[Scarabin]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-24, 23:16, said:

Did you consider that you had the choice not to continue reading?

Yes, but I do not think that's a complete answer. If I know someone is behaving badly, the fact that I am not forced to watch does not mean I should turn a blind eye.

If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure?

[barmar]

Scarabin, on 2013-October-24, 23:39, said:

If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure?

There's a big difference between committing a crime and just being annoying.

While Inquiry may have done the locking, it was at my prompting. It's not just that the thread was not constructive, but that it seemed to be turning into personal insults.

[Vampyr]

Scarabin, on 2013-October-24, 23:39, said:

Yes, but I do not think that's a complete answer. If I know someone is behaving badly, the fact that I am not forced to watch does not mean I should turn a blind eye.

Sorry? If you don't like what people are writing in a thread you are not reading, you consider it somehow your business?

Quote

If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure?

Right. There is actually a difference between crime and internet forums. Still, if you feel that someone has been unduly rude and insulting to someone else, you are free to report the post. The mods can consider your objection and your reasons and decide. Then you don't have to worry about it anymore.

EDIT: Crossed barmar

[the hog]

Scarabin, on 2013-October-24, 23:39, said:

Yes, but I do not think that's a complete answer. If I know someone is behaving badly, the fact that I am not forced to watch does not mean I should turn a blind eye.

If I see someone committing a crime, don't I have a duty to act, even at the risk of spoiling his pleasure?

Oh come on, don't be silly! I was just reading this until I came across this post. There is a HUGE difference between committing a crime and behaving badly. Even in the former instance, "No", you don't have a duty to act. One might even argue that depending on the "crime", it is none of your business. For example, do you report people who are fare evaders? Do you complain to parking officers that someone has exceeded their meter time? In France, would you call a police officer because someone is wearing a burqua?

[Lurpoa]

uday, on 2010-February-27, 13:47, said:

Edited a post in watercooler .
Change: require user click in order to see posted image, rather than have images show inline

Very good decision !
Indeed annoying those big pictures on a small screen.

Besides, some are using big pictures in their signatures (MrACE, a picture of an ugly disgusting colored truck).
Is there a way to prohibit those pictures ?

Be the ♥ with you.

[GreenMan]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-24, 23:55, said:

Sorry? If you don't like what people are writing in a thread you are not reading, you consider it somehow your business?

What business is it of yours what Scarabin thinks? If you don't like his posts, you can always stop reading them.

[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2013-October-25, 07:38, said:

What business is it of yours what Scarabin thinks? If you don't like his posts, you can always stop reading them.

You're not that stupid, right? Scarabin would like to control what other people can read, not just him.

[GreenMan]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-25, 10:14, said:

You're not that stupid, right? Scarabin would like to control what other people can read, not just him.

Even if that were true, he's not a moderator so he couldn't control what people read. So why object to anything he says instead of just ignoring it? You keep preaching personal responsibility to others, but you don't seem to want to deal with it yourself.

[Scarabin]

barmar, on 2013-October-24, 23:50, said:

There's a big difference between committing a crime and just being annoying.

While Inquiry may have done the locking, it was at my prompting. It's not just that the thread was not constructive, but that it seemed to be turning into personal insults.

I think were missing the point here. I thought the website was/is designed to encourage feedback and, because mine is a serious suggestion, I expected a more positive(in the sense of encouraging feedback) response from a moderator.

This post has been edited by Scarabin: 2013-October-25, 17:33

[gnasher]

Scarabin, on 2013-October-25, 14:32, said:

I think were missing the point here. I thought the website was/is designed to encourage feedback and, because mine is a serious suggestion, I expected a more positive response from a moderator.

I don't see why you expect a positive response just because you were serious in making your suggestion. If you make a serious suggestion that Barmar disagrees with, why shouldn't he say so?

[Scarabin]

gnasher, on 2013-October-25, 15:24, said:

I don't see why you expect a positive response just because you were serious in making your suggestion. If you make a serious suggestion that Barmar disagrees with, why shouldn't he say so?

Thanks.Positive in the sense of welcoming feedback, not discouraging it.

[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2013-October-25, 11:03, said:

Even if that were true, he's not a moderator so he couldn't control what people read. So why object to anything he says instead of just ignoring it? You keep preaching personal responsibility to others, but you don't seem to want to deal with it yourself.

WTF are you on about? Scarabin is asking the moderators to deal with his issues.

[Vampyr]

Scarabin, on 2013-October-25, 15:29, said:

Thanks.Positive in the sense of welcoming feedback, not discouraging it.

The mods probably weren't aware that "welcoming feedback" meant "doing Scarabin's bidding". Shame on them.

[barmar]

I'd like to ask that we close this discussion. This thread is not meant for lengthy discussions, and has been veering way off topic.

[inquiry]

A post in the "4th suit or 4-card suit?" thread was deleted for violation of the TOS of the forum. A second post responding in kind to the deleted post was edited for the same violation.

[barmar]

inquiry, on 2013-November-04, 21:30, said:

A post in the "4th suit or 4-card suit?" thread was deleted for violation of the TOS of the forum. A second post responding in kind to the deleted post was edited for the same violation.

I just deleted another continuation of this.

[barmar]

Moved a thread suggesting a change in robot bidding rules from Suggestions for the Software to GIB Robot Discussion.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-November-10, 20:27, said:

Moved a thread suggesting a change in robot bidding rules from Suggestions for the Software to GIB Robot Discussion.

Yeh. After all, Robots are hardware. If they ever program any thought processes into Bots, then.....

[inquiry]

A spammer who stuck a one line nonsense about playing ability has been removed from the site and all of the spam he created deleted.

[barmar]

inquiry, on 2013-November-21, 09:25, said:

A spammer who stuck a one line nonsense about playing ability has been removed from the site and all of the spam he created deleted.

I just deleted a reply from diana_eva, since it quoted him. It was amusing, but non-sequitor with all the original spam removed.