Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by seebs, Feb 12, 2017.
I believe someone has already checked/said that it does not.
Nope. It'd be ideal if people would finish catching up with a thread and +quote things to respond to as they go but I understand that doesn't work for some folks
Btw, to quote without pinging, just remove the 'post: ####, member: ##' bit
A couple more loose thoughts on the analogy:
1. Attractive nuisance doctrine applies in situations where signs won't work. Little kids either can't or won't read signs, which is why you have to build a fence around your swimming pool.
2. There is a decent argument that as the proprietor of this forum, seebs is analogous to the landowner with the unfenced swimming pool. (Note, this is only with respect to the analogy being pursued here, not any formal liability).
3. We are starting to brush up against the perennial problem of "who owns the thread?" Is it the OP or is it the posters in the thread? Many bytes have given their informational lives striving over this question.
No, said the man in the Vatican, it belongs to the church.
-sees self out-
Property is theft
I think in the case of thread blocking not stopping pings, then, people can do their best to not ping people who need a break, but people on a break also need to be mindful that there's a reasonable possibility that responders won't have seen their message in time.
It's not malicious to not see the notice of needing to step back, but let's try to use quotes that don't ping the "out on break" person where possible.
Meaning, please try your best to respect people's no pings breaks, AND please don't jump on people who didn't notice in time and pinged the on break person. It happens.
To quote without pinging, remove the "post: ####, member: ##" part of the quote.
To make a thief, make an owner; to create crime, create laws.
To make a pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
Go to bed; tired is stupid.
I'm going take the advice of the Taoist Witch Queen of the West and hit the sack.
To give my two cents, it's totally situational, which is both the most and least useful.
Vent threads, personal abuse history threads, etc. seem to belong to the OP to a degree. Topic threads belong to the posters, somewhat. But what if the topic is advice requested by a specific person that could benefit many people? That's more murky. Fight threads??? I don't even want to try to say. I mean, obviously the people involved fight to the death and the last one standing claims ownership.
Thank you and yes, you grasped my point.
People will still get mad at you for pinging them, this is what happened with Ipuntya.
Fwiw, Moony probably won't be responding. He's pretty sick at this point and I'm putting him back to bed as soon as he's home from school.
Yes. And when the swimming pool is "someone is talking about you", the majority of people can't refrain from finding out what's being said. (To say nothing of "how would you know whether it was about you or not before you read it?")
I was mostly addressing the question of people saying that signage was sufficient to remove all liability, in analogy land.
My answer is: Neither, it's the community as a whole, including people not yet posting but who might want to read the thread later.
I have tended to be willing to delete things on request, but I don't think that has been a great policy, because it removes information and breaks continuity.
Seebs, are you aware @palindromordnilap just made a vent thread specifically for suicide baiting people and openly said someone else should die? And that the suicide baiting posts were deleted by Bel (after people got receipts)?
@Petra he's talking about other, nonemergency stuff.
The thing with Pal has been handled, this thread doesn't need to be about it too.
Okay! I didn't mean to derail, the timing was just unfortunate.
All's good! c:
Answer is, I wasn't aware of it, but also "deleting because what the fuck no" is not "deleting by request". "Deleting by request" is where there's no reason for which I'd delete a post, but the person who made it asks.
Vent threads are currently an area where someone can blow out their harsh feelings.
I was under the impression that the accountability for vent threads was "Know that if someone disagrees with something then they have the right to try to PM you, ask you about it once a few hours have gone by and you're calmed down (if you're okay with direct interaction in the thread), or request your presence in a TCHGB thread," which I don't think is unreasonable. I don't really know if anyone here has voiced that is unreasonable. Having sorted through several pages of drama discussion today, I'm not sure I could comb the thread to find out if anyone thinks it isn't reasonable.
Is there a problem with this at present?
I will add on,what is the protocol for if someone says no to discussion on it, then continues to talk about that person in their vent thread? That is certainly an uncomfortable thing that could happen, and the only thing, really, that makes me nervous at present. For the most part I trust people here to be civil enough to not do that barring some extreme cases of mistrust where at least one side ignoring the other might be in order, but I think it is something we need to think on.
Kintsugi is based on the premise that nothing anyone can do or say makes it okay to treat them like trash. By logging in, you affirm that you understand this to be the foundational premise of the community. More on our community philosophy here.
Separate names with a comma.