14 May, 2010, Davion wrote in the 22nd comment:
quixadhal said:
Out of curiosity… why are non-moderators allowed to remove tags at all? Every other discussion system I've ever seen that supports tagging allows you to remove ONLY your own tags, and some of them don't even support that. I see ZERO value in allowing people to remove other people's tags.
If adding free-form tags is a problem, the solution is to provide a drop-list of tags and if somebody wants to add something NOT already on the list, it has to be approved by a moderator and added to the template (thus becoming part of the list).
If adding free-form tags is a problem, the solution is to provide a drop-list of tags and if somebody wants to add something NOT already on the list, it has to be approved by a moderator and added to the template (thus becoming part of the list).
Yes, I see that now. I don't think I'm going to remove the remove-all tags, but instead, prevent add/rem/add/rem of them. Also, some kind of way for moderators to anchor them so that they can't just be removed. Something like, if tag 'A' is removed, it will stay removed until a Mod adds it back again, and if that happens it'll stay there.
14 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 23rd comment:
quixadhal said:
Out of curiosity… why are non-moderators allowed to remove tags at all? Every other discussion system I've ever seen that supports tagging allows you to remove ONLY your own tags, and some of them don't even support that. I see ZERO value in allowing people to remove other people's tags.
If adding free-form tags is a problem, the solution is to provide a drop-list of tags and if somebody wants to add something NOT already on the list, it has to be approved by a moderator and added to the template (thus becoming part of the list).
If adding free-form tags is a problem, the solution is to provide a drop-list of tags and if somebody wants to add something NOT already on the list, it has to be approved by a moderator and added to the template (thus becoming part of the list).
Cause the whole point of the system is that the validity of the tag is supposed to be based on if someone with high enough privs removes it or not. Not determined by the moderation of the site. Unfortunately, it seems that Davion has decided that he is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't an appropriate tag. That truly defeats the system. When a good tag is deleted it probably wasn't a good tag. When a bad tag is made, it'll be deleted if it really is a bad tag. And if someone is intentionally deleting tags that are "good" the system just need revised a little.
The suggestion I made but was shot down is that each tag have a little +- next to it and let people add 1 or subtract 1 counter from it. Good tags would then be progressively more difficult to remove and bad tags would always be on the edge of removal. And the best part is the administration of the site wouldn't need to get involved in these trivial matters.
14 May, 2010, Davion wrote in the 24th comment:
Runter said:
This is relating removing the privileges to create content on the site to maybe blocking an IP that's attempting a DOS attack. (Which you probably wouldn't make a post about regarding moderation.)
It was not because of creating content, it was because of destroying meaningful content. Something moderators cannot enforce. The ability is there, and I was expecting people to use it responsibly (as they have, with an exception).
14 May, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 25th comment:
Davion said:
I was expecting people to use it responsibly (as they have, with an exception).
Another thing. You really need to stop this personal stuff. See also:
Davion said:
I do however believe there needs to be a way to anchor tags so that people like you cannot destroy the tag system when bored.
As an admin it's your responsibility not to get personal and petty with with
remarks like this. An admin calling Tyche irresponsible and idly destructive is pretty
lame without evidence, and frankly there isn't any here. Please knock that stuff off.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
14 May, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 26th comment:
Actually, the +/- "voting" thing might work. Give moderators a +/- 50 vote. If a tag goes below 0, it becomes invisible (but is still there).
So I add a "blue bunnies" tag and it enters the system at +5. If 5 people think it's stupid and poke '-', it becomes invisible. If a mod nukes it, it goes to -45. If someone is bored and shows invisible tags, they could vote it back up, but it would take work. If each user is only allowed to "vote" on a given tag/post pair once, it would make it a valid community-moderated thing.
So I add a "blue bunnies" tag and it enters the system at +5. If 5 people think it's stupid and poke '-', it becomes invisible. If a mod nukes it, it goes to -45. If someone is bored and shows invisible tags, they could vote it back up, but it would take work. If each user is only allowed to "vote" on a given tag/post pair once, it would make it a valid community-moderated thing.
14 May, 2010, Koron wrote in the 27th comment:
+1 to +/-.
14 May, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 28th comment:
Wow, why do I feel like I'm watching an episode of "Gilmore Girls". :rolleyes:
14 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 29th comment:
Orrin said:
Those tags were added by Kline.
David Haley said:
You must be referring to your useful tags like "hookers and blow" and "hooray for boobies". Making such inane tags is hardly a way to prove your point…
Those tags were added by Kline.
Oops, my bad, sorry. In retrospect, it was silly of me to think they were Tyche's, as he could not have made them after having his access removed, although they were consistent with previous comments and tags he had made. I suppose that's what I get for posting at 3am while feverish and unable to sleep.
—–
People are getting a little twisted up about this. To see a tagging system that works, I'd suggest checking out Stack Overflow. It might not meet Tyche's conception of tagging, but it seems to satisfy a great number of developers. The way the tags on MB are going, it'll be just a giant soup of random stuff in which retrieving useful information will be more difficult.
14 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 30th comment:
Quote
In retrospect, it was silly of me to think they were Tyche's, as he could not have made them after having his access removed, although they were consistent with previous comments and tags he had made.
[tag]Libel afoot[/tag]
14 May, 2010, Kline wrote in the 31st comment:
David Haley said:
You must be referring to your useful tags like "hookers and blow" and "hooray for boobies". Making such inane tags is hardly a way to prove your point…
Tyche said:
So how many warnings did you hand out for the removal of the dozen or so tags I added yesterday?
You must be referring to your useful tags like "hookers and blow" and "hooray for boobies". Making such inane tags is hardly a way to prove your point…
I dispute your claim sir; these tags held meaning for me, at a minimum. "hookers and blow" was applied to a thread in which the previous poster prior to my tagging it had made a comment involving hookers. The "hooray for boobies" was similarly tagged after the last poster in the thread (again, prior to me tagging it) had written "tits and GTFO". How are these not relevant to the content of the thread?
14 May, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 32nd comment:
Tyche said:
Rush? Considering I've previously reported around a half dozen of Mr Haley's previous posts as harassment, you'd think the pattern of behavior would be clear to even a thirteen year old retarded DBZ admin that it was posted with malicious intent.
I've long concluded that nepotism and mudbytes go hand in hand, I wouldn't get away with a tenth of the shit some people pull. Too lazy to run my own mud forum though, and don't know of a suitable alternative to migrate to.
14 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 33rd comment:
Scandum said:
I've long concluded that nepotism and mudbytes go hand in hand, I wouldn't get away with a tenth of the shit some people pull. Too lazy to run my own mud forum though, and don't know of a suitable alternative to migrate to.
Tyche said:
Rush? Considering I've previously reported around a half dozen of Mr Haley's previous posts as harassment, you'd think the pattern of behavior would be clear to even a thirteen year old retarded DBZ admin that it was posted with malicious intent.
I've long concluded that nepotism and mudbytes go hand in hand, I wouldn't get away with a tenth of the shit some people pull. Too lazy to run my own mud forum though, and don't know of a suitable alternative to migrate to.
I hear some people like a little abuse.
15 May, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 34th comment:
http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=topi...
I reported this post as well about 10 hours ago. Zero response. The poster continues to make false assertions a topic which he simply cannot know. I again ask that these posts be removed or content elided, and the poster be warned against engaging in further malicious deliberate libelous conduct here.
I reported this post as well about 10 hours ago. Zero response. The poster continues to make false assertions a topic which he simply cannot know. I again ask that these posts be removed or content elided, and the poster be warned against engaging in further malicious deliberate libelous conduct here.
15 May, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 35th comment:
I would also like to complain.
I placed several informative tags on this very topic, only to have them removed without notice!
I also saw several other tags that were highly relevant to the discussion (gilmore girls, etc) that have also gone.
Please explain why?
I placed several informative tags on this very topic, only to have them removed without notice!
I also saw several other tags that were highly relevant to the discussion (gilmore girls, etc) that have also gone.
Please explain why?
15 May, 2010, ATT_Turan wrote in the 36th comment:
I, personally, am a fan of the misspelled "liabel" tag.
15 May, 2010, Koron wrote in the 37th comment:
Tyche said:
http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=topi...
I reported this post as well about 10 hours ago. Zero response. The poster continues to make false assertions a topic which he simply cannot know. I again ask that these posts be removed or content elided, and the poster be warned against engaging in further malicious deliberate libelous conduct here.
I reported this post as well about 10 hours ago. Zero response. The poster continues to make false assertions a topic which he simply cannot know. I again ask that these posts be removed or content elided, and the poster be warned against engaging in further malicious deliberate libelous conduct here.
Please tell me you're not fucking serious. Seriously. This assumption was already refuted and he retracted it. Drama like this belongs on daytime television, not in one's real life…
15 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 38th comment:
Tyche said:
I reported this post as well about 10 hours ago. Zero response. The poster continues to make false assertions a topic which he simply cannot know. I again ask that these posts be removed or content elided, and the poster be warned against engaging in further malicious deliberate libelous conduct here.
Which statement in that post did I make that you object to? As far as I can tell, the only statement I made that you might object to was that the tags were consistent with previous comments of yours. I'm thinking of your posts about the "TITS" and "FARTS" 'systems', and your several posts whose sole content was "asshole". Which false assertions did I make about which topic that I "simply cannot know"?
Furthermore, since you're talking about making statements about topics that people "simply cannot know", it's a little unclear to me how you "know" that my intentions are to engage in "malicious deliberate libelous conduct".
Anyhow, I'd be happy to retract false statements (as I did just previously) but you have to say what it is you object to first, rather than make blanket accusations of libel. (I would note that accusing people of libel when they are not in fact engaging in libel is rather dicey.)
15 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 39th comment:
Quote
(I would note that accusing people of libel when they are not in fact engaging in libel is rather dicey.)
Now you're calling people liars.
WHEN WILL MUDBYTES STOP THIS LIBEL?!?
15 May, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 40th comment:
I think the "mod action" tag is misleading. I've seen lots of posturing, and lots of drama, but there's no real action in here.
You guys get to fisticuffs, or I'm gonna remove that tag and replace it with "mod talking" instead!
You guys get to fisticuffs, or I'm gonna remove that tag and replace it with "mod talking" instead!
Random Picks
That's an interesting point to make, but I think it may be a little off. This is relating removing the privileges to create content on the site to maybe blocking an IP that's attempting a DOS attack. (Which you probably wouldn't make a post about regarding moderation.)
But where this goes off track is, Tyche is a user account on the site. Any type of "dealing with" a user account on the site that is being abusive or harmful is moderating. If you were to have taken more extreme action like banning Tyche completely, would you still argue it wasn't moderation since you were dealing with someone abusing and harming the site?