patrick.net

rando says

Need inspiration!

The Medical Trap

rando says

Thinking of something like "Ten Politically Incorrect Truths".

That seems, perhaps paradoxically, too many and too few.

Please just keep in mind that while truth (meaning factual accuracy) is a complete defense to defamation, caricatures tend not to be truth. Technically correct may be the best kind of correct, but cherry-picking and confirmation bias can make a badly tendentious book.

please put links to the next/previous/etc page in a thread at both the top and bottom of the page.

rando says

@anonymous

Sadly, Turtledove was helping me by telling me about some error in the Javascript console on her browser on Windows, but now I can't ask her about it anymore.

Consider using one of the js error collection services. When js errors occur, they get automatically sent to a service for logging, where you can then go and view them. I can't recommend any as I've always written my own due to corporate intranet policy, but I never build web apps without js error collection anymore - there's always errors you're unaware of, and collection lets you find them. Users will rarely ever tell you about your bugs, especially if they don't happen often/repeatably, so being proactive yields much higher quality webapps.

Here's a list of what I'm talking about:

https://www.slant.co/topics/2615/~javascript-client-side-error-logging-services

They can automatically collect many errors via using the browser "error" event handler, so it's really easy & unobtrusive to install and use. But you get better results if you can wrap your code in special exception watching functions.

Oh the Don has changed his hair colourDan8267 says

Trolls do well not to piss off admins. This must be a new species of troll: suiciders.

Ironman says

I'm on Windoze and I don't have any problem with the "quote" function. I'm also using Firefox. Is it a problem only with Internet Explorer?

Thanks! Maybe it is only IE. That would be typical.

If you get a chance to check quoting on IE or Chrome, I'd be grateful.

c1561490 says

Consider using one of the js error collection services. When js errors occur, they get automatically sent to a service for logging, where you can then go and view them.

Thanks @c1561490 this is a great idea. Then I won't have to ask people about errors in their particular browser.

Personal anecdote... when there is a post at the top of the page, that has the UNREAD icon signaling me to click it to pick up the conversation where i left off, and one of the new posts is by a user that has me on ignore, it sends me to the OP. Which is kind of annoying. You've toyed around a bit with the ignore feature, not sure where the bright idea came from for the user ignoring someone posts are not visible.

errc says

not sure where the...idea came from for the user ignoring someone posts are not visible.

IIRC, that originated with Typhoid Marcus, who (mis)uses Ignore as part of a dysfunctional game of tag, even using another browser to check the comments of Users (s)he pretends to Ignore. As one would expect from that troll, combining "Ignore" with "Hide from" was a sily idea producing nothing but dysfunction and annoyance, which was the goal.

c1561490 says

please put links to the next/previous/etc page in a thread at both the top and bottom of the page.

@c1561490 your wish has been granted.

Links to other pages of comments are now at both the top and bottom of a thread (aka a post):

"« First « Previous Comments 15-54 of 54 Last »"

errc says

Personal anecdote... when there is a post at the top of the page, that has the UNREAD icon signaling me to click it to pick up the conversation where i left off, and one of the new posts is by a user that has me on ignore, it sends me to the OP. Which is kind of annoying.

@errc OK, now that should be fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Here are the actual code changes, in case you're into that sort of thing:

https://github.com/killelea/patrick.net/commit/2a13bdda46f344d96ad29e422c668ddd9a5fcba9

@patrick nice, thanks

What is the reasoning behind having a person who's on ignore, being blocked from seeing the posts of the poster that ignored them?

Seems all #Safespaceish

errc says

What is the reasoning behind having a person who's on ignore, being blocked from seeing the posts of the poster that ignored them?

Ah, there is a reason!

I talked to a friend who worked at Facebook about this, and concluded that people are not comfortable with one-sided ignore. The problem is that if you ignore someone, but they can still see what you wrote, then they can respond to your writing with mockery and insults, and you will not easily be able to reply to them. Or even know that they are mocking you in public.

So it seemed that the best thing to do was to make ignore mutual. If you ignore someone, you simply disappear from their radar and they disappear from yours. If you really can't get along, that means one side or the other is not trying to get along, and so the best thing is just to chill out and not talk for a while.

Meh, you blow up any semblance of Free Speech forum by conveying that kind of power to any one special snowflake. Personally, I'd fade anything I gleaned from anyone even loosely associated with Facebook.

And just because some pussy is afraid of what I have to say, doesn't automatically mean that I couldn't benefit from something that they have to say. Besides, with your approach, it's quite obvious that anyone so infantile as to engage in that crap here, can work up a two second work around. And your left with a less than working resolution.

rando says

c1561490 says

please put links to the next/previous/etc page in a thread at both the top and bottom of the page.

@c1561490 your wish has been granted.

Links to other pages of comments are now at both the top and bottom of a thread (aka a post):

"« First « Previous Comments 15-54 of 54 Last »"

Thank you!

errc says

Meh, you blow up any semblance of Free Speech forum by conveying that kind of power to any one special snowflake. Personally, I'd fade anything I gleaned from anyone even loosely associated with Facebook.

And just because some pussy is afraid of what I have to say, doesn't automatically mean that I couldn't benefit from something that they have to say. Besides, with your approach, it's quite obvious that anyone so infantile as to engage in that crap here, can work up a two second work around. And your left with a less than working resolution.

No special snowflake has any more power than any other user. Well, I myself can edit whatever, but unlike the Reddit CEO I don't do that.

Ignores are only person-to-person. The important thing is that no one user A has the power to block user B from talking to everyone else.

Yes, you can still view the comments of someone who has you on ignore by logging out, and you could reply by creating a new identity with a new email, but that is inconvenient. And that's the point. I'm just trying to slow down bad interactions, like the lead bricks they use in nuclear power plants to prevent the thing from blowing up.

This is not completely true if the ignored cannot see or post to the ignorer's thread.
Maybe ignore should just apply to individual comments and not thread viewing/commenting?

rando says

Ignores are only person-to-person. The important thing is that no one user A has the power to block user B from talking to everyone else.

Nice compromise. Be interesting to see how it works out...

@patrick

Doesn't seem to work at all. A thread pops to the top of the front page, I click either the icon that marks a new comment has been made, or the hyperlink to the last comment, and I'm directed to the Original Post. Tsk tsk, Patrick. Your "solution" is stifling Free Speech.

I'm forced to censor what I post, or risk offending some feeble minded sissy, because you empower other users to alter my experience.

If you want to enable the Anti-American Free Speech haters to have a Safe Space, you're going to lose more users. If you must assist those too weak to simply scroll past the comments of someone they do not like, then keep the ignore feature simple: if User A ignores User B, then User B comments are hidden from User A view. The End

No stupid suggestions from some Facebook loser about empowering the anti-free speech crowd, to adversely affect those of us who value Free Speech.

Or, have all comments posted anonymously. No user names, No icons. Just words and thoughts. That way, there is no chance of those from the shallow end of the gene pool, cluttering the forum with personal attacks.

Isn't that kinda what reddit does?

BuckState says

Thought there was value in seeing debate between iwog/others vs. a bit more of a one sided discussion these days.

Had no issue with iwog myself. This post seems strange to me though. He had an issue with posts being moderated and bailed on the site. As Patrick has mentioned and is commonly known, you can start your own site if you don't like this one. Not sure your point. Start your own site if you don't like it here and Patrick can help you with that.

BuckState says

Totally get it- if you don't like what you're reading go elsewhere. And I'm aware of Patrick's offer to stand up other message boards for people.

My macro point (reason for the post) was that a DM feature might be nice to have on patnet, as if there were I would have just messaged a few people who have been here a while to ask: a.) Do you know if iwog still posts anywhere, would be interested in reading a blog/etc. Or b.) Where else do you go for debate / conversation.

Yes, I'd agree DM would be a good feature. A) I personally have no idea if/where he still posts. I kind of think this was his place, so not sure if the iwog lives on in another forum/site. He probably does, but he might not considering how open he was here. Who knows.

B) Logical debate or conversation? Good luck. I'm not sure where you can find that now a days.

WookieMan says

He had an issue with posts being moderated and bailed on the site

Iwog was angry at everything and the site bailed him.

His OP's were often interesting and insiteful, but reading his debates was just terrible. Wordgames, strawmen, misrepresentations, willfully ignorance of nuance... for hundreds and hundreds of posts. It was impossible to discuss anything substantively w iwog. He did however offer a sounding board for some interesting info dumps, such as Logan for example.

BuckState says

Thought there was value in seeing debate between iwog/others vs. a bit more of a one sided discussion these days.

Debate?

Could we implement a way to like/dislike original posts? I only see this option on post comments.

CBOEtrader says

Iwog was angry at everything and the site bailed him.

His OP's were often interesting and insiteful, but reading his debates was just terrible. Wordgames, strawmen, misrepresentations, willfully ignorance of nuance... for hundreds and hundreds of posts. It was impossible to discuss anything substantively w iwog. He did however offer a sounding board for some interesting info dumps, such as Logan for example.

That's revisionist history there. Iwog left because he could see what was going to happen when Goran was chosen to be moderator of the politics forum. And he proved to be prescient....

rocketjoe79 says

Could we implement a way to like/dislike original posts? I only see this option on post comments.

@rocketjoe79 The up and down arrows next to the original post title are for that. They look like triangles, see them?

Duh....I Got it

CBOEtrader says

Then why are either of you still here? This temper tantrum routine you two do every few weeks is very childish.

lol--"temper tantrum". Just pointing out untruths.

LeonDurham says

personal

I'd agree, but I'd guess I'm the moderator that marks the least personal or even deletes them. So I'll leave it, someone else can mark it. I liked the free speech concept for the most part. Doxing, outright racism, and over the top personal comments (like I hope your mom dies) should be whacked for sure. There's no place for that.

And don't get me wrong, minor personal attacks are annoying and derail some good conversation or arguments. But it honestly shows the true colors of people, at least their internet persona. And I know I'll get "hypocrite much" as I've tore off on some people (person) before in recent history. Generally though I avoid personal or seemingly personal comment 95% of the time here.

I think it's fair game to talk about since he's no longer here, but Iwog was very childish when he tore into people. Were they wrong most the time? Sure. Calling them idiots and the laundry list of other names though was kind of silly if you think about it. I miss his contributions for sure. At the end of the day though, Patnet doesn't really matter. Acting like it matters is kind of petty. That's not a put down on the site Patrick, more of a philosophical statement.

I can't remember if Patrick implemented it or not, but I still like the idea private or invited threads. Kind of like a facebook messenger setup. This way you could at least keep trolls out from what could have been a good conversation. Recent example is Bob's post on PR and Columbia. Comment 11. But here's the thing, still make the thread title/summary visible to everyone, but people have to ask to join it if they're interested in the topic. Commenter 11 basically trashed what was a well thought out thread/post and up until 11 everyone appreciated what Bob had posted.

Let's say I'm planning a trip and have seen that say 7 other people have mentioned traveling there. I could invite just them. And then if others see the thread they can ask to join in, but can be uninvited if it's a trolling attempt after a few comments. Maybe the person asking to join comes in with some good stuff, then they stay and an actual good conversation or trading of ideas occurs.

Or if you want to get in a fight, invite your enemies and be allowed to go after it, out of the public view of the site for new visitors. But if you're intrigued by the topic, you can still join if the thread starter wants you and approves it. I'd also say the thread starter PLUS the original invitees have the ability to say yes or no to an outside user that wants to come in.

And of course you could post something to the whole board still too. It's just certain topics are known to be trashed immediately just because User X started the thread.

Jesus I went on a tangent there. At least for once it was kind of in the right thread.

Aphroman says

Patrick knew the solution at one time. He banned Ironman. All these hoops to jump through just to facilitate a troll. Not sure why he changed his mind, but it was a horrible decision. Good forums have no problem with perma ban on obvious trolls

I'm gonna avoid talking about other active users here. I still think there needs to be private threads. Your Cannabis stock thread would be a great example. It's not even just one user, you know multiple users here will have a problem with it. Why not just be able to invite the people you know will want to discuss it? If others are intrigued they could still ask to be invited.

And again, the choice would be yours to post it to the whole board and make everyone able to comment on it. But it's visible either way. You can either just comment on it, or you would have to request an invite to that thread. The topic itself isn't hidden. I think it keeps the BS underground for the newbie that stumbled upon the site and sees some of the shit going on and runs for the hills.

The reason certain trolls stick around, and that's the key stick around, is that they have troll food. If they can't get to the food source, they get disinterested. Banning anyone won't work because of cheap as hell VPN services. The solution has to be troll proof the site as much as humanly possible.

And just like the earth rotates, the cannabis stock post got dumped on by multiple..... well two people. This is what I'm talking about with invited/private threads. They wouldn't have a voice on that thread. If one of them doesn't have his ego masterbated, by another male, then he goes away. Simple as that.

Aphroman says

CBOEtrader says

Aphroman says

That's revisionist history there. Iwog left because he could see what was going to happen when Goran was chosen to be moderator of the politics forum. And he proved to be prescient....

That seemed to be at the heart of it, and as often the case, iwog was right, again

What kind of people are triggered by those who are right, early and often?

Then why are either of you still here? This temper tantrum routine you two do every few weeks is very childish.

Huh?

Who is having a temper tantrum?

I’m merely stating facts. Why are you so triggered by facts?

This is trollish and childish behavior. Why waste your time? Do something productive

LeonDurham says

personal

Wookie--

Can I ask what was personal in that post? I didn't think it was offensive at all.

@Patrick--

Are my posts automatically flagged now?

LeonDurham says

LeonDurham says

personal

Wookie--

Can I ask what was personal in that post? I didn't think it was offensive at all.

You understand I wasn't talking about your post being personal, right? I get what you were doing and not using the personal button to get auto moderated, well now flag link. Was CBOE's post "technically" personal? Sure, mildly. There aren't enough moderators in the world though to help weed out trivial digs at other people. So I filter through them and get rid of the worst. At some point, two adults need to be... well.... two adults.

WookieMan says

You understand I wasn't talking about your post being personal, right? I get what you were doing and not using the personal button to get auto moderated, well now flag link. Was CBOE's post "technically" personal? Sure, mildly. There aren't enough moderators in the world though to help weed out trivial digs at other people. So I filter through them and get rid of the worst. At some point, two adults need to be... well.... two adults.

I'm not sure what you mean--I didn't flag anything.

Also--was just asking you because it seemed like you had read it and I wanted your take on it. I didn't figure you had marked it.

personal

personal

LeonDurham says

I'm not sure what you mean--I didn't flag anything.

Also--was just asking you because it seemed like you had read it and I wanted your take on it. I didn't figure you had marked it.

I think I see what happened. It's Patrick's new moderation system I believe. I never even saw the comment. I thought you literally typed personal but didn't want to hit the personal button (now flag) and potentially get auto moderated. I think that's where the confusion lies. My mistake.

Either way, we're all good and just having fun on Patnet, right? I hope so.

WookieMan says

LeonDurham says

I'm not sure what you mean--I didn't flag anything.

Also--was just asking you because it seemed like you had read it and I wanted your take on it. I didn't figure you had marked it.

I think I see what happened. It's Patrick's new moderation system I believe. I never even saw the comment. I thought you literally typed personal but didn't want to hit the personal button (now flag) and potentially get auto moderated. I think that's where the confusion lies. My mistake.

Either way, we're all good and just having fun on Patnet, right? I hope so.

Absolutely. But, back to my original question--I'm genuinely interested so I can change my behavior, if needed. Can you tell what was offensive and personal in my first comment to CBOE?