Now testing civilized mute on meta
-
-
-
I made that italic on purpose you know
-
Someone's still gonna correct you. I was inb4ing it :)
-
You're missing a few there @sam..
-
mute group is highly justifiable here, but a bit of an edge case to implement also has potential to be pretty terrible (eg: mute TL0)
-
I like it, now (well, whenever it rolls out) I can get my Likes notifications only from the real people forced to Like me in that topic.
-
-
Can we also mutespecific badgers too? :(
-
-
Great. At this rate, you'll have feature-parity with other forum products in 2046.
-
Is there any other forum that has a Community Server importer written in ruby as a feature?
-
Is there any other forum that has a Community Server importer written in ruby as a feature?
I think all of the available forums out there have importers that don't import.
-
importers that don't import.
But do they have importers that take hours, slow down the forum and then fail after importing 2 posts?
-
Should I expect the forum to get more and more civilized as I keep adding people to my mute list?
-
I think the forum got way more civilized since I added @tar to my mute list.
-
-
woo! i was afraid they were going to miss that point of the feature request
-
I've just been thinking about how certain users will receive the implementation given their preferences and personnel realities.
-
it will be interesting to see how the feature is received. thats for sure.
-
£5 says the one person this feature will be used by the most will also complain incessantly that it doesn't work according to his own internal spec
-
£5 says the one person this feature will be used by the most will also complain incessantly that it doesn't work according to his own internal spec
Natch. He likes complaining.
-
no bet. but then if we'ew thinking of the same person he also didn't participate in creating the spec i handed to the discodevs so AFAIAC he has no leg to stand on there.
-
he has no leg to stand on there.
He often doesn't. He just likes complaining. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was British.
-
I suppose any argument against this will incur,
"Staff will never do that."
strawman argument.
-
When I don't know what some people are talking about, I fill it in with something random. Otherwise I'll think about it all day.
In this case, I replaced it with the flying spaghetti monster, since it would in fact have no legs to stand on.
-
I suppose any argument against this will incur,
Eh...I don't think so. I think @sam is right that a full on ignore from staff is not a good idea, for what I hope are obvious reasons. There is at least a slight concept of official actions vs non-official actions, some of which I think should definitely get exceptions here (like moving posts).
Normal replies should be subject to the normal stuff. Probably shouldn't block PMs.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI
Source'd that for you :D
-
There is at least a slight concept of official actions vs non-official actions
Yes. I agree. But how do you implement that?
Do you want to have to check "official action" on your actions?
-
Do you want to have to check "official action" on your actions?
Dischorse knows what a 'staff action' is - it automagically colours them yellow.
I agree - no mute on staff+.
-
Yes. I agree. But how do you implement that?
Do you want to have to check "official action" on your actions?Stuff like "moving a post" is always "official." The notification is really about what happened to the post.
PMs from staff seems pretty simple...just assume it's official.
Replies should only get notifications if they get marked as official / staff (via the wrench menu on each post):
-
Fair enough.
The community can vet out bad moderators.
-
The community can vet out bad moderators.
Yeah, the staff shouldn't be abusing stuff, but if they are, the solution is to get the rest of the staff involved. If it's Alex, then you should just leave.
I think that staff actions are pretty fair around here (I would say that, though). I know I make an effort to separate my normal discussion from "official" moderating (i.e., DOING MY JOB).
-
I think that staff actions are pretty fair around here
Agreed.
If it's Alex, then you should just leave.
Thanks for the warning.
He wouldn't do anything toxic to the community, would he?
-
He wouldn't do anything toxic to the community, would he?
Heh...I just meant...as the owner, there's no one over his head to appeal to.
-
over his head
His reflexes are too fast?
If anyone tried to go over his head, he would catch them?Oh and
-
He wouldn't do anything toxic to the community, would he?
apart from moving it to DissedHorse?
-
He wouldn't do anything toxic to the community, would he?
Well, he granted us Discourse...
-
If staff use their staff accounts to post in political discussions (as is done here), then they should 100% be blockable.
AFAIK there is currently no way to mark a post as an "staff post" short of using a dedicated login for it.
-
-
). I know I make an effort to separate my normal discussion from "official" moderating (i.e., DOING
How?
-
AFAIK there is currently no way to mark a post as an "staff post" short of using a dedicated login for it.
Because you didn't read this thread yet?
How?
Like, I don't retaliate with moderator powers in discussions. I haven't ever suspended or banned or deleted the account of anyone except spammers.
-
-
Like, I don't retaliate with moderator powers in discussions. I haven't ever suspended or banned or deleted the account of anyone except spammers.
I'd be honestly interested in knowing if anyone thinks I've abused my powers somehow. Feel free to tell another staff member if you don't feel comfortable telling me.
-
I'm using winphone, give me a break. Scrollbar jumps like a crazy person.
Point is, you should be able to block staff unless the post is marked as staff action.
-
I don't think you have, but you also changed the topic. It started as "separate posting from moderation" then turned into "I don't abuse moderation."
I was asking about the first, not the second.
-
Point is, you should be able to block staff unless the post is marked as staff action.
It looks like PMs can be marked based on @PJH's post (copying the image) with a check box as a staff thingy:
Plus moving posts and such get marked as some kind of staff action (the message about them is yellow) so making the mute not work on those makes sense. It sounds like they are tacking this on in a quick and dirty way so not having a clean separation in their back end (which it sounds like they don't have) makes the differentiation problematic. Thus the easier don't mute staff was chosen (so it's better than nothing, but not where you want it).
-
Point is, you should be able to block staff unless the post is marked as staff action.
Yes, I agree 100%. I made that point here and on meta.d.
I don't think you have, but you also changed the topic. It started as "separate posting from moderation" then turned into "I don't abuse moderation."
I was asking about the first, not the second.
The second is definitely a form of the first. I suppose we don't mark the badge granting posts as staff color. Maybe we should start doing that. @PJH? I know that moving stuff leaves behind a staff colored post, even when non-staff (i.e., TL4s) do it.
-
I suppose we don't mark the badge granting posts as staff color. Maybe we should start doing that.
That's a neat idea; makes it more obvious it's a staff action, which is what badger granting is I guess.
-