|
Chris Maunder wrote: I would like to provide an area people can view if they work in a sensitive workplace. I know that trying to keep conversations mature and above the belt is a strange thing to find on the internet, but I though it would be nice to at least try. The Soapbox is specifically for those who want to discuss things that fall outside this.
So, my understanding about the lounge as a forum was correct - which I could read if I work in a sensitive place, which I could read if my kid sister is peeking over my shoulder.
And most importantly, thank you very much for doing the right thing, and thank you for providing me a safe place (the lounge) for discussion, while the 'mature' ones can still get their stuff done at the SB.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Well it's your site to do with as you see fit and it's a bit refreshing to see the "iron fist" once in a while  , however judging by your response I can only assume you never actually looked at the page linked to, it's pretty innocent innocuous stuff.
This is just the sort of slippery slope that leads to images of the statue of David being banned etc etc.
I thought the voting system was in part implemented to police community standards.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a suggestion: publicly ask in the lounge that anyone who posts a link to anything that is undoubtedly safe to view at work or with children present be labelled as a safe link. And that everyone will assume from that point onwards anything no explicitly tagged with a safe link comment will be considered unsafe and shouldn't be opened.
That way you and everyone else that has these issues is covered and the rest of us can just click at will.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
So are we assuming here that most of the threads unsafe? 
Thought should be other way around... if not a safe link or so... mark it 'Careful/Unsafe' !
|
|
|
|
|
Sandeep Mewara wrote: Thought should be other way around... if not a safe link or so... mark it 'Careful/Unsafe'
Nope, that's impossible to do. No one really knows what's unsafe in other cultures to other people.
Japanese fertility symbols of carved wooden penises in my opinion should not be unsafe to view for anyone on the planet of any age in any culture. Apparently some find it objectionable. That just goes to show that there is very little possibility of coming up with an accepted standard of what is not safe.
I heard many years ago that an image of a severed hand is highly objectionable in some cultures so a screen shot showing a windows hand cursor would be highly unsafe to some.
It's conceivable that we have a better chance of collectively judging what is so plain vanilla uninteresting as to be deemed potentially safe and tag it as such.
Far safer for you and others to simply ignore any link if it's not explicitly marked as safe isn't it?
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: Japanese fertility symbols of carved wooden penises in my opinion should not be unsafe to view for anyone on the planet of any age in any culture.
Speak on your behalf, and on behalf of your culture. I know it's just an opinion you have, but that ain't just right (I have an opinion too).
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
That's what the magic words "in my opinion" mean in my original post. Clearly you're making my case for me that there is just no accounting at all for what is not safe, best to assume everything is not safe and for people that care they can take the time to flag stuff as explicitly safe.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
I think the fact that Chris has moved this to the SB proves my point that it can be considered unsafe for work (which I said is "questionable"). It may depend on where and how you work, and may depend on your culture though.
John C wrote: best to assume everything is not safe and for people that care they can take the time to flag stuff as explicitly safe.
Instead of that, people can use common sense and post what's safe for work. If you're looking for someone to argue with you on "what's safe for work", I've better things to do.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: I'm sure my boss won't be pleased if I sit and watch this from the office
I would have a hard time convincing him this is a development resource portal and that I was posting a techincal query.
 Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly my sentiments!
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
I guess my earlier reply should have included that fact that the lounge is not a programming / work related forum so in theory your boss would not be pleased with you even reading that forum.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
No, in practice he views the lounge too. So, you're wrong again.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: So, you're wrong again.
Again? Care to elaborate where I was wrong before?
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
You were wrong in assuming that it's fine to post NSFW links there and asking me not to read the lounge. Chris has worded it much better in his reply to you, so I'm done with this here.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: t it's fine to post NSFW links
You've completely misrepresented everything I've said in this thread and I suspect we'll never get to the bottom of it because you are going away in what appears to be some misguided self righteous huff, but if I've somehow given the impression I'm trying to debate morality you are completely mistaken because as I've said repeatedly there's simply no way for any user here to know what is or isn't safe for work for every other user here.
A logical conclusion of this is that you must assume that any link is nsfw if you work in such a workplace that you could get in trouble for viewing something and or to take Chris' original advice to you which was to simply report in the thread that the link is not safe for your workplace and may be for others and ask the original poster to label it as such.
Or do you intend that the people who run this site should spend a significant amount of time responding to complaints from a global audience about what each individual guesses may be potentially objectionable to their boss?
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: what appears to be some misguided self righteous huff
We could agree on the fact that we think each other are into some misguided, self righteous huff.
John C wrote: there's simply no way for any user here to know what is or isn't safe for work for every other user here.
It's not about individual guesses, it's common sense. I cannot think of workplaces where people would want to sit and watch giant wooden penises. But because you say, I'd assume it's fine at your workplace. If it were fine at your workplace too, it may still at least be "questionable", because it's about pictures of GIANT PENIS for Chri'sake...
John C wrote: Or do you intend that the people who run this site should spend a significant amount of time responding to complaints
I don't intend 'significant' amount of time to be spent by the staff nannying this. If it were the case that someone finds something offensive with almost everything, there would be such threads floating around here all the time. I'm ONLY complaining about a post, that may potentially not be work-safe everywhere.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: it's common sense. I cannot think of workplaces where people would want to sit and watch giant wooden penises. But because you say, I'd assume it's fine at your workplace.
Honestly from a north american perspective here I can't imagine a Nunnery where that would be anything other than a giggle at worst. It's a legitimate festival of fertility. If I post a picture of the statue of David in relation to a discussion about it in the lounge will you be up in arms because his penis is visible?
Clearly standards are different for every person on earth which is why there is a broad category of stuff that is pretty commonly accepted as not safe for work like pornography and violent images, audio with loud profanity on it. The rest varies greatly by culture and it's simply impossible to police.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: res of GIANT PENIS for Chri'sake...
Ironically the "Chri'sake part of your statement would be considered extremely objectionable and not safe for work by a great many people, more I suspect than would be offended by a Japanese fertility festival. It just goes to show that beyond a certain point it's impossible to set any kind of ground rules and the kid sister rule never made any sense anyway for just this reason.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: I'm ONLY complaining about a post, that may potentially not be work-safe everywhere.
And the poster flagged it as *exactly* that potentially not safe for work. Once you read that why did you simply not ignore it and move on?
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: If I post a picture of the statue of David in relation to a discussion about it in the lounge will you be up in arms because his penis is visible?
Are you doing this for the sake of argument? Anyways, the answer is: "common sense".
John C wrote: And the poster flagged it as *exactly* that potentially not safe for work. Once you read that why did you simply not ignore it and move on?
That was my point. When he knew that it's objectionable, and potentially not safe for work, he need not have posted it in the lounge! Thank you.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: so I'm done with this here.
and yet you're still arguing with him.  3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Is there an auto-cleaner that automatically deletes unanswered questions after a certain time period? If not, there probably should be, and it should be set for something like 60 days..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
That is an excellent idea.
[Edit] Is this specifically for the case where you have a narrow filter set (say, Quick-Basic) and the 'unanswered questions' page is filled with old, old questions?cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
modified on Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
| Shh...don't encourage him! ------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
I would also suggest to remove those Q&A that has 2-3 (or more) votes of 1. (Or some other reasonable way of identifying it!)
At times, there are questions that are downvoted by multiple users but also has some answer.
Just having an answer must not be the criteria for a question to enter into the repository. They too should be filtered out to have a healthy Q&A repository.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of this:
If a question (any question) has gone longer than 60 days without a response by anyone other the original poster, it gets deleted. Period. There's really no point in keeping old questions around if nobody is going to answer them, and I figured 60 days was long enough to wait. We got some stuff hanging around that dates back to November of last year....45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
But what if the OP found the answer to his/her question and posts it? This is (or at least should) be a common case.
But your general idea is good. I'll create a task to clean up questions that haven't been answered in over 60 days or so.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
