 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My only concern with this group removing is the possible increase of
> off-topic messages in other groups now. Hopefully TAG and POV-Ray team
> members will follow new administration rules and avoid this...
There is no doubt that it will, and it will be very difficult to police, as
most off-topic's start as a result of comments in a perfectly legit post.
--
Rick
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://povray.co.uk
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am sad and glad to see it go. When it started it was a very good idea, and I
enjoyed it. As of late it has been abused. I hope that after a cooling off
period Chris Cason will consider bringing it back.
Tom Melly wrote:
> Well?
>
> (It's not showing up and has been removed from the avail. newsgroups on this
> server).
--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritone com
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Dewitt wrote:
>
> "Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote :
> >
> > It's sad that a very small minority spoiled it for everyone.
>
> That's what happens when a few people complain loudly and insistently
> instead of just killfiling what they don't like to read.
Are you saying the rights of the abusive few out weigh the rights of
the many ? That is ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination and
not even worthy of discussion !
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > That's what happens when a few people complain loudly and
insistently
> > instead of just killfiling what they don't like to read.
>
> Are you saying the rights of the abusive few out weigh the rights of
> the many ? That is ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination and
> not even worthy of discussion !
but isn't it equally ridiculous to punish the many for the few abusers......
--
Rick
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://povray.co.uk
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris C wrote:
> off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
Just an idea, but is it possible to limit the number of messages from the same person
to, for example, 4 per 24 hours (Team and TAG members excepted) ?
One characteristic of flame wars is that posters keep pressing the send key. Setting a
limit would perhaps oblige the heavy posters to look twice at what they write. I don't
think it would a problem for most people, since reading p.o-t (or the other
newsgroups) was never a matter of life and death. One could still contact people
directly in case of emergency.
Of course people could switch identities to keep posting, but that would mean a direct
violation of the rule and a solid ground for banning.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
> >
> > That's what happens when a few people complain loudly and
insistently
> > instead of just killfiling what they don't like to read.
>
> Are you saying the rights of the abusive few out weigh the rights of
> the many ? That is ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination and
> not even worthy of discussion !
No, I said nothing of the sort. This is how abusive threads start, by
someone taking offense at something that was -not- said. I said, and I
repeat, that it was those who loudly and insistently complained that caused
the problem, as evidenced by the fact that much more inflammatory subjects
were discussed earlier without the group being shut down.
The "problem" under discussion BTW, is not inflammatory threads, it is
the unwarranted and arbitrary shut down of the OT group.
As for who's rights are being outweighed, I suggest that the "rights" of
those who use the group for entertainment and community are being abused by
those who use the group for advancement of their hate. Those people should
not be listened to if they can't be polite. I know who those people are
because several of them have emailed me and attempted to continue their
agenda of hate and insult since the OT group was shut down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3A4A1250.FE40F0B9@inapg.inra.fr...
> Chris C wrote:
>
> > off-topic was removed due to consistent abuse.
>
> Just an idea, but is it possible to limit the number of messages from the
same person
> to, for example, 4 per 24 hours (Team and TAG members excepted) ?
Although I disagree with the intent (that of regulating free
conversation), if this is the result that is wanted it is not a bad idea.
But I would suggest a KB limit rather than a post limit. Reason being that
there are a couple of kids here that offend no one by posting several dozen
small posts a night about a video game or whatever. The post limit would
stop that sort of friendly chat, but a KB limit would stop the single large
diatribe that offends more people.
Either would stop most of my posts, which is really the plan anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Dewitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote :
>
> I know who those people are
> because several of them have emailed me and attempted to continue their
> agenda of hate and insult since the OT group was shut down.
Some of whom continue to write me after I have asked them not to...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk <vah### [at] aetecee> wrote:
: Wouldn't it have been better to warn users of off-topic group before
: removing it and only if this didn't help, then close that group?
Several warnings were posted (eg. in the form of the acceptable server use
policy). They didn't help.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Dewitt wrote:
> This is how abusive threads start,
Then I will offer you some friendly advice. Let it drop.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
