Kuei Yang Wang said:
planet10 said:
I'm not sure about that one either, I can remember some "me vs. the world" threads where I am pretty sure the person getting beat up was technically correct and who's voice was being drowned out by ****heads. What protection would a person have in that case?
Konnichiwa,
Hmmm. Call me hopelessly optimistic, but I think most threads are read by many more than those who participate in them. I also believe that, contrary to the view of those selfprofessed crusadors for the procttion of the people from their exploiters who assert that all people are morons and need protecting for their own good, the vast majority of people is quite astute and and sensible (though recent elections in the western world and the "big brother" programmes do give me pause).
So I think it will be easy for most people who tries to be helpfull (if possibly techncially somewhat incorrect) and who is argumentative and combative for arguments and ego's sake. So i suspect that they will dispense their feedback suitably. And perhaps posters who have constant negative feedback outweighing positive feedback by more than 7 to 3 should be given nice two week long coll off periods before being allowed to post at all?
I am not sure how exactly this could be implemented and should be implemented, i am merely playing devils advocate to the "noob" question. A feedback mechanism would make sure that those who overstep what the majority considers the local decorum and sensible behaviour will post less than they do now.... ;-)
Sayonara
leadbelly said:
Hmmm. Call me hopelessly optimistic, but I think most threads are read by many more than those who participate in them. I also believe that, contrary to the view of those selfprofessed crusadors for the procttion of the people from their exploiters who assert that all people are morons and need protecting for their own good, the vast majority of people is quite astute and and sensible (though recent elections in the western world and the "big brother" programmes do give me pause).
So I think it will be easy for most people who tries to be helpfull (if possibly techncially somewhat incorrect) and who is argumentative and combative for arguments and ego's sake. So i suspect that they will dispense their feedback suitably. And perhaps posters who have constant negative feedback outweighing positive feedback by more than 7 to 3 should be given nice two week long coll off periods before being allowed to post at all?
I am not sure how exactly this could be implemented and should be implemented, i am merely playing devils advocate to the "noob" question. A feedback mechanism would make sure that those who overstep what the majority considers the local decorum and sensible behaviour will post less than they do now.... ;-)
Sayonara
The "usefulness" rating doesn't work, it leads to gang warfare. Someone you like is having an argument with someone who is not part of your little group? Guess who gets the Favorable rating and who gets the Not Favorable rating, regardless of merit.
It even leads to trolling. People get mad at the person they are arguing with in a certain thread, register under a different name, then mark their own answers they gave under a different name Favorable and the answers of the person they oppose Not Favorable.
I have seen it happen at other boards. And do you remember when this board gave different rankings for number of posts? We ended with post contests.
Take my word for it, this is not the way to go.
It even leads to trolling. People get mad at the person they are arguing with in a certain thread, register under a different name, then mark their own answers they gave under a different name Favorable and the answers of the person they oppose Not Favorable.
I have seen it happen at other boards. And do you remember when this board gave different rankings for number of posts? We ended with post contests.
Take my word for it, this is not the way to go.
Konnichiwa,
Fine.
Now, no offence to anybody, but I am getting tiered with people telling what will not work and why not (I will argue that the why tends to be a "subjective" thing - generally the difficulties suggested can all be solved moderatly easily).
How about something constructive?
I don't mind if my suggestions are not liked or used. But I must ask:
1) Is there a need for action?
2) If so, please suggest other possible courses of action if you do not like those suggested by others, do not be simply negative. That is easy.
Howzdat? Now I would like to see ethics in my own thread about why we need them. Proof positive or circular argument? You decide.
Sayonara
kelticwizard said:
Fine.
Now, no offence to anybody, but I am getting tiered with people telling what will not work and why not (I will argue that the why tends to be a "subjective" thing - generally the difficulties suggested can all be solved moderatly easily).
How about something constructive?
I don't mind if my suggestions are not liked or used. But I must ask:
1) Is there a need for action?
2) If so, please suggest other possible courses of action if you do not like those suggested by others, do not be simply negative. That is easy.
Howzdat? Now I would like to see ethics in my own thread about why we need them. Proof positive or circular argument? You decide.
Sayonara
Actually the "usefullness" rating could work, if only people with certain minimum number of posts could vote (this excludes those that register under a different name just to vote) and the people with negative feedback are not allowed to vote. Pretty simple rules that take care of 'gang warfare' 
Personally, I like the idea of feedback. How easy it is to implement is another matter though.
I also like the ideo of suspending people with 3/7 feedback ratio.
Personally, I like the idea of feedback. How easy it is to implement is another matter though.
I also like the ideo of suspending people with 3/7 feedback ratio.
Terrible idea.
I've seen "karma" ratings on other boards lead to exactly the types of gang warfare, trolling, and "karma ******" eluded to above. What typically happens is that many people quickly tire of using the system (as it is a bit tedious to rank posts, even if only a few picked from each scanned thread). Others gorge themselves on the system, whereby the rankings or ratings become more important to them than what people (including themselves) are actually saying.
Just another form of postcount, but one that is more insidious and detrimental to the board. To introduce it into a board focused more on technical information exchange than political or religious arguments would be devastating. And to forbid people from posting who's rantings have fallen below a certain level? You only encourage group mentality and drive a wedge further between opposing viewpoints.
As for a "constructive" addition, I think the solution (if you can call it that) was posted by SY months ago on the very first page (or, what now remains of that page, as it appears some posts have gone walkabout). This is a community, and like all communities there is a strong self regulating element. We don't need law makers and law enforcers to tell us not to be rude to each other... we can take care of that ourselves. Leave the moderators free to police for more serious cases of libel, industry espionage, hidden commercialism, propaganda, etc.
I've seen "karma" ratings on other boards lead to exactly the types of gang warfare, trolling, and "karma ******" eluded to above. What typically happens is that many people quickly tire of using the system (as it is a bit tedious to rank posts, even if only a few picked from each scanned thread). Others gorge themselves on the system, whereby the rankings or ratings become more important to them than what people (including themselves) are actually saying.
Just another form of postcount, but one that is more insidious and detrimental to the board. To introduce it into a board focused more on technical information exchange than political or religious arguments would be devastating. And to forbid people from posting who's rantings have fallen below a certain level? You only encourage group mentality and drive a wedge further between opposing viewpoints.
As for a "constructive" addition, I think the solution (if you can call it that) was posted by SY months ago on the very first page (or, what now remains of that page, as it appears some posts have gone walkabout). This is a community, and like all communities there is a strong self regulating element. We don't need law makers and law enforcers to tell us not to be rude to each other... we can take care of that ourselves. Leave the moderators free to police for more serious cases of libel, industry espionage, hidden commercialism, propaganda, etc.
Hi,
The guys are complaining someone's actually reposting the images, cartoons they leave on their site for all and sundry to use ?
All it takes is some simple HTML code like this:
</STYLE>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript> <!--
// No rightclick
var message="Copyright ©Mr X";
function click(e) {
if (document.all) {
if (event.button == 2) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
if (document.layers) {
if (e.which == 3) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
}
if (document.layers) {
document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN);
}
document.onmousedown=click;
// -->
</SCRIPT>
That's a good start to protect whatever you want to stay on the site, the rest is just talk.
I can't recall any warnings issued on any of the material Jam's been posting from those toon-sites.
Did you notice any different, Jam?
Cheers,
The guys are complaining someone's actually reposting the images, cartoons they leave on their site for all and sundry to use ?
All it takes is some simple HTML code like this:
</STYLE>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript> <!--
// No rightclick
var message="Copyright ©Mr X";
function click(e) {
if (document.all) {
if (event.button == 2) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
if (document.layers) {
if (e.which == 3) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
}
if (document.layers) {
document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN);
}
document.onmousedown=click;
// -->
</SCRIPT>
That's a good start to protect whatever you want to stay on the site, the rest is just talk.
I can't recall any warnings issued on any of the material Jam's been posting from those toon-sites.
Did you notice any different, Jam?
Cheers,
Vacuum????
(See this post for context.....)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=440439#post440439
Anyway..........
Filling what vacuum???
Do you have any idea how many different kits for chip amps or DACs are out there?
More than one. A lot more.
But the main problem is..........
Did any of the rocket scientists that run this place ever think of getting one of the members that offers such boards to see if they could work together to arrange a group buy?? And get the price per board down if the order was large enough that way??
No!
Well, actually they did. But the problem there is that they won't be the ones who make any money on it. So, it is easier just to "borrow" someone else's design, and pretend that it is ok.
It's not like they were going to make any money on it, were they?
Of course not. Cough, cough.
See ya in Texas, boys..................
Jocko
(See this post for context.....)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=440439#post440439
Anyway..........
Filling what vacuum???
Do you have any idea how many different kits for chip amps or DACs are out there?
More than one. A lot more.
But the main problem is..........
Did any of the rocket scientists that run this place ever think of getting one of the members that offers such boards to see if they could work together to arrange a group buy?? And get the price per board down if the order was large enough that way??
No!
Well, actually they did. But the problem there is that they won't be the ones who make any money on it. So, it is easier just to "borrow" someone else's design, and pretend that it is ok.
It's not like they were going to make any money on it, were they?
Of course not. Cough, cough.
See ya in Texas, boys..................
Jocko
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.