Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #44102 > unrolled thread

A friendly tech-forum

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 11:09 +0200
    Re: A friendly tech-forum mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-12-06 06:05 -0800
      Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 16:20 +0200
    A friendly tech-forum foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-12-06 06:17 -0800
      Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 16:24 +0200
    Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-06 22:57 -0500
      Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 06:58 +0200
        Re: A friendly tech-forum JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-12-07 08:34 -0800
          Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 19:40 +0200
            Re: A friendly tech-forum hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-12-09 18:31 -0800
          Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 12:48 -0500
        Re: A friendly tech-forum Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-07 18:44 +0100
          Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 12:56 -0500
            Re: A friendly tech-forum Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-07 19:19 +0100
              Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 02:02 -0500
            Re: A friendly tech-forum JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-12-07 10:26 -0800
              Re: A friendly tech-forum jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 11:19 -0800
              Re: A friendly tech-forum Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-07 23:41 +0100
                Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 02:36 -0500
                Re: A friendly tech-forum "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-13 14:14 +1100
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-12-12 20:59 -0800
                    Re: A friendly tech-forum "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-15 23:52 +1100
                      Re: A friendly tech-forum "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-15 08:16 -1000
                        Re: A friendly tech-forum "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-16 12:55 +1100
            Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 21:49 +0200
              Re: A friendly tech-forum jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 18:53 -0800
                Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 07:09 +0200
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 02:52 -0500
              Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 03:00 -0500
                Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:22 +0200
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 13:15 -0500
              Re: A friendly tech-forum visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-12-08 19:15 -0800
                Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:12 +0200
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 01:50 -0500
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum mhx@iae.nl - 2015-12-08 23:40 -0800
                    Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:01 +0200
                    Re: A friendly tech-forum Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-09 11:15 +0000
          Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 21:48 +0200
          Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 01:53 -0500
        Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 01:50 -0500
          Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 08:55 +0200
          Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 01:57 -0500
            Re: A friendly tech-forum Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-08 20:32 +0100
              Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 15:27 -0500
        Re: A friendly tech-forum Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 04:24 -0800
        Re: A friendly tech-forum Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 04:52 -0800
          Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 01:31 -0500
            Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 10:05 +0200
              Re: A friendly tech-forum Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 04:59 -0800
              Re: A friendly tech-forum krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-11 05:32 -0800
                Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 18:26 +0200
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-12 08:46 -0800
                    Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 19:00 +0200
              Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:13 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#44231

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:14:48 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > JUERGEN wrote:
> > > I remember the abuse I got when I suggested to give more power to the
> > > vendors in the Standards Group, to bring the language forward.
> > [...]
> > And then you scratch your head why you get angry responses.  I give you a
> > hint: By supporting a minority of the TC, and showing disrespect to the rest
> > of the TC, you seriously insulted people.  Maybe you did it unintentionally,
> > but you did, nonetheless.  And you completely and utterly failed to grasp
> > what happened (or pretended so).

Bernd Paysan would have praised Juergen Pintaske as a brilliant and wise Forth programmer if Bernd had been listed as one of the "benevolent dictators" rather than just Leon Wagner and Stephen Pelc alternating years in this exulted position. Bernd isn't against the concept of "benevolent dictators" so long as he is one of them --- Elizabeth Rather did appoint Bernd to the Forth-200x committee, so he is one of the "benevolent dictators" --- he is mad because Juergen was trying to pull the rug out from under him.

The problem with people is that they are too quick to accept a leader in exchange for an appointment to a middle-management position --- no matter how bullied a person may be, there is always somebody below them that they can bully, so they never rebel against the bullies above them who are making them miserable --- the reason why America imprisons so many people for victimless crimes is that there has to be a bottom level to the pyramid and it has to be wide.

For Bernd Paysan, it is far more important to avoid the bottom level of the Forth community than to obtain the top level --- this is why he is willing to obediently do what Leon Wagner tells him to do, in exchange for being appointed to the Forth-200x committee rather than stuck in purgatory (the mailing list) --- this is why he responded with such anger to Juergen trying to take away his appointment, which is the only thing of value that he has in life.

Being on the Forth-200x mailing list is the worst thing in the world --- if you don't believe me, then ask Bernd Paysan! --- he is holding onto his committee appointment with both hands.

> Chuck expressed his disillusionment with Forth-94 by walking out.
> No doubt the remaining TC members would have felt they'd been
> insulted.  Chuck could have saved himself grief by pretending to go
> along with the process.  Instead he chose to quit and suffer the fallout.
> What would you do?

What fallout? Charles Moore's name is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a supporter. Most likely, ANSI would not have allowed ANS-Forth to be made the Standard without his name listed as a supporter.

In all likelihood, nobody at ANSI knows anything about Forth programming, but they do know that Forth was invented by Charles Moore so they looked for his name in the list of supporters --- when they saw it they gave ANS-Forth their stamp of approval --- this is how ANS-Forth became the Standard with a capital 'S'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44262

hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:14:48 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> ...
> > Chuck expressed his disillusionment with Forth-94 by walking out.
> > No doubt the remaining TC members would have felt they'd been
> > insulted.  Chuck could have saved himself grief by pretending to go
> > along with the process.  Instead he chose to quit and suffer the fallout.
> > ...
>
> What fallout?

Is he on the 200x TC?  Ever invited?

> Charles Moore's name is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a supporter.

He's listed as having participated which he did at the beginning.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44263

On 12/15/15 2:52 AM, HAA wrote:
> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:14:48 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
>> ...
>>> Chuck expressed his disillusionment with Forth-94 by walking out.
>>> No doubt the remaining TC members would have felt they'd been
>>> insulted.  Chuck could have saved himself grief by pretending to go
>>> along with the process.  Instead he chose to quit and suffer the fallout.
>>> ...
>>
>> What fallout?
>
> Is he on the 200x TC?  Ever invited?
>
>> Charles Moore's name is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a supporter.
>
> He's listed as having participated which he did at the beginning.

Chuck has devoted his life to innovation, which is the opposite of 
standardization. When he realized this, he left the ANS Forth TC, which 
was an appropriate action.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44271

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 12/15/15 2:52 AM, HAA wrote:
> > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:14:48 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Chuck expressed his disillusionment with Forth-94 by walking out.
> >>> No doubt the remaining TC members would have felt they'd been
> >>> insulted.  Chuck could have saved himself grief by pretending to go
> >>> along with the process.  Instead he chose to quit and suffer the fallout.
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> What fallout?
> >
> > Is he on the 200x TC?  Ever invited?
> >
> >> Charles Moore's name is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a supporter.
> >
> > He's listed as having participated which he did at the beginning.
>
> Chuck has devoted his life to innovation, which is the opposite of
> standardization. When he realized this, he left the ANS Forth TC, which
> was an appropriate action.

Except that he didn't just leave it to others, he's been a critic ever since.
Moore: "I had reservations about ANSI. I worried that it would be a disaster and
not merely a dubious advantage.  All of my fears of the standard and none of the
advantages of the standard have come to pass."

From the beginning Forth defied authority.  It came with a method and logic
but users were required to think and do for themselves.  It wasn't going to
take over the world and that was ok too.  What's surprising and remains so
is the notion that Forthers smart enough to use the language were going to
be constrained by a Standard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44132

On 07/12/2015 19:56, rickman wrote:

> So this new forum may be great, but what exactly is "troll" behavior? Is
> it like pornography and the Supreme Court of the US, "I know it when I
> see it"?

Very simple: https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44134

On Monday, 7 December 2015 19:49:28 UTC, Ron Aaron  wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 19:56, rickman wrote:
> 
> > So this new forum may be great, but what exactly is "troll" behavior? Is
> > it like pornography and the Supreme Court of the US, "I know it when I
> > see it"?
> 
> Very simple: https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html

It a bit passive aggressive.

The vague concept of "inappropriate language", and the concept of "make us do".

1. "make us do" - A more appropriate "will do, no problem." The concept of pleasing people has the lower motive of what makes for pleasure? We is not a f*n' mind reader, we is (obviously either royalty or schizoid, and it was not an XOR.

2. "inappropriate language" - The mind reading challenge is to calculate from the waves in the air what the comprehensive situation is in order to compute the optimal and hence appropriate language. Now it is possible to forgive a lack of pedantic definition, as the forum has just started, but the touchy bounds of finding the definition out (drawing it out of 'em), is likely (maybe) not to please them. Pedantry becomes facetiousness. Shut up and hold hands, and no kissing ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44135

On 08/12/2015 04:53, jacko wrote:

> It a bit passive aggressive.

Ah, well that's the problem.  I'm not an armchair psychologist, I just
use ordinary language.

I'll make it as explicitly simple as I can:

If you are invited to someone's house for dinner, you would probably
refrain from insulting the host.  You would probably not ogle his
daughter.  You would probably not needlessly provoke him.  You would
probably try to be pleasant.

If you agree with the 'probablys' listed above, you are probably a
welcome addition to the forum.  If not, not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44142

On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 00:09:37 -0500, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/12/2015 04:53, jacko wrote:

>> It a bit passive aggressive.
>
> Ah, well that's the problem.  I'm not an armchair psychologist, I just
> use ordinary language.
>
> I'll make it as explicitly simple as I can:
>
> If you are invited to someone's house for dinner, you would probably
> refrain from insulting the host.  You would probably not ogle his
> daughter.  You would probably not needlessly provoke him.  You would
> probably try to be pleasant.
>
> If you agree with the 'probablys' listed above, you are probably a
> welcome addition to the forum.  If not, not.
>

Well, that clearly depends on the host, now doesn't it?  Most hosts
attempt to be on their best behavior too, unless truly drunk or are
power mad ...  They don't want to be embarassed in front of their
guests whom they are usually attempting to impress or at least are
attempting to maintain a pleasant relationship with.  If I ever had
a truly bad host, say a host who pulled a gun on me, then I'd have
no problem attempting to take the gun away from and shooting him
dead in front of his family.  Generic rules don't work since they
can't apply to all situations.

I'm a male.  So, if a female is attractive and walking around
half-naked, I'm looking.  I may do so more discretely if the
relationship with the host is important to me, but I'm not
responsible for her appearance.  I'm not a horse and shouldn't
be required to wear blinders because the host finds it inappropriate
to look at what is placed in front of them.  She's responsible for
what she chose to wear that day.  So, it's her responsibility
to not embarass her family by dressing appropriately for polite
company when present.  What is it with people attempting to
avoid all personal responsibility nowadays?


Rod Pemberton


-- 
How to kill Facebook.  Tell a bunch of fourth graders that
only old people use Facebook.  Wait eight years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44143

On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:49:28 -0500, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html

No offense, but that's what a cat is for ...

What adult wants to be belittled and treated like a child?
"Don't spit!  Don't poke!  Don't swear!  Smile!"

Maybe, this child-like treatment being accepted in society is a
side affect of millenials growing up in a zero-tolerance school
environment combined with their parents paranoid helicopter parenting ...


"Fuck! You're dead."
"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all!"
"But, Mom, he smashed me in the head with a baseball bat ..."


Rod Pemberton


-- 
How to kill Facebook.  Tell a bunch of fourth graders that
only old people use Facebook.  Wait eight years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44144

On 12/08/2015 10:00, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:49:28 -0500, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html
> 
> No offense, but that's what a cat is for ...

Sorry, I haven't the slightest clue what that means.  Don't bother to
explain it, however.


> What adult wants to be belittled and treated like a child?
> "Don't spit!  Don't poke!  Don't swear!  Smile!"
> 
> Maybe, this child-like treatment being accepted in society is a
> side affect of millenials growing up in a zero-tolerance school
> environment combined with their parents paranoid helicopter parenting ...

Clearly the idea of conforming to societal norms is not to your liking.
 I guess we won't see you on the forum.

Have a good day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44145

On 12/8/2015 3:22 AM, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
>
> On 12/08/2015 10:00, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:49:28 -0500, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html
>>
>> No offense, but that's what a cat is for ...
>
> Sorry, I haven't the slightest clue what that means.  Don't bother to
> explain it, however.
>
>
>> What adult wants to be belittled and treated like a child?
>> "Don't spit!  Don't poke!  Don't swear!  Smile!"
>>
>> Maybe, this child-like treatment being accepted in society is a
>> side affect of millenials growing up in a zero-tolerance school
>> environment combined with their parents paranoid helicopter parenting ...
>
> Clearly the idea of conforming to societal norms is not to your liking.
>   I guess we won't see you on the forum.
>
> Have a good day.

I think I'm starting to understand why you feel the need for a moderated 
forum.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44149

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:49:28 PM UTC-5, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 19:56, rickman wrote:
> 
> > So this new forum may be great, but what exactly is "troll" behavior? Is
> > it like pornography and the Supreme Court of the US, "I know it when I
> > see it"?
> 
> Very simple: https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html

I am wondering.

In former times there something existed called "Netiquette". 
On Wikipedia it still exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technology#Netiquette

There even is a Usenet ``Netiquette'':
"There are many traditions with Usenet, not the least of which is dubbed netiquette---being polite and considerate of others. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you, and everyone that reads your posts, will be much happier in the long run."
Source: 
"Zen and the Art of the Internet - Usenet News"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44 

Tempus fugit?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44150

On 12/09/2015 05:15, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> There even is a Usenet ``Netiquette'':
> "There are many traditions with Usenet, not the least of which is dubbed netiquette---being polite and considerate of others. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you, and everyone that reads your posts, will be much happier in the long run."
> Source: 
> "Zen and the Art of the Internet - Usenet News"
> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44 
> 
> Tempus fugit?

Indeed. The anonymity of internet forums in general leads directly to a
decrease in civility -- because there are no repercussions.

In a traditional, face-to-face setting, a person would risk getting
punched in the face (or worse) for the kind of language and behavior
routinely exhibited on the 'net.  At the least, one would be shunned as
an undesirable.

That's not really possible online, and socially maladjusted people take
advantage of it, unfortunately.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44151

On 12/9/2015 1:12 AM, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
>
> On 12/09/2015 05:15, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
>> There even is a Usenet ``Netiquette'':
>> "There are many traditions with Usenet, not the least of which is dubbed netiquette---being polite and considerate of others. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you, and everyone that reads your posts, will be much happier in the long run."
>> Source:
>> "Zen and the Art of the Internet - Usenet News"
>> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
>>
>> Tempus fugit?
>
> Indeed. The anonymity of internet forums in general leads directly to a
> decrease in civility -- because there are no repercussions.
>
> In a traditional, face-to-face setting, a person would risk getting
> punched in the face (or worse) for the kind of language and behavior
> routinely exhibited on the 'net.  At the least, one would be shunned as
> an undesirable.

I have tried to point this out to people who were being extremely rude 
at the time and they adamantly professed that they treated people like 
this all the time.  Go figure!


> That's not really possible online, and socially maladjusted people take
> advantage of it, unfortunately.

It seems widespread enough to me to think it does not require any 
special defect.  I think it is not unexpected really.  I remember in 
college being told of a psych experiment conducted in the 50's where two 
people were in isolation booths both looking at a board with roads drawn 
on it.  Each one was starting at opposite ends of the board and needed 
to get to the other side to make a delivery.  But only one vehicle could 
use a road at a time.  If your opponent blocked you, one of you would 
have to take a longer route that would lengthen your trip and cost you 
money.  If they had speakers to talk through they cooperated an each one 
took turns waiting for the other to use the short route and made more 
money than taking the long route.  If instead of speakers they had just 
a horn, they would tend to sit at the impasse blowing their horns at 
each other.

Posting in forums tends to be a bit like this.  We can communicate, but 
much of the "personal" aspect is missing.  So people are quicker to take 
offense when they misunderstand and the language used can be a lot 
stronger because of the lesser feedback.  It is also a lot easier to 
misread the "tone" of a message.  I find that happens from my posts far 
too often.  I think I am writing unemotionally, but get very strong 
emotional responses.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44152

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 7:12:17 AM UTC+1, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 12/09/2015 05:15, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
> 
> > There even is a Usenet ``Netiquette'':
> > "There are many traditions with Usenet, not the least of which is dubbed netiquette---being polite and considerate of others. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you, and everyone that reads your posts, will be much happier in the long run."
> > Source: 
> > "Zen and the Art of the Internet - Usenet News"
> > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44 
> > 
> > Tempus fugit?
> 
> Indeed. The anonymity of internet forums in general leads directly to a
> decrease in civility -- because there are no repercussions.
> 
> In a traditional, face-to-face setting, a person would risk getting
> punched in the face (or worse) for the kind of language and behavior
> routinely exhibited on the 'net.  At the least, one would be shunned as
> an undesirable.
> 
> That's not really possible online, and socially maladjusted people take
> advantage of it, unfortunately.

Wouldn't it be possible to add some sort of rating system?
Voted 'good' postings earns points, rated 'bad' takes them away.
If you don't have enough +points you can't post. These 
points could be kept separate for certain main categories (e.g. 
technical / general on-topic / general off-topic). 

-marcel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44153

On 12/09/2015 09:40, mhx@iae.nl wrote:

> Wouldn't it be possible to add some sort of rating system?
> Voted 'good' postings earns points, rated 'bad' takes them away.
> If you don't have enough +points you can't post. These 
> points could be kept separate for certain main categories (e.g. 
> technical / general on-topic / general off-topic). 

Yes, and the forum already has a "karma" system built-in. Probably need
to play with that and see how it goes.  My current feeling is that
people should be left alone unless they abuse the trust, e.g. mostly
hands-off moderation.

More importantly, a post can be "reported" to the moderators.  So if
someone thinks a post is inappropriate for whatever reason, it can be
brought to the moderators' attention.  I don't anticipate that being
used all too often, nor do I think moderation will be all that
necessary.  The people who join are already well-behaved in general
(though "the night is young").

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44155

mhx@iae.nl writes:

>On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 7:12:17 AM UTC+1, Ron Aaron wrote:
>> On 12/09/2015 05:15, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > There even is a Usenet ``Netiquette'':
>> > "There are many traditions with Usenet, not the least of which is dubbed netiquette---being polite and considerate of others. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you, and everyone that reads your posts, will be much happier in the long run."
>> > Source:
>> > "Zen and the Art of the Internet - Usenet News"
>> > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
>> >
>> > Tempus fugit?
>>
>> Indeed. The anonymity of internet forums in general leads directly to a
>> decrease in civility -- because there are no repercussions.
>>
>> In a traditional, face-to-face setting, a person would risk getting
>> punched in the face (or worse) for the kind of language and behavior
>> routinely exhibited on the 'net.  At the least, one would be shunned as
>> an undesirable.
>>
>> That's not really possible online, and socially maladjusted people take
>> advantage of it, unfortunately.

>Wouldn't it be possible to add some sort of rating system?
>Voted 'good' postings earns points, rated 'bad' takes them away.
>If you don't have enough +points you can't post. These
>points could be kept separate for certain main categories (e.g.
>technical / general on-topic / general off-topic).

That is the way stackoverflow and others work. If you have enough
kudo's you can remove an offending message with almost no form of
process. If you're new you can try to get kudo's by giving a
brilliant answer and hope it gets kudo's. I don't think Aaron's
censored bulletin board can beat that.

One of our trolls already has written off stackoverflow as dictatorial.
That is more of a good sign.

>-marcel

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44131

On 07/12/2015 19:44, Bernd Paysan wrote:

> Haha.  That's precisely what he's complaining about: as he is a troll, he is 
> discriminated ;-).  Trolls need safe spaces under their bridges, where they 
> must be allowed to insult and diffame, which is their natural behavior.  Or 
> why do you want to oppress minorities?

;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44137

On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 12:44:03 -0500, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:

> Ron Aaron wrote:

>> If you take a look at the policies of our forum, I think you'll see
>> they're not particularly restrictive.  Just don't be a troll, and you'll
>> be left alone.
>
> Haha.  That's precisely what he's complaining about: as he is a troll, he is discriminated ;-).  Trolls need safe spaces under their bridges,
> where they must be allowed to insult and diffame, which is their natural
> behavior.  Or why do you want to oppress minorities?
>

Bernd, I'm not the troll here.  When a troll like Hugh says you're
a troll, that says something.


RP


-- 
How to kill Facebook.  Tell a bunch of fourth graders that
only old people use Facebook.  Wait eight years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44136

On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:58:49 -0500, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just don't be a troll, and you'll be left alone.

Doubtful.  Seriously.

Who decides who is a troll and for what?

E.g., I've been called a troll on Usenet for:

1) asking a question
2) telling the truth
3) explaining an answer from someone else
4) answering someone's question in depth
5) asking a "newbie" question
6) defending myself from perceived attacks, insults
7) correcting a mistake
8) criticizing someone for incessantly calling others trolls
9) pointing out that someone was driving people away with insults
10) responding to someone perceived by others to be a troll
etc.

That's just of the top of my head in under 15 seconds.


Rod Pemberton


-- 
How to kill Facebook.  Tell a bunch of fourth graders that
only old people use Facebook.  Wait eight years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web