understood how it happened before it was observed.
-
Like access to stuff that you should really have but something in the complicated design lets you and no one understood how it happened before it was observed.
Ok, so you have absolutely no idea at all. Gotcha.
-
Ok, so you have absolutely no idea at all. Gotcha.
About an abstract system? Correct. And...that's kind of the point. Complex systems will have complex consequences that aren't easy to predict.
-
Right; and in the process they wronged me.
Would it have helped if there had been a big warning label on Discourse?
Contents May Settle During Shipping
.
It's not like they changed the number of missions you need to fly in order to get sent home or anything.
-
-
..... shimata......
spellaring strkies anaig.
-
Has there been any progress on getting reality to play along with this?
Not a problem, really. You see, the consequences aren't really being removed, just shifted, preferably onto members of more privileged classes. Serves them right for being shitlords.
-
Have you turned into a DiscoApologist now?
-
This is a Comcast/Net-neutrality situation. If blakey is fer it, I'm agin' it.
-
It's not like they changed the number of missions you need to fly in order to get sent home or anything.
Subtle reference caught
-
Preventing me from reading my own content that I posted myself, that's wrong and stupid.
They already fixed that. "Download Archive of My Posts" includes deleted posts in threads you can't see anymore.
You're assuming that even downloads posts you don't have access to.
It does.
-
These posts aren't deleted, as far as I am aware.
-
(Yes, but even if they were, they would still be included.)
-
Does that mean that even if you can't see your posts on the site any more, you can still download them and look at them locally?
Filed under: I am slow...
-
Does that mean that even if you can't see your posts on the site any more, you can still download them and look at them locally?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Why would you own it? I couldn't quickly find anything on this site talking about ownership, but the usual practice is that the site owns it. Or something. Just because you banged on a keyboard while logged into a site doesn't mean that the site must always regurgitate that for you upon demand.
In the U.S., where the site is based, copyright is automatically granted to the creator of the work. So yes, he does own his writings.
However, User contributions are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Without limiting any of those representations or warranties, The Daily WTF has the right (though not the obligation) to, in The Daily WTF’s sole discretion (i) refuse or remove any content that, in The Daily WTF’s reasonable opinion, violates any The Daily WTF policy or is in any way harmful or objectionable, or (ii) terminate or deny access to and use of the Website to any individual or entity for any reason, in The Daily WTF’s sole discretion.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying.
So, just so I'm absolutely clear here: hypothetically speaking, if I lost my TL3 status, but wanted to get copies of all my posts in the Lounge, then I can download them and read them to my heart's content?
-
(Yes, but even if they were, they would still be included.)
Oh well that's good then.
I'm still pissed about them changing the rules out from under me, but that removes one of my complaints.
(ii) terminate or deny access to and use of the Website to any individual or entity for any reason
I'm not saying they don't have the right to delete the messages. I'm saying it's wrong to do so.
-
-
Yes it is. So obviously so, that
...not a single other person agrees with you, yes, King Canute, we all understand.
-
I don't consider "seeing my own posts" as an extra privilege. I consider it a basic bedrock feature of any forum system.
Hypothetically speaking, if you were banned from a forum, would you expect to still be able to see your posts in that forum?
-
But it's not important.
You are lying; clearly it is important, by how vociferously you choose to defend your position.
-
-
I just asked my brother, here's some excerpts:
Well, *poof*
You wouldn't be able to send messages after you're banned
(Me) No, viewing private messages, not sending them
Well fuck them
Don't get banned
-
Nothing was arbitrarily taken away.
Requiring him to have given X amount of likes to see his posts is INCREDIBLY arbitrary. It might as well be X amount of flags, or X amount of different threads read, or any other random stat. There's no logical reason to hide his content (losing his security credentials WOULD be a logical reason to hide them).It was chosen by the Discodevs, to attempt to force use a feature he doesn't want to use. I don't understand why people are ok with that, I find it creepy and annoying when software tries to bully me into doing things I don't want.
I do not agree with not giving Likes, but I will defend to the death Blakeyrat's right to be a scary antisocial man