I have in the past weeks read some
of the threads in povray.off-topic.

And I'm overwhelmed by the number
of insults being thrown and the
"low level" of argumentation
taking place in _some_ of these
threads.

And it seems for me that there are
some correlation between how
offensive some posters act and the
frequency of their posts.

So if I am right about this obser-
vation, then I hereby suggest to
introduce some means for limiting
the numbers of posts a person can do
to this newsgroup during a certain
time interval.

My hope is that if a person have a
limited number of posting available
to this group, then hopefully he/she
will consider more carefully which
threads to participate in and THINK
through more thoroughly what he/she
really writes.

One way to do this could be to allow
each person to send a certain number
of postings; which is a certain
ratio of the number of on-topic
postings that the same person has
sent to other POV-Ray news groups.

What do others think about this ?


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message

That is a good idea, but a simpler one would be to just ban anyone who posts
anything with insults or profanity after the third incident.  Off-topic is
indeed a bandwidth hog, but generally does not create any abrasive postings or
hard feelings.
    Personally, I am quite forgiving and choose to just ignore if it gets
heated.  I don't hold any hard feelings because it is sometimes easy to post in
haste and repent at leisure.  I know that I have done this myself (though I
hope, not here!)
    Here's to sharing methods, techniques, and knowledge within the spirit of
cooperation.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:29:59 EST, "Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>I have in the past weeks read some
>of the threads in povray.off-topic.
>
>And I'm overwhelmed by the number
>of insults being thrown and the
>"low level" of argumentation
>taking place in _some_ of these
>threads.
>

I agree with this but imposing your will, even although it is for the best of
intensions, could be seen as act of imperialism and we all know where that
leads. If certain members of the community don't show the maturity you would
like, it is unfortunate. What can you do except disapprove of it. They are doing
no real harm except to their own standing and reputation. Just don't let them
rattle your cage that's how they get their kicks. In my not so humble opinion. 

Stephen


Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> And I'm overwhelmed by the number
> of insults being thrown and the
> "low level" of argumentation
> taking place in _some_ of these
> threads.

Then dont read those threads, p-ot is fine just the way it is


--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

What is the total cost of  p.o.t.?
If it's say 5% of the cost of server operation then let's just grow a
thicker skin.
If it's say 25% then let's take action.

Post a reply to this message

In article <web.3e5138376998bd0bb417814a0@news.povray.org>,
 "Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> What do others think about this ?

Unless it becomes an actual bandwidth problem (very unlikely), just let 
it be. A post limit will just be annoying, and probably make things more 
likely to spill over into other groups...there have been some trollish 
individuals in the past whose first move on hitting the limit would be 
to move into povray.general and other high-traffic groups.

Let people vent in p.ot instead. If it bothers you, you need to develop 
a thicker skin or just ignore those threads. Post or e-mail specific 
requests to the parties involved if you want, it may help.

BTW, your line length is set very short, 36 characters or so. It makes 
reading your posts more difficult, having to jump to the next line about 
twice as often. Could you make them a little longer? A good setting is 
72 characters, which leaves room for quoting without rewrapping.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> > And I'm overwhelmed by the number
> > of insults being thrown and the
> > "low level" of argumentation
> > taking place in _some_ of these
> > threads.
>
> Then dont read those threads, p-ot is fine just the way it is

Well, Rick, although I would generally agree, there is currently some
complication about it... it is becoming less and less fine.

Some time ago, I have blocked BDW. By the way, now that I have done that, I
have probably even a better understanding of the relative number of his
posts. The thing is that when IE loads, it first shows the total number of
new messages, and only then applies blocking, iteratively reducing the
'number of new messages'. His posts to p.o-t constitute no less then 20%.
Thanks goodness, just to p.o-t (he's always off topic). So far, so good.

Of course, it's hard not to stumble upon his quotes. So when I see, say, Tom
Melly repeatedly replying to Tom Melly in a thread with, well, some
provocative subject, I do not look in there since, well, the risk is above
everage. Again, so far, so good.

But look at (one of the most recent) "too much time on the internet leads to
this" thread. It seems like now it's impossible to discuss Inet, or VR, or
just anything without BTW jumping in with his BS if he doesn't like your
sig, or formatting, or capitalization.

Any form of general censorship is not an answer, of course, but here we do
have a problem. Currently, I personally am considering setting up one more
filter which would block messages with BDW's e-mail address in their bodies
(meaning someone is just replying to BDW's crap).

In FIDO he would be "plused" and kicked off in a few days, but -- believe
me, I never liked FIDO because of that. I'm glad we have a much more open
cyber-society here... But we do have a problem, and therefore I would love
to see that *something* is done about it. Maybe just an open message from
those who run this news server. Dunno. Just *something* that would make the
atmosphere more healthy.

Post a reply to this message

"Christopher James Huff" <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

> Let people vent in p.ot instead. If it bothers you, you need to
> develop a thicker skin or just ignore those threads.

Let me argue that p.o-t is not for people wanting to vent. It is a group for
the discussions of things not directly related to POV-Ray, but such
discussions are, unfortunately, becoming increasingly difficult due to
misconduct by certain individuals.

Ken Tyler may share many, if not all, views of BDW, and I am perfectly OK
with that. I may or may not share them myself, but I cannot see myself
having difficulties reading Ken's messages. It is not a matter or personal
views, it is simply a matter of conduct and mutual respect. (Ken, I do not
imply that you necessarily have any respect for me; I am merely rerferring
to the fact that nothing in your messages that I have seen so far would
suggest the opposite).

Speaking of a thicker skin... I, personally, do not think that developing a
thicker skin is a proper response to insults. In the real life I would,
probably, just leave pub/bar and just go to a good restaurant -- in a search
for a better people/atmosphere... But here, in the POV-Ray newsgroups, I
consider myself being in a cyber-restaurant already, not in a cyber-cafe
(let alone a local chat room, full of preoccupied boys).

> Post or e-mail specific
> requests to the parties involved if you want, it may help.

I consider many of you, guys, the cream of cyber-society. Such is the nature
of the POV-Ray: ultimately high-tech and artistic, while purely non-profit;
a unique combination which profoundly affects the gathering. So, in a way, I
have nowhere to go from here -- I want to stay and I, personally, refuse to
resort to private messages in an attempt to prevent interference of some
insane individual. All I am willing to do is to, at most, set up a filter.
If that does not help, if it turns out that any discussion with a subject
that a certain individual can penetrate is poised to invariably slide
towards political issues and, ultimately, insults... Well, then maybe we
should do *something* about that?

Post a reply to this message

"Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom> wrote

    So this is about keeping Bill from saying things you don't like. OK, I
get that.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03

Post a reply to this message

In article <3e51b33d@news.povray.org>, bde### [at] cflrrcom says...
> 
> "Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom> wrote
> 
>     So this is about keeping Bill from saying things you don't like. OK, I
> get that.
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03
> 
> 
> 
No.. If I had to characterize styles of posting I would say that many of 
those that continually post over and over without getting anywhere, and 
this often includes you, act a bit like a bunch of spiders. You spin a 
very poorly designed web of opinion, then sit back and hope some poor 
fool slams into it. Only when it turns out to be another spider and the 
web breaks you both start making it an even bigger mess and doing so even 
more poorly. My own style is that of predator, watch and wait until the 
opportunity arises to pounce. Occasionally that fails and I end up having 
to sit them down and nail their foot to the floor so they pay attention 
to what I actually said, instead of what they decided to believe I meant. 
All in all, about 9 in 10 posts are useless drivel containing no 
particular substance. It is this that has garnered complaint and you are 
by no means a small contributor, in that you don't know when to withdraw 
and wait for a better opportunity to make a point.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message