h a l f b a k e r yExpensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Now, naming names would be very trollish of me, and I needn't a lesson in social lubrication, so I mean no offense. Lately I have become aware of posters DELETING [m-f-d] annos. This behavior is entirely inappropriate, but sadly, allowed. I believe an [m-f-d] vote would be good. These'd be displayed
as X's displayed in bolded brackets to the right of an idea. It'd save time-- I *will* see an idea heavily Fishboned, because I want to see where the error in judgement was made and if it can be improved. However, if an idea is simply offensive, it can drift to the bottom of the Recent page for [jutta] to dispose of it. Thanks.
[edit > One must fill out a form, with a choice of Offensive (i.e. HB obituaries), Spam, Misplaced (i.e. KUU Religion), or Other. They must also fill out a small written comment.
That is all.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Although it might be nice to have an mfd option which the idea poster couldn't delete, it raises a problem in giving a valid reason and argument for the mfd. This will allow the mfd tag to be even more abused than it is now. |
|
| |
I know I would have difficulty in not mfd-ing every other idea if this were implemented... |
|
| |
Hey, perhaps a discreet button you could press which would take you to a simple form, where you could mfd, and then select from a list of valid reasons. The idea could then be marked ready for the moderators as well as viewing public. |
|
| |
If someone were particularly abusive of the system, a ratification routine could be implemented for that user, perhaps.. |
|
| |
When it really has to go it usually does via a deletion or when it runs out of steam by neglect.
I mean really. Does your [m-f-d] post mean that much to you? Guidelines for posts considered [m-f-d] are listed in the help section. If a poster consistently deletes [m-f-d] annotations they obviously don't have many good ideas and their attempts to mask that fact will not gain them any positive votes. So, who cares? |
|
| |
[iuvare], they take up time and space to be used for worthwhile ideas. |
|
| |
I agree that every author should have the right to argue an mfd, but I don't know about deleting it. Continually doing so would be tantamount to trolling of the worst kind. If you think an mfd is mistaken, then you should argue (not quarrel) your point until the poster of the mfd withdraws, IMHO. |
|
| |
no, it ISN'T. there's a difference between ill-conceived and inappropriate. |
|
| |
[Steve DeGroof], please don't give them any ideas. |
|
| |
[Steve:] I'd say you have a point, but frankly, I'd be surprised to see a spammer expend that much energy. |
|
| |
[Yama:] One _could_ withdraw their [M-F-D], but how many times in your career here have you done so? |
|
| |
Ditto. If an idea *really* has got to go, email one of the moderators and sic 'em on it. |
|
| |
Ah, water, but the technicalities on that form. Suppose the idea was about Spam, the Un-Food? Then what? Just because I posted Swiss Army Spam (ooh, ooh, idea!) someone could TECHNICALLY mfd it. Hmmm... Do we have halfbakery lawyers to define the legalities? |
|
| |
A lot of the [mfd] ideas are classically horrible. It would be a loss to lose them. On the other hand, pole pants aren't exactly leaving empty spots in our hearts... can't support this idea, but can't exactly vote against it either. |
|
| |
water: I've deleted my mfds on several occasions. None recently, but as with UB, I've learnt to hold back a lot more as I've had some time on the HB. |
|
| |
The person who wouldn't be willing to delete his/her mfd after being faced with a compelling argument is exactly the kind of person who shouldn't be able to mfd.. |
|
| |
You might find it hard to believe but I've never deleted an mfd as far as I can remember. I generally leave all the anno's there unless they're totally irrelevant. |
|
| |
Maybe we could have a 'mark-for-deletion' link next to the [annotate] link, simply generating a (maybe bold?) [m-f-d] anno that could not be deleted. This magic anno would take a variable from either a single text field, or possibly from an option list, thus specifying a reason for mfd. |
|
| |
I used to think MFD meant m***** f****** dumb. |
|
| |
Oh, I see what you mean.. |
|
| |
I have never actually used an mfd, though that is probably due to my underuse of the bakery, it appears balanced to me at the moment. I can only suspect that the auto-boner for one would feel that *all* his/her Birthdays had come at once. I would err on the side of not changing the mfd from its current status as it seems to work as it is, though perhaps Jutta's opinion on this would be interesting. |
|
| |
water, spammers have and do expend that amount of energy just to give themselves plus votes. For certain they'd abuse this system. |
|
| |
Also, I don't see how it naturally follows that such a system should be democratic. Yes, we can label ideas with mfd's now, but we do not do the actual deed. Your system supposes that this place should be majority rule. I disagree with that notion. |
|
| |