[2016-06-11] Crackdown on rudeness

Possibly, but even that wouldn’t prevent a truly hateful and malicious person like what we saw from posting their trash, if that’s what they want to do.

No worries, and no offense taken. :beer:

I’m not sure at what point you saw the incident, but his attack was not limited just to the animal pictures. There were numerous other posts with garbage that was even worse. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then I’m glad for you because you didn’t have to see it. :slight_smile:

The permanent ban for this guy was absolutely justified. He was a racist piece of you know what.

It wouldn’t have helped this time, even when the rules were pointed out to him he still chose to ignore them.

Besides, do the majority of people even read rules/user agreements? If a user agreement on a wèbsite is too long for me to concentrate on I walk away, but most people I know would just accept it without reading. Reminds me of the NSFW South Park humancentipad episode.

I doubt it. Ever seen those EULAs on software where it disables the “Accept” checkbox until you actually scroll the whole document from top to bottom?

Yeah, I HATE when they make me do that! :stuck_out_tongue:

The next iteration will be where they actually time you to make sure you don’t flash-scroll it. :stuck_out_tongue: At which point I will immediately abandon the software and switch to an open source solution.

@SB: Maybe one day :beer: !!

I had the same thought, but how do you know a speed reader from a slow one.
I do wish they would write them in everyday English, simplified and to the point.
Of course its in their interest to not do so :frowning:

Following that will be the EULA test that needs a 90%+ pass rate to be able to accept it :confounded:

Sure. Nothing prevents the first crap in the public space, unless you turn moderation on (if the software even allows that).
And that’s only needed if your site’s being attacked by a gang. Which happens. Then either moderating, or just no updates for a day or two, bores that sort and they quit signing up and go away, when they don’t get their fun.

I suggest affirming having read the rules on signing up — at least Rule 1 — to preclude ongoing argument about the rules (e.g. by sock-puppets) when an account is deleted because it’s been breaking the rules.

It says right there in Rule 1 that’s a consequence. Can’t argue with that.

Sometimes a site will start attracting people who enjoy disputation, for a while, til they get bored.
Long argument about the rules is part of that pattern, e.g. the link I posted earlier: Confessions of a Community College Dean: Victim Bullies

Even worse, the next iteration will probably be like those silly ‘Gallery’ style articles where you have to click thirty times to read thirty sentences full of useless drivel while looking at pictures that have nothing to do with the click-bait title that got you there. :smiling_imp:

Right, I agree that this could happen. But so far most of the people here aren’t arguing about the rule on banning for rudeness, they’re just confused about why it happened in this case because there is no record of the trash he posted.

If you feel it useful to have a record, this site will save an archival copy of any web page:
https://archive.is/

That doesn’t make it easy for anyone to find, but you’ll know where you saved it if you ever want to refer to it later.

Ah, nice. Thanks for the link!

I missed it too. I guess I should be glad.

Some of us like to keep a BLF window open on a corporate computer/network.

Here, the company is the owner and can restrict sites at will…

Another good reason to keep it mild and on-topic so BLF remains available in these situations.

r00d d00d :smiling_imp:

Nice idea, sb. I myself don’t see a need to nuke anyone so far, so that’s bound to work well enough in such a chill forum.

When something isn’t right you should say something about it, right? It’s a civic duty to say “Hey, wait a minute, I’ve been cheated.” The questions is How much should should you say? Were should you say it? And when? If someone has a beef or there’s problems with a GB then usually the recent posts page endures several days if not more of rancor, finger pointing, venting, nevergonnabuyfromthatsobagain chatter In one or two threads until SB has to come in and lock them because we can’t behave. I don’t like the idea of ratings for every individual member, what I’m thinking of is a review system for sellers or those that run group buys that is easily accessible but doesn’t clutter up a thread or the recent posts page. A link in the op only of any thread of that type that shows reviews as a way to find out how good a job they do rather than reading through thousands of developmental posts littered with the usual debris. It would provide a dedicated place, directly associated with the offer in question, but not in the thread at large or the recent posts page, where reviews would go for that product by that seller.

I don’t wish to ask others to clam up but I also don’t wish to wade through it unless I’m looking for it. That’s something I would rather do only once prior to making a commitment.

A certain J Team member named “Sharpie” decided to message me and lecture me in a very rude manner. I wanted to mark his PMs “rude,” but there was no option to do so, so I blocked him.

I now see why this had to be implemented. It’s a shame, but there are some truly rude and inconsiderate members here now.