Memory-holing: Now here on DailyWTF! Abusive mods ahoy!
-
So we'd have to do a complete rewrite to make the guidelines make sense here!
I think we had a topic that had our guidelines, but the OP was a wiki so you can imagine how useful the guidelines actually are.
-
I think we had a topic that had our guidelines
Nope, it's an FAQ.
I don't recall any guidelines that were ever set in stone.
-
I don't recall any guidelines that were ever set in stone.
Because it's not previously been an issue.
-
Doesn't that go under
Be agreeable, even if you disagree
?
Apparently not. It seems as though we need to properly delineate it. Maybe we should add a "This means you also" to the end of it?
I am with blakeyrat on the fact that the guidelines don't really apply here.
Fair enough, but to be fair he actually wants that one (derailing) enforced on his topics. Go ahead, go derail one of his topics. We will sit here and watch the fireworks.
-
It sucks when you (as a community) have to resort to rules / laws and so forth. It means we can't work stuff out on our own, and the rules are going to have unintended consequences, including people working to obey the letter while fucking over the spirit of the law.
Nevertheless, you gotta do what you gotta do.
-
It means we can't work stuff out on our own
Which just sucks. Soon after I joined this community, I had an altercation with a certain rodent that went too far. @PJH sent me a PM telling me to knock it off and that I was being an asshole. I knocked it off, although I am still kind of an asshole at times. ;)
-
Go ahead, go derail one of his topics.
As I've said a billion times, I don't care if people derail my topics. I only care if people start typing boring shit nobody sane could ever possibly care about in my topics.
I'm sick of repeating this.
-
It means we can't work stuff out on our own,
What are we doing right fucking now in this thread, then? Why the fuck do you think I MADE this thread?
and the rules are going to have unintended consequences, including people working to obey the letter while fucking over the spirit of the law.
A.k.a. Wikipedia Syndrome.
-
show a deletion reason
There isn't a single forum in existence that mandates this, probably because full moderation transparency (even if it's like
post deleted by 'codinghorror' for reason: 'doing it wrong') isn't something any community owner would be on board with.Ironically, had Jeff really wanted to make a more 'civilized' Internet, the software would've mandated this instead of those annoying toasters.
-
any community owner would be on board with
Then fuck community owners?
Also, offering such a feature without enforcing its usage would be a good idea in my book. I'd totally encourage-toaster it, though.
-
Then fuck community owners?
Easily said, but then who pays the server bills?
That said, I don't know what kind of hugbox we're becoming when blakey can't even "insult" people anymore without having his posts mysteriously vanish. Remember when we had tough skin? Hell, remember MasterPlanSoftware?
-
Remember when we had tough skin?
No idea. I came from the front page comment section, not the forums.
-
That said, I don't know what kind of hugbox we're becoming when blakey can't even "insult" people anymore without having his posts mysteriously vanish.
The problem is Discourse puts the moderation tools in the hands of the people who should LEAST have them: the kind of people who built bots, who post 547,347 posts of useless bullshit a day, who suck-up to Atwood at every turn-- just to earn fake forumpointzzz. And here the forumpointzzz are just some amusing term that genius Blakeyrat made-up, but actually give you moderator abilities!
This is just like StackOverflow and Wikipedia all over again. Everything that's gamified turns to shit, just like this forum has/will. We're just in the early stages right now; just like Wikipedia and StackOverflow worked for a few years before turning into ass.
Here's what we should do as a community:
-
Ban bots.
-
Show extreme displeasure and annoying at people who post complete and utter bullshit to up their post counts. Maybe bring back Rosie.
-
Get rid of all gameified features: the like button, the badges/flags, all of it. Flush it right down the toilet.
-
Erase all signs that they ever existed, from the CSS from the user profiles, from the database.
Then we're down to only the shitty software issues. The forum will still suck, but at least it'll suck in the same way it did when it was Community Server.
-
-
And here the forumpointzzz are just some amusing term that genius Blakeyrat made-up, but actually give you moderator abilities!
My god. Really? Never noticed. (Not even when I did have Lounge access.)
[s]That must be the most idiotic idea ever. Just let anyone who presses the little heart enough delete posts they don't like? Wow. I hope I'm misunderstanding.[/s]
Edit: I apparently did misunderstand.
-
1) Ban bots.
You're blowing their effect on the community out of proportion. They have been used a lot less frequently and annoyingly recently.
2) Show extreme displeasure and annoying at people who post complete and utter bullshit to up their post counts. Maybe bring back Rosie.
We will not always side with you. Be aware of that.3) Get rid of all gameified features: the like button, the badges/flags, all of it. Flush it right down the toilet.
- Erase all signs that they ever existed, from the CSS from the user profiles, from the database.
Don't you think you're taking things a tad too far? I could live without likes, but they are sometimes a little bit useful.And here the forumpointzzz are just some amusing term that genius Blakeyrat made-up, but actually give you moderator abilities!
Renaming topics and changing categories? OMG HUGE DEAL OPPRESSION!In order to lock topics/delete posts/etc. you have to be manually awarded those rights, they aren't affected by any badges or likes or post counts at all.
-
And here the forumpointzzz are just some amusing term that genius Blakeyrat made-up, but actually give you moderator abilities!
Small correction: you can only get an ability to rename/move threads, not delete, edit or move any actual posts.
I can agree that moving threads into restricted categories might be a debatable feature though. If there is such a functionality, I'd argue that moving stuff into a restricted category by a trust level 3 user (highest you can get using points alone, for now at least) should be an action that has to be approved by the mod.
1) Ban bots.
I'd disagree only on the count that the bots alone don't cause shit unless someone uses them in such a manner. People problem, not bots problem.
2) Show extreme displeasure and annoying at people who post complete and utter bullshit to up their post counts. Maybe bring back Rosie.
You can't mandate that. That's for the users to do.
3) Get rid of all gameified features: the like button, the badges/flags, all of it. Flush it right down the toilet.
They can be useful. You refuse to use them. This is fine. Some people like to use them. This is also fine. The only thing that I'd say could be a good thing to add is an ability to opt-out of receiving all notifications related to certain features, for example likes and like-related badges.
Also, flags are completely fine. The fact that we abuse them here is... well, we abuse shit. Whoop.
4) Erase all signs that they ever existed, from the CSS from the user profiles, from the database.
I ain't touching Discourse code. Don't need an extra headache.
-
You're blowing their effect on the community out of proportion. They have been used a lot less frequently and annoyingly recently.
I don't care.
I don't come here to talk to bots. I don't want fucking bots making posts. I don't want bots using the forumpointzzz features. I sure as fuck don't want bots telling me my post was hidden.
Don't you think you're taking things a tad too far?
No. I never wanted any of this shit in the first place. I continue to never want it.
Renaming topics and changing categories? OMG HUGE DEAL OPPRESSION!
That's not the point.
The point is right now if people get forumpointzzz they can level-up and gain abilities. EVEN IF THOSE ABILITIES ARE USELESS the kind of morons who like forumpointzzz are going to want to level-up.
If you remove the "level ups" you remove the incentive to post forumpointzzz bullshit. If there's no incentive, people won't do it.
-
Small correction: you can only get an ability to rename/move threads, not delete, edit or move any actual posts.
Read my reply to aliceif, you're missing the point.
-
If you remove the "level ups" you remove the incentive to post forumpointzzz bullshit. If there's no incentive, people won't do it.
THEY WILL STILL DO IT BECAUSE THEY LIKE BIG NUMBERS.
Have you never played a video game with points that were only used to be shown in a scoreboard?
-
THEY WILL STILL DO IT BECAUSE THEY LIKE BIG NUMBERS.
Right; and we'll get rid of the numbers, too. See point 4.
Look, the big picture here is: stop incentivizing people to post crap and people will post less crap.
-
I don't come here to talk to bots. I don't want fucking bots making posts. I don't want bots using the forumpointzzz features. I sure as fuck don't want bots telling me my post was hidden.
Everyone knows how you feel about bots by now. Clearly, the sentiment is not shared by the majority of the community. If it's a dealbreaker, the door's that way.
-
Read my reply to aliceif, you're missing the point.
Ok.
If you remove the "level ups" you remove the incentive to post forumpointzzz bullshit. If there's no incentive, people won't do it.
You're assuming that is the reason people do it. I'm trust level 3. I used my "powers" maybe... 4, 5 times? Every time to make a joke, pretty much. Nobody complained. If they did I'd stop even that.
I can ask to be forever locked out of gaining trust level 3 ever again. And my stats could be blanked out. My behaviour won't change. Now, I may be an exception. But I doubt I am.
-
Clearly, the sentiment is not shared by the majority of the community.
I share it. Seriously, bots should stay out of real forum threads and preferably also outside of the likes thread. (Just my opinion, not necessarily shared by the rest of the TL4+ users, and so on)
IDGAF about the bot sections and PMs and such, though.
-
You're assuming that is the reason people do it.
Whatever. If people post useless bullshit for some other reason, then let's find that and eliminate it, also.
I share it. Seriously, bots should stay out of real forum threads and preferably also outside of the likes thread. (Just my opinion, not necessarily shared by the rest of the TL4+ users, and so on)
We already have a special place for them, but the people who are the worst about abusing bots don't use it. Ditto the badges thing.
We've already attempted to solve the problem, the solution didn't work. There's like 20 lines of bot bullshit in that avatar thread posted today. The solution isn't working. We need a new one.
-
I share it. Seriously, bots should stay out of real forum threads and preferably also outside of the likes thread.
Agreed (except liking in the likes thread) on that. The silly todo bot that keeps popping up in random threads is irritating.
-
And here the forumpointzzz are just some amusing term that genius Blakeyrat made-up, but actually give you moderator abilities!
Umm ... What? Are we calling topic renaming and category changing moderator abilities now? Because those are the only "moderator" abilities that are automatically granted right now. Everything else is granted at levels where you need to be manually promoted.
-
The silly todo bot that keeps popping up in random threads is irritating.
It's not driving me insane or anything, but it probably should just
PM the person wanting a todo.And the person doing a todo shouldn't post a non-content post just to get one.
-
typing boring shit nobody sane could ever possibly care about in my topics
who post 547,347 posts of useless bullshit a day
2) Show extreme displeasure and annoying at people who post complete and utter bullshit to up their post counts. Maybe bring back Rosie.
incentivizing people to post crap and
If people post useless bullshit for some other reason
(emphasis mine)Point of order. Have any of the terms bolded above ever been defined? If they have, I can't find it. Would appreciate a definition; thanks.
Did find this, but I don't think it's referring to the same thing:
20 lines of bot bullshit
-
Yeah, it's not driving me spare or anything, but it's definitely something that should be in
private.
-
The forum will still suck, but at least it'll suck in the same way it did when it was Community Server.
Do you have scientific studies to back that opinion, or is it just your gut feeling?
-
This is turning into a bot discussion again. Can we stay on point and do this somewhere else?
Also, since I'm here now might as well state my opinion (not that anyone cares): I can live with them, I can live without them. Whatever. Might as well make a poll in a new thread. We can pretty much lock them down into one category anyway, no?
-
It's not driving me insane or anything, but it probably should just PM the person wanting a todo.
And the person doing a todo shouldn't post a non-content post just to get one.
If only there were ways to track todo lists that didn't use forum posts...
-
Didn't @blakeyrat even have a program on his website that could do that for you?
-
Do you have scientific studies to back that opinion, or is it just your gut feeling?
I'm suggesting we do the test to find out. Smart ass.
We can pretty much lock them down into one category anyway, no?
We tried that. It's not working.
-
I don't come here to talk to bots. I don't want fucking bots making posts. I don't want bots using the forumpointzzz features. I sure as fuck don't want bots telling me my post was hidden.
In other words, you just fear change.
-
We tried that. It's not working.
No. We made a category for it. They were never locked out of other ones.
-
It's not driving me insane or anything, but it probably should just PM the person wanting a todo.
hmm.... a valid point that.
/me writes down to make @todo only work with PMs
EDIT:
/me crosses that off the list as it's done
-
Have any of the terms bolded above ever been defined?
By context, they all mean "stuff Blakeyrat doesn't like".
-
To quote a judge:
You're.... you're going to have to do better than that.
-
To quote a judge:
I did use the phrase "by context". But by all means, go on and try to fix a definition. I need an excuse to eat some
.I don't care enough to need the terms defined. Besides, they're sometimes mutually contradictory.
-
2) Show extreme displeasure and annoying at people who post complete and utter bullshit to up their post counts.
How about people who post complete and utter bullshit because they're full of it?
-
How about people who post complete and utter bullshit because they're full of it?
If those people are blakeyrat, blakeyrat doesn't mind.
-
Yes, but see, the problem is, if these terms are undefinable -- if they can't be used as a standard, then all the complaints using them are
t — nobody can remedy a complaint if nobody has any idea what, precisely, you are complaining about.
-
If I post examples I'll just get more mod warnings.
-
I believe that it's possible to define something without using examples, correct?
And "phrases matching the following regex" contains neither the example of "pie" nor "Larry Ellison":
/^[ellLaip Esryrino]+$/
-
If this case, no, because the definitions would point two one or two specific people who are IMO 90% of the problem.
-
Ah! So you think that two particular people are the primary source of the problem. Let's call them both John Doe, defaulting to male in the case that gender is unspecified. What is your proposed remedy? What would you have John Doe do, or be done to John Doe?
-
No.
Go away now.
-
Excellent Blakeytroll — Demand the world change to suit you in a way that will certainly be rejected, but when asked to suggest a specific behavior change that someone might be willing to implement, refuse to cooperate, and instead throw a (small) tantrum.
-
Please.
Riking know exactly what he's doing, and I'm not falling for it.
Kolmogorov complexity - Wikipedia
