 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Now before you climb up onto your high horse, let me begin by saying I love
MOCpages, and I think Sean Kenney is doing the community a great service.
But I hate the users on MOCpages, at least a few of them.
Since I've joined, but over the last six months in particular, I've recieved
bogus, vulgar, obscene and just plain idiotic reviews and ratings to the
creations I have posted there. Granted, I'm not trying to claim that all my
creations deserve high ratings or high praise, but some of these reviews are
ridiculous.
An example of the most recent lousy review of mine, in my opinion:
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1695
Well Mr. Josh Jenkins, it's MY cathedral and it's MY world that I've built. I
don't care what your preconceived notion about what a Cathedral is and isn't,
rate the model, not the idea.
Well, ok, I'm just venting over that one. But...
Here are plenty of examples of bogus and possibly vulgar reviews on my Black
Dragon's page:
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1682
I've actually requested that several of "BOBO's" reviews be removed from several
of my creations (which they have been) because they were just obscene.
Another Bobo classic
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1686
Oh look, it's Bobo. Fun.
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1683
Here's Josh again.
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1700
Another pointless review, nice Job anyway to you too, Josh.
So Sean, buddy, I'm not trying to cheapen your website, cause I really do think
it's a great idea in theory. But would it be possible to impliment a membership
requirement on reviewing and rating creations? Without accountability,
anomynity allows for some serious abuses of the system.
If people choose to review a creation without reading the description, or rank
the MOC poorly because of personal problems with the builder, or just giving
worthless reviews in general, I can live with things of that nature. That's
just they way some people are.
But people like Bobo need to be taken out. It's free to join MOCPages, so it'd
only be an inconvenience to those who already are members to review or rank a
creation. But if you had to put your own name and profile attached to a review,
I would bet it would deter the Bobos of the world, at least a little bit.
Sigh...
Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, Lugnet. Sometimes you just need to make a
public display.
--Anthony
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I agree with your suggestions. In fact, I think it helps cut down the trash on
Lugnet becuase you have to be registered to post, AND Lugnet always shows your
real name.
Yea, we still get trash (and different people will judge what is trash
differently), but it is not nearly as lame as this BOBO character.
I really like MOCpages, too, but yea wouldn't it be great if there could be some
controls on what was thrown into the comments.
-Alfred
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> Now before you climb up onto your high horse, let me begin by saying I love
> MOCpages, and I think Sean Kenney is doing the community a great service.
>
> But I hate the users on MOCpages, at least a few of them.
>
> Since I've joined, but over the last six months in particular, I've recieved
> bogus, vulgar, obscene and just plain idiotic reviews and ratings to the
> creations I have posted there. Granted, I'm not trying to claim that all my
> creations deserve high ratings or high praise, but some of these reviews are
> ridiculous.
>
> An example of the most recent lousy review of mine, in my opinion:
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1695
>
> Well Mr. Josh Jenkins, it's MY cathedral and it's MY world that I've built. I
> don't care what your preconceived notion about what a Cathedral is and isn't,
> rate the model, not the idea.
>
> Well, ok, I'm just venting over that one. But...
>
> Here are plenty of examples of bogus and possibly vulgar reviews on my Black
> Dragon's page:
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1682
>
> I've actually requested that several of "BOBO's" reviews be removed from several
> of my creations (which they have been) because they were just obscene.
>
> Another Bobo classic
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1686
>
> Oh look, it's Bobo. Fun.
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1683
>
> Here's Josh again.
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1700
>
> Another pointless review, nice Job anyway to you too, Josh.
>
> So Sean, buddy, I'm not trying to cheapen your website, cause I really do think
> it's a great idea in theory. But would it be possible to impliment a membership
> requirement on reviewing and rating creations? Without accountability,
> anomynity allows for some serious abuses of the system.
>
> If people choose to review a creation without reading the description, or rank
> the MOC poorly because of personal problems with the builder, or just giving
> worthless reviews in general, I can live with things of that nature. That's
> just they way some people are.
>
> But people like Bobo need to be taken out. It's free to join MOCPages, so it'd
> only be an inconvenience to those who already are members to review or rank a
> creation. But if you had to put your own name and profile attached to a review,
> I would bet it would deter the Bobos of the world, at least a little bit.
>
> Sigh...
>
> Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, Lugnet. Sometimes you just need to make a
> public display.
>
> --Anthony
<unrelated rant>
P.S. Lugnet tells me this when I go to post:
"You added your reply at the top of the message. Proper netiquette suggests that
you add your reply at the bottom of the message so that people can read the text
in natural order from top to bottom."
I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages where you
have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content. I don't actually
think this is a consistent netiquette either, as I see many interent posters
using the opposite convention: new material at the top of the post.
cross posted to lugnet.admin.general for any comment.
</unrelated rant>
-Alfred
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> <unrelated rant>
> P.S. Lugnet tells me this when I go to post:
> "You added your reply at the top of the message. Proper netiquette suggests that
> you add your reply at the bottom of the message so that people can read the text
> in natural order from top to bottom."
>
> I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages where you
> have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content. I don't actually
> think this is a consistent netiquette either, as I see many interent posters
> using the opposite convention: new material at the top of the post.
See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT. Not you in particular
Alfred, but everyone. If people just hit <end> and type their text,
there's no point.
For instance, did you really need to quote the complete message you
replied to? For context, you could have left the paragraph with the
actual suggestion, but the rest could have been trimmed away.
Does that make sense?
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 14:06 09/02/04, Dan Boger wrote
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > <unrelated rant>
> > P.S. Lugnet tells me this when I go to post:
> > "You added your reply at the top of the message. Proper netiquette • suggests that
> > you add your reply at the bottom of the message so that people can read • the text
> > in natural order from top to bottom."
> >
> > I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages • where you
> > have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content. I don't • actually
> > think this is a consistent netiquette either, as I see many interent • posters
> > using the opposite convention: new material at the top of the post.
>
> See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
> sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT. Not you in particular
> Alfred, but everyone. If people just hit <end> and type their text,
> there's no point.
Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to reply
at the top of messages. It makes it hard to figure out what they are
talking about. If you try to interleave your comments it does crazy
formatting to the message and makes it worse...
I've tried to train people at my office how to interleave replies with the
original comments (and fix the weird format problem). You'd think I was
teaching them how to talk Klingon... :-/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> You'd think I was teaching them how to talk Klingon... :-/
nuqDaq yuch Dapol!
-Jason
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to reply
> at the top of messages. It makes it hard to figure out what they are
> talking about. If you try to interleave your comments it does crazy
> formatting to the message and makes it worse...
>
> I've tried to train people at my office how to interleave replies with the
> original comments (and fix the weird format problem). You'd think I was
> teaching them how to talk Klingon... :-/
Oh, Oh, teach me! So, how do you set Outlook to do the right thing?
I always have to cutNpaste things into an emacs window and reformat,
then interleave the replies, and paste it all back. And even then,
Outlook always wants to show how smart it is by mangling the pasted
text.
Don
Warning, FUT set to geek.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 14:31 09/02/04, Don Heyse wrote
> In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> > Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to reply
> > at the top of messages. It makes it hard to figure out what they are
> > talking about. If you try to interleave your comments it does crazy
> > formatting to the message and makes it worse...
> >
> > I've tried to train people at my office how to interleave replies with the
> > original comments (and fix the weird format problem). You'd think I was
> > teaching them how to talk Klingon... :-/
>
> Oh, Oh, teach me! So, how do you set Outlook to do the right thing?
> I always have to cutNpaste things into an emacs window and reformat,
> then interleave the replies, and paste it all back. And even then,
> Outlook always wants to show how smart it is by mangling the pasted
> text.
When you hit reply, it does that stoopid indent thing. You just have to go
down to where you want to insert things and use the "decrease indent" (has
a little left arrow beside some horizontal bars). You may need to do an
"add /remove buttons" to find it.
I do not know _why_ it doesnt just change indent level automatically when
you hit enter, but I guess that would be too convenient...
Then you've got to use the "font colour" button to turn your text black (at
least around here, it tries to make the original message blue).
If it were just doing the decrease indent, I think people would catch on,
but having to unindent and then change colours just gets too many little
steps for most simple messages (a whole two :-)...
Course, it would be _great_ if exchange would do that little trick like
LUGNET does and send a message back to you about netiquete if you put the
reply at the top... Maybe then people would get a clue...
or even better, a strong electric shock through the KB if they do it wrong...
---
wubwub
aka stephen f roberts
wildbrick.com - Jain's Guide : Promoting more than just the MOC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> > Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to
> > reply at the top of messages. [...]
>
> Oh, Oh, teach me! So, how do you set Outlook to do the right thing?
Get OE-QuoteFix (or Outlook-quotefix) from
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
Suddenly Outlook (and Express) behaves like a real program...
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> > > Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to
> > > reply at the top of messages. [...]
> >
> > Oh, Oh, teach me! So, how do you set Outlook to do the right thing?
>
> Get OE-QuoteFix (or Outlook-quotefix) from
>
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
>
> Suddenly Outlook (and Express) behaves like a real program...
Or, you could use Mozilla Thunderbird for email.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/
Downlad it free (it is opensource):
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/#install
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > I actually don't agree with this at all. I hate reading meaasages where you
> > have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content.
> See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
> sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT.
In lugnet.general, Stephen F. Roberts wrote:
> Blame MicroSoft (again :-)... stoopid Outlook has trained people to reply
> at the top of messages.
I don't think it's only that. In my workplace, the general practice is to
always include the whole text of the message to which you are responding, but to
put the new content at the top. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that
after a few messages back and forth, the whole history of the topic is carried
along with the message, but you don't have to scroll down through all the old
stuff to see what is new. If you're trying to interleave comments throughout,
it becomes really confusing in a multiple message thread.
E-mail, though, is different from a forum such as this. Here, all of the old
messages are included in a thread. In e-mail, you can't count on all parties to
save all of their old e-mails.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0000, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > <unrelated rant>
> > I hate reading meaasages where you
> > have to scroll throught the trail to get to the new content.
>
> See - there's your problem. Replying on the bottom makes a lot of
> sense, as long as you TRIM THE QOUTED TEXT.
I totally missed Alfred's rant because he replied at the top. When new text is
at the top of a message, I automatically assume there is nothing new further
down because very few messages do.
If the first line of a message begins a quote (such as the first two lines of
this post), I look for inserted pieces and then follow through until the quoting
level is up a couple (I stop at >>>>>>).
On topic: I never intentionally visit MOC pages and had no idea it had such
comments. Brickshelf is as far as I get and even then, only when a link in
lugnet.announce or lugnet.general directs me there.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> I agree with your suggestions. In fact, I think it helps cut down the trash on
> Lugnet becuase you have to be registered to post, AND Lugnet always shows your
> real name.
I think there's a HUGE amount of merit in that. Sites that allow handles just
aren't as pleasant, everything else being equal, in my view
>
> Yea, we still get trash (and different people will judge what is trash
> differently), but it is not nearly as lame as this BOBO character.
>
> I really like MOCpages, too, but yea wouldn't it be great if there could be some
> controls on what was thrown into the comments.
Yes, Perhaps only allow registered users to comment for starters. Maybe even
require a donation too before you can comment.
That does bring up a question, though... who are the comments for and what
purpose do they serve? Allowing a lot of commenters means you get more comments.
Restricting who can comment may get you less comments.
I like to think I build for myself (and my customers, I guess) rather than
random passersby.
I totally have no idea where the FUT ought to go. Publish maybe? I dunno.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > I agree with your suggestions. In fact, I think it helps cut down the trash on
> > Lugnet becuase you have to be registered to post, AND Lugnet always shows your
> > real name.
>
> I think there's a HUGE amount of merit in that. Sites that allow handles just
> aren't as pleasant, everything else being equal, in my view
>
> >
> > Yea, we still get trash (and different people will judge what is trash
> > differently), but it is not nearly as lame as this BOBO character.
> >
> > I really like MOCpages, too, but yea wouldn't it be great if there could be some
> > controls on what was thrown into the comments.
>
> Yes, Perhaps only allow registered users to comment for starters. Maybe even
> require a donation too before you can comment.
At least registered users, with a real name. A donation will sort out a lot
more than I would want, I think.
> That does bring up a question, though... who are the comments for and what
> purpose do they serve? Allowing a lot of commenters means you get more comments.
> Restricting who can comment may get you less comments.
Less comments is ok with me. There are only two comments I like for my MOCs:
- Simply positive messgaes "Gee that's great" or "Cool"
- Constructive and positive feedback
Even feedback that says "its uninspired, you can do better" is ok (I
actually got that one in person for a moonbase module I made).
I guess if someone is going to comment, it would be nice to know that they
actually cared. I don't know.
> I like to think I build for myself (and my customers, I guess) rather than
> random passersby.
Random Lego fans, sure I think I build for them as well as myself. Completely
random people (aside from Public Show attendees)... not so much.
> I totally have no idea where the FUT ought to go. Publish maybe? I dunno.
Publish sounds right.
-Alfred
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> Now before you climb up onto your high horse, let me begin by saying I love
> MOCpages, and I think Sean Kenney is doing the community a great service.
>
> But I hate the users on MOCpages, at least a few of them.
>
> --Anthony
I agree. I've had to request removal of an obscene review before as well. Not
only do lots of inane and often obscene reviews get posted, but a lot of people
post MOCs with no photos. That's oh so useful. Just looking at the first 2 pages
of new MOCs right now, well over half have no pictures.
Oh well, that's the open internet for you. I think some sort of vetting or at
least removal of posting priveledges is needed.
Roy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> a lot of people
> post MOCs with no photos. That's oh so useful. Just looking at the first 2 pages
> of new MOCs right now, well over half have no pictures.
I've gotten so annoyed with people who just write about their MOCs instead of
posting pictures that I don't even look at any pages with no picture, that is no
picture on the left when they're in recent MOCs.
Andrew Horvatits
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hey Anthony,
I agree about the worthlessness of some of the posters. With my Tolkien stuff
there are a large portion of people who write how I'm an idiot because my
creations didn't match with Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's book.
My favorite is probably this:
"Ok, think about it. Do you think more people read the stupid book or watch the
f*ckin movie? The movie, I thought so."
I've got a couple of posters--T and MonkaDogaBad--who went through and rated
most of my creations as 1 and gave fairly dumb comments. I requested that the
actual obscene ones be deleted, but ignored the others.
I agree that it would be ideal if the only people allowed to make comments were
people with their own MOCpages (with real content), and all comments linked back
to the poster's own page. If you, for instance, have suggestions on how I can
change a MOC, I'm gonna listen. If some 10 year old wants to tell me I suck,
well, it's not really going to impact my day any.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
...and I hate how when a Post is made like this one, and out of the 14 current
replies only TWO people actually replied on topic.
I'll be number 3, yes, I agree, I was surprised at some of the banter on
MOCpages. It seems to be abused by some people.
On the first note, perhaps if some people AROUND HERE, would not thread Hijack.
At least change the subject line, since you have no regard to the original
author's content. Just hanging your comments off other people's.
This is such an annoying habit some of our members have Bloviating everywhere.
Anthony, your welcome sir, vent away. The rest of you, invent your own posts.
e
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> ...and I hate how when a Post is made like this one, and out of the
> 14 current replies only TWO people actually replied on topic.
>
> I'll be number 3, yes, I agree, I was surprised at some of the banter on
> MOCpages. It seems to be abused by some people.
>
> On the first note, perhaps if some people AROUND HERE, would not
> thread Hijack. At least change the subject line, since you have no
> regard to the original author's content. Just hanging your comments
> off other people's.
>
> This is such an annoying habit some of our members have Bloviating
> everywhere.
>
> Anthony, your welcome sir, vent away. The rest of you, invent your own
> posts.
Heh, I think yer onto something here. Perhaps in addition to warning
about top posting netiquette, lugnet should implement some sorta filter
that issues an alert whenever it recognises a thread hijack in progress.
Now that'd be cool! :^)
Don
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> ...and I hate how when a Post is made like this one, and out of the 14 current
> replies only TWO people actually replied on topic.
>
> I'll be number 3, yes, I agree, I was surprised at some of the banter on
> MOCpages. It seems to be abused by some people.
>
> On the first note, perhaps if some people AROUND HERE, would not thread Hijack.
> At least change the subject line, since you have no regard to the original
> author's content. Just hanging your comments off other people's.
>
> This is such an annoying habit some of our members have Bloviating everywhere.
>
> Anthony, your welcome sir, vent away. The rest of you, invent your own posts.
>
> e
As the self proclaimed king of bloviating (is amazing how you never hear a word
for many years and then twice in the same day, once in a West Wing Ep I just
watched and now here...)
Anyway, (thus reinforcing my bloviation), I only read the creators' description
and look at the pics at MOCpages--I rarely read the responses 'cause of the
previously mentioned idiotic posts. I'd much rather spend my time reading the
posts here at LUGNET.
More than that, when there's a 'free posting' system in place, you're going to
get the idiots. If there's a way to delete their offending posts, avail
yourself of those ways.
Dave K
-who was planning on adding some sort of posting system to his personal website,
but seeing as how that brings out the worst in posters, probably not going to
happen...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> > ...and I hate how when a Post is made like this one, and out of the 14 current
> > replies only TWO people actually replied on topic. • snip
> >
> > e
>
> As the self proclaimed king of bloviating (is amazing how you never hear a word
> for many years and then twice in the same day, once in a West Wing Ep I just
> watched and now here...)
>
> Anyway, (thus reinforcing my bloviation), I only read the creators' description
> and look at the pics at MOCpages--I rarely read the responses 'cause of the
> previously mentioned idiotic posts. I'd much rather spend my time reading the
> posts here at LUGNET.
>
> More than that, when there's a 'free posting' system in place, you're going to
> get the idiots. If there's a way to delete their offending posts, avail
> yourself of those ways.
>
> Dave K
> -who was planning on adding some sort of posting system to his personal website,
> but seeing as how that brings out the worst in posters, probably not going to
> happen...
See that's ok though, you get a free pass because you have a pin that says "I'm
from RTL". Plus you were a joy to meet in person and you always had a smile on
your face. You are a rare kind of person who feels free in expressing how you
feel. That is to be cherished. Self included, we just gotta help keep convo's on
topic to be all gentlemanly, or has that gone out of style?
Remember Mr. Bungle.
e - Sava Fan, btw, anyone who talks smack about Mr. Sava, why I'll beat their
whole LUG up.
and if you don't get that, you also need to meet me in person.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> ...and I hate how when a Post is made like this one, and out of the 14 current
> replies only TWO people actually replied on topic.
>
> I'll be number 3, yes, I agree, I was surprised at some of the banter on
> MOCpages. It seems to be abused by some people.
>
> On the first note, perhaps if some people AROUND HERE, would not thread Hijack.
> At least change the subject line, since you have no regard to the original
> author's content. Just hanging your comments off other people's.
>
> This is such an annoying habit some of our members have Bloviating everywhere.
>
> Anthony, your welcome sir, vent away. The rest of you, invent your own posts.
>
> e
And elsewhere in lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> e - Sava Fan, btw, anyone who talks smack about Mr. Sava, why I'll beat their
> whole LUG up.
>
> and if you don't get that, you also need to meet me in person.
Word, yo. Lookin out for the little guy. Eric Sophie, my man, my home boy,
home slice, slice of cake, piece of pie, can of carp, ying to my yang, fig to my
newton, lens to my cap, dead to my beat, theory to my relativity, and probably
the most misunderstood of the lot, the stud to my brick.
Yeah. I need to stop. I'm terrible at that. Really. REALLY. Terrible.
I don't mind getting highjacked too much. I mean, yes, it's inconsiderate, but
on an egotistical level it's a good thing. People are going to see this massive
thread that everyone keeps posting to, and the people seeing this thread will be
curious as to what started this explosion of posting, which would lead back to
my seed thread. If this were a MOC, then I could say that my new MOC was
getting a lot of extra attention. Of course it's not a MOC, so my public rant
is what is getting a lot of attention. At least this rant is getting a better
reception than most of my other rants. *cough* Scibrick *cough* July Surprise
*cough*
--Anthony "Foot so in my mouth I can kick myself in the backside" Sava
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> Now before you climb up onto your high horse, let me begin by saying I love
> MOCpages, and I think Sean Kenney is doing the community a great service.
>
> But I hate the users on MOCpages, at least a few of them.
I wonder if that includes "Ender Sava", who has left some classic pearls of
wisdom on at least one of my mocpages, and that of my buddy Ryan Rubino's. Is
he related to you?
<http://mocpages.com/moc.php/1808>
I'd put his comments on about the same level as that of Josh Jenkins. If he's
not your relative, obviously this observation is meaningless, I only suggested
it because on one of my MOCS he reference the fact that his brother was better
than I'd ever be. Pretty good smack for a youngster.
>
> Since I've joined, but over the last six months in particular, I've recieved
> bogus, vulgar, obscene and just plain idiotic reviews and ratings to the
> creations I have posted there. Granted, I'm not trying to claim that all my
> creations deserve high ratings or high praise, but some of these reviews are
> ridiculous.
Bogus, vulgar, obscene and idiotic...that is the beauty of Mocpages, or as I
like to call it Smack-Pages. Oh, but you forgot threatening....I've my share of
angry soccer-moms, and randoms who have actually threatened to do horrible
things to me. Now with my mocs and commentary I have to expect that as
something that comes with the territory. Still, even for your awesome, but
decidedly mellower mocs, I'd rather have a crazy-bobo once in a while, than the
same old glad-handing form-letters you get on lugnet sometimes, where criticism
is sometimes (sometimes) frowned upon. At least at MOCPages there are no
annoying Hall-Monitor types, high on their tiny slice of authority, who love to
disaprove of anything that doesn't fit their narrow interpretation of humor or
acceptability in general.
>
> An example of the most recent lousy review of mine, in my opinion:
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1695
>
> Well Mr. Josh Jenkins, it's MY cathedral and it's MY world that I've built. I
> don't care what your preconceived notion about what a Cathedral is and isn't,
> rate the model, not the idea.
>
> Well, ok, I'm just venting over that one. But...
Yeah, I think you are way off the mark on that review...he wasn't rude or
obscene or anything else you complained about above. If that review really
bothered you, you might want to re-think posting at all.
>
> Here are plenty of examples of bogus and possibly vulgar reviews on my Black
> Dragon's page:
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1682
>
> I've actually requested that several of "BOBO's" reviews be removed from several
> of my creations (which they have been) because they were just obscene.
>
> Another Bobo classic
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1686
>
> Oh look, it's Bobo. Fun.
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1683
Yes, clearly Bobo is an idiot, but as you correctly point out you can delete it.
I don't know...to me if you post a creation to the general public, you shouldn't
get bent out of shape about a comparatively small number of idiots who respond.
>
> Here's Josh again.
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1700
>
> Another pointless review, nice Job anyway to you too, Josh.
Anthony, again, you've got to grow a thicker skin with some of these guys. You
know your mocs are good, what do you care what this guy has to say? He even
says "nice job". I'd be willing to be that this review stayed with you longer
than "Great job Anthony, you've done it again!"
>
> So Sean, buddy, I'm not trying to cheapen your website, cause I really do think
> it's a great idea in theory. But would it be possible to impliment a membership
> requirement on reviewing and rating creations? Without accountability,
> anomynity allows for some serious abuses of the system.
No, Sean No...please keep MOCPages the last bastion of free Lego-related speech.
Please preserve this sanctuary for the creative, and the stupid. If not, people
like me, with a big mouth, questionable humor, and no web-related skills will be
silenced. Come on Sean, Lugnet corners the market on kid-friendly feel good
g-rated action, continue to give the people what they want.
>
> If people choose to review a creation without reading the description, or rank
> the MOC poorly because of personal problems with the builder, or just giving
> worthless reviews in general, I can live with things of that nature. That's
> just they way some people are.
>
> But people like Bobo need to be taken out.
Whoah...and they call me a nazi.
>
> It's free to join MOCPages, so it'd
> only be an inconvenience to those who already are members to review or rank a
> creation. But if you had to put your own name and profile attached to a review,
> I would bet it would deter the Bobos of the world, at least a little bit.
Again, noooooooo, don't throw any roadblocks to free speech...there is already
an effective system in place to deal with objectionable reviews. Let the smack
flow...bathe in it...revel in it...teacher, mother, secret lover.
-Keith (I love MOCPages) Goldman
BTW....I find it much more irritating that your thread has been so rudely
highjacked.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Keith Goldman wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> > But I hate the users on MOCpages, at least a few of them.
>
> I wonder if that includes "Ender Sava", who has left some classic pearls of
> wisdom on at least one of my mocpages, and that of my buddy Ryan Rubino's. Is
> he related to you?
> <http://mocpages.com/moc.php/1808>
> I'd put his comments on about the same level as that of Josh Jenkins. If he's
> not your relative, obviously this observation is meaningless, I only suggested
> it because on one of my MOCS he reference the fact that his brother was better
> than I'd ever be. Pretty good smack for a youngster.
Not to my knowledge. The direct relatives we're aware of are few and far
between. It's only until recently that we've been finding 'Sava's left and
right. There's actually a Sava who's a news reporter here in Houston (but no
relation).
>
> Bogus, vulgar, obscene and idiotic...that is the beauty of Mocpages, or as I
> like to call it Smack-Pages. Oh, but you forgot threatening....I've my share of
> angry soccer-moms, and randoms who have actually threatened to do horrible
> things to me. Now with my mocs and commentary I have to expect that as
> something that comes with the territory. Still, even for your awesome, but
> decidedly mellower mocs, I'd rather have a crazy-bobo once in a while, than the
> same old glad-handing form-letters you get on lugnet sometimes, where criticism
> is sometimes (sometimes) frowned upon. At least at MOCPages there are no
> annoying Hall-Monitor types, high on their tiny slice of authority, who love to
> disaprove of anything that doesn't fit their narrow interpretation of humor or
> acceptability in general.
True. Hall-Monitors could become a kill-joy. I must admit I enjoy reading your
copious Smack as much as I do looking at your incredible amount of grey...
*cough* I mean your awesome MOCs.
Off-Topic, I meant to comment on it before, and I apologize to you that I
didn't. Your Honjin Stronghold is a fantastic MOC, and has forced me to begin
collecting and hording massive amounts of old grey 1x2 grill bricks.
>
> Yeah, I think you are way off the mark on that review...he wasn't rude or
> obscene or anything else you complained about above. If that review really
> bothered you, you might want to re-think posting at all.
Bothered me? Perhaps. Annoying for sure. I got another one just today:
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/3506#reviews
I highly doubt anyone at LEGO charged with finding 'amazing' MOCs would post
something like that and expect to keep his job. Annoying.
> > Another Bobo classic
> > http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1686
> >
> > Oh look, it's Bobo. Fun.
> > http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1683
>
> Yes, clearly Bobo is an idiot, but as you correctly point out you can delete it.
> I don't know...to me if you post a creation to the general public, you shouldn't
> get bent out of shape about a comparatively small number of idiots who respond.
Ever since I posted this, I've been bombarded with a review, to each MOC Bobo
(written as BOBO from BOBOWORLD, BTW) reviewed, by someone named King Bob the
Boring (from KingBob Land). Aside from their nicknames and locations being
supsiciously similar in format, every review from King Bob mentions how much
Bobo is an idiot, or how he was a friend of King Bobs but now he's dead. I have
a feeling King Bob and Bobo are one in the same, and he's a Lugnetter, if not
simply a lurker.
> > Another pointless review, nice Job anyway to you too, Josh.
>
> Anthony, again, you've got to grow a thicker skin with some of these guys. You
> know your mocs are good, what do you care what this guy has to say? He even
> says "nice job". I'd be willing to be that this review stayed with you longer
> than "Great job Anthony, you've done it again!"
True, I shouldn't let it get to me. After getting Slashdotted and all the
lovely criticism I got from that, I suppose my defenses didn't get rebuilt. My
apologies to you, Josh.
> > But people like Bobo need to be taken out.
>
> Whoah...and they call me a nazi.
Tolerance is for the week! MWAHAHAHAHAH!
> >
> > It's free to join MOCPages, so it'd
> > only be an inconvenience to those who already are members to review or rank a
> > creation. But if you had to put your own name and profile attached to a review,
> > I would bet it would deter the Bobos of the world, at least a little bit.
>
> Again, noooooooo, don't throw any roadblocks to free speech...there is already
> an effective system in place to deal with objectionable reviews. Let the smack
> flow...bathe in it...revel in it...teacher, mother, secret lover.
>
> -Keith (I love MOCPages) Goldman
>
> BTW....I find it much more irritating that your thread has been so rudely
> highjacked.
The Smack is strong with this one. I tried talking Smack, oh Master, but I was
unable to do so. Everytime I've tried I end up sticking my foot in my mouth,
something I'm just exceedingly good at, and made a lot of enemies here on Lugnet
along the way. At least I can live vicariously through you and your antics.
You big... dumb... moron. Yeah.. How's that?
I'm tempted to just delete my MOCPage account and wash my hands of it, let all
you smack-talkers reign free. I already have a website on which to showcase my
MOCs, and I get enough smack from my weekly "You pathetic virgin with too much
time on your hands and still living in your parent's basement" emails I get
thanks to Slashdot. Silver lining: Used to be a daily email, felt like I had a
subscription. Yeah, it's giving up, letting them win. Ehh.. screw them.
You know, you do make a good point about free-speach, as I desperately try to
get back on topic. J. Spencer Rezkalla makes another good point about non-AFOLs
getting to review a MOC. I guess my suggestions conflict with the spirit of
MOCPages as much as those who post worthlessly do.
I'm just going to go crawl back into my little medieval world now. I think the
Black Falcons are getting too upitty, it's time the Crusaders squash their plans
for freedom and democracy once and for all.
--Anthony
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Anthony Sava wrote:
> http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/3506#reviews
>
> I highly doubt anyone at LEGO charged with finding 'amazing' MOCs
> would post something like that and expect to keep his job.
I think you can be quite sure it's not a person from Denmark writing that.
The grammar errors are not at all typical for Scandinavian languages.
Reminds me more of Russian, grammatically.
BTW, that castle is great! It makes me want to build one too, albeit a quite
smaller one...
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> So Sean, buddy, I'm not trying to cheapen your website, cause I really do think
> it's a great idea in theory. But would it be possible to impliment a membership
> requirement on reviewing and rating creations? Without accountability,
> anomynity allows for some serious abuses of the system.
I dunno know, I certainly don't approve of vulgarity, but I like the fact that
outsiders (non-AFOLs) can post reviews - even if they don't understand anything
about the genre. And I doubt non-AFOLs would be interested in registering for
it.
My Neon ACR model fell into the hands of the online Neon Enthusiast community
and was pummeled in both the MOCpages ratings and within their own online forum.
But I actually found it quite amusing and can certainly understand that my crude
6-wide model representation (despite my best efforts) could be viewed as just
that - crude.
I was also pleasantly surprised to discover a review the other day from my own
brother (also a non-AFOL). Of course that review was a nice one :)
Spencer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> So Sean, buddy, I'm not trying to cheapen your website, cause I really do think
> it's a great idea in theory. But would it be possible to impliment a membership
> requirement on reviewing and rating creations? Without accountability,
> anomynity allows for some serious abuses of the system.
I think Amazon handles problem reviews well (as they typically lead the Web
world in community & collaboration, IMO). Users browsing their sites see "Was
this review helpful to you? Yes/No" on all reviews, and there's a "Report This"
link as well. I don't know what their process is once you click the Report This
link, but it tabulates a score like "4 of 5 customers found this review to be
helpful" for each review based on the helpful votes.
One thing that Amazon does not do that I think is important for review quality
is to "soften" the overall customer rating of a product through weighting the
overall score tabulation by the helpful/nonhelpful ratio. For example, if a
4-star review has 31 of 33 helpful votes, that should count more than a 1-star
review with 1 of 22 helpful votes. There tend to be a lot of reviews
(especially of books dealing with controversial subjects) where some people
leave panning reviews and others leave glowing reviews, so the product gets a
mediocre score that reflects the good/bad ratio rather than high-quality
good/bad ratio.
Of course, Amazon is designed for mainly non-participatory feedback where the
author/creator of the work is uninvolved in the review process, and MOCPages is
for direct publication by the creator. It'd be good to get the creator involved
with the ability to comment on reviews. I've had some reviews where reviewers
had asked a question, and it would be nice to be able to directly respond to
them.
BTW, Sean, thanks for all your hard work with MOCPages. It's a great
contribution to the community.
Carl
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I agree totally, just look at some of these reviews:
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/4964
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/3826
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/3533
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/3550
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/3181
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/1248
I think we should have direct control of the reviews. Of course, this probally
would be abused by some of the page owners..
I love MOCpages, I hate poor reviewers!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Nathan Wells wrote:
Hey, just a little side note about the two reviews noting the title “Lord of the
LEGO” It is a rather presumptuous title. Are you really the Lord of the LEGO?
I can’t decide if its more or less presumptuous than “LEGOMASTER”
~Kevin
Supreme Intergalactic Ultimate LEGO Pope
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
| |
Supreme Intergalactic Ultimate LEGO Pope
|
Hey, who died and made you Pope?
++Lar (who has been known to hang with watery tarts, hoping for the best)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
| |
Supreme Intergalactic Ultimate LEGO Pope
|
Hey, who died and made you Pope?
++Lar (who has been known to hang with watery tarts, hoping for the best)
|
When the Supreme Intergalactic Ultimate LEGO Council of Bishops were deciding
who to make the next Supreme Intergalactic UItimate LEGO Pope, the choice was
obvious.
There was only one person Supreme enough.
There was only one person Intergalactic enough.
There was only one person Ultimate enough.
There was only one person LEGO enough.
There was only one person Pope enough.
And it was me.
~Kevin
Supreme Intergalactic Ultimate LEGO Pope
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Nathan Wells wrote:
snip
> Hey, just a little side note about the two reviews noting the title "Lord of
> the LEGO" It is a rather presumptuous title. Are you really the Lord of
> the LEGO?
>
> I can't decide if its more or less presumptuous than "LEGOMASTER"
I though we cleared that up. Why are you bagging on my old nic-name?
People gave it to me. Your always gonna have this animosity towards me.
Too bad really. Why can't you just let people be who they are. Your so
judgmental. How about for starters you reply back to my kind email asking why
you had to exemplify my Little Bot in your contest? Or try attacking me
directly. Or try this, ever give much thought to just saying hello to me?
F.O, KMA, U LS.
> `~Kevin ¬
> Supreme Intergalactic Ultimate LEGO Pope
e
BTW, this is not the first time, you have given Nathan a hard time either.
Congrats, you just made a troll post.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Nathan Wells wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Hey, just a little side note about the two reviews noting the title "Lord of
> > the LEGO" It is a rather presumptuous title. Are you really the Lord of
> > the LEGO?
> >
> > I can't decide if its more or less presumptuous than "LEGOMASTER"
>
> I though we cleared that up. Why are you bagging on my old nic-name?
> People gave it to me. Your always gonna have this animosity towards me.
> Too bad really. Why can't you just let people be who they are. Your so
> judgmental. How about for starters you reply back to my kind email asking why
> you had to exemplify my Little Bot in your contest? Or try attacking me
> directly. Or try this, ever give much thought to just saying hello to me?
>
> F.O, KMA, U LS.
Wow, I guess I should have added a " ;) " to the end of my post, as I originally
had it. It's just a light hearted poke, no real harm meant...
I have no problem with your friends calling you the LEGOMASTER, it is quite an
appropriate nick. It simply seems odd that the same nick would carry into a
world populated exclusively by people who share an interest in LEGO.
Anyway, I am sorry that you didn't see that I was joking, its almost sad.
Re: the email ... I wasn't aware you invented the word "bot", sorry for using it
without written consent.
Also, out of curiousity, what does "F.O, KMA, U LS" mean? The only things that
I can come up with are wildly inapporpriate for Lugnet.
> BTW, this is not the first time, you have given Nathan a hard time either.
> Congrats, you just made a troll post.
I consider Nathan a friend, we talk online regularly.
(Anyway) you rock.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> > > In lugnet.general, Nathan Wells wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > Hey, just a little side note about the two reviews noting the title "Lord of
> > > the LEGO" It is a rather presumptuous title. Are you really the Lord of
> > > the LEGO?
> > >
> > > I can't decide if its more or less presumptuous than "LEGOMASTER"
> >
> > I though we cleared that up. Why are you bagging on my old nic-name?
> > People gave it to me. Your always gonna have this animosity towards me.
> > Too bad really. Why can't you just let people be who they are. Your so
> > judgmental. How about for starters you reply back to my kind email asking why
> > you had to exemplify my Little Bot in your contest? Or try attacking me
> > directly. Or try this, ever give much thought to just saying hello to me?
> >
> > F.O, KMA, U LS.
>
>
> Wow, I guess I should have added a " ;) " to the end of my post, as I originally
> had it. It's just a light hearted poke, no real harm meant...
BS, you already bothered more than two people with your rude comments. Layoff
already. Quit your back peddling. You called me out now deal with it. Be a Man.
> I have no problem with your friends calling you the LEGOMASTER, it is quite an
> appropriate nick. It simply seems odd that the same nick would carry into a
> world populated exclusively by people who share an interest in LEGO.
Ya, thus your light hearted comments? You have some other stick in your craw.
> Anyway, I am sorry that you didn't see that I was joking, its almost sad.
Sad? I continue to detect an attitude. You call me out by name and I'm on your
ass. I stick up for myself. I have not come this far to take comments like yours
lightly anymore. Got something to say then discuss it. Your cheap shots are not
why I come here. Thanks alot.
If you did your home work, you'll see "I" left the nic name behind years ago.
When I first started to develope a public relationship with the Lego Company.
I have been and will always be from then on....Eric Sophie.
You and others can't look past that. The only current reference I have is on the
.mecha page. At least there I know I'm respected and people get the gag.
You made these exact comments before too both of us. Would you like me to dig up
the links.
> Re: the email ... I wasn't aware you invented the word "bot", sorry for using it
> without written consent.
Too bad you and your partner didn't have the balls to reply back.
Your cowarding until now demonstrates your lack of respect.
Additionally, you know as well as I that I am not implying ownership.
Again another cheap shot.
To the contrary, you are the ones trying to say what a bot is and what is not.
Who the heck gives a hoot. Lay off this BS.
> Also, out of curiousity, what does "F.O, KMA, U LS" mean? The only things that
> I can come up with are wildly inapporpriate for Lugnet.
Tell you what. I find out you or any one of the lot of malcontents that
circulates around here talks smack again you'll find out what it means.
> > BTW, this is not the first time, you have given Nathan a hard time either.
> > Congrats, you just made a troll post.
>
> I consider Nathan a friend, we talk online regularly.
Where I come from you act like that and expect to get punked.
> (Anyway) you rock.
Save it for a MOC.
e
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> [snip a lot]
Let's all just get along. Kev's here to have a good time; it's all in fun.
Don't you ever break your friends' balls?
--Bram
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> > [snip a lot]
>
> Let's all just get along. Kev's here to have a good time; it's all in fun.
> Don't you ever break your friends' balls?
> --Bram
k, I'll play. Though I might point out that any ball busting comes through a
mutual repsect and a trust when taking liberties with people's feelings.
We have to earn that first.
I rather we all get along too. I'll offer a shake. Make no mistake, from the
things I found out recently, there may be more confrontations comming in the
place and time of my choosing.
The days of back room smack talk should be over.
e
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
| |
Hey, just a little side note about the two reviews noting the title “Lord of
the LEGO” It is a rather presumptuous title. Are you really the Lord of
the LEGO?
I can’t decide if its more or less presumptuous than “LEGOMASTER”
~Kevin
Supreme Intergalactic Ultimate LEGO Pope
|
Hmm..odd how you don’t criticize my screenname at Classic-Castle.com, but you
bash me everytime I post on LUGNET.
My sceenname is a spoof of the Lord of the Rings - One Brick To Rule Them All,
One Ring To Rule Them All, get it? I’m not trying to be presumptuous.
This is another reason I don’t post to LUGNET much anymore, all this bashing
over screennames and such. At CC.com, members don’t give a damn if one’s name
is LORD-GOD-KING OF ALL MANKIND or something like that, we chat about LEGO and
have fun.
Anyway, sorry about hijacking this thread.
returns to lurking...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Nathan Wells wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
| |
Hey, just a little side note about the two reviews noting the title “Lord of
the LEGO” It is a rather presumptuous title. Are you really the Lord of
the LEGO?
I can’t decide if its more or less presumptuous than “LEGOMASTER”
~Kevin
Supreme Intergalactic Ultimate LEGO Pope
|
Hmm..odd how you don’t criticize my screenname at Classic-Castle.com, but you
bash me everytime I post on LUGNET.
My sceenname is a spoof of the Lord of the Rings - One Brick To Rule Them
All, One Ring To Rule Them All, get it? I’m not trying to be presumptuous.
This is another reason I don’t post to LUGNET much anymore, all this bashing
over screennames and such. At CC.com, members don’t give a damn if one’s
name is LORD-GOD-KING OF ALL MANKIND or something like that, we chat about
LEGO and have fun.
Anyway, sorry about hijacking this thread.
returns to lurking...
|
It’s also odd that I can’t joke around with my friends.
Nathan, I consider you a friend, we talk online regularly. We work together at
CC, remember?
I am beginning to feel that humour and free speech aren’t welcome here at Lugnet
anymore.
It seems Larry even got my humour, based on his reply, and no offense to him, he
doesn’t always get jokes ;)
~Just Plain Ole Kevin Again
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
| |
It’s also odd that I can’t joke around with my friends.
Nathan, I consider you a friend, we talk online regularly. We work together
at CC, remember?
|
Hey, sorry man, sometimes I just don’t get a joke unless someone has to put a
:-) at the end of the post (I can be pretty thick at times :D)
| |
I am beginning to feel that humour and free speech aren’t welcome here at
Lugnet anymore.
|
Same here...Either I don’t get joke, or no one gets mine...
I’m glad we’ve cleared all this up!
Now back to building!
;)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I agree. I've had to request removal of an obscene review before as well. Not
> only do lots of inane and often obscene reviews get posted, but a lot of >people
> post MOCs with no photos. That's oh so useful. Just looking at the first 2 >pages
> of new MOCs right now, well over half have no pictures.
>
> Oh well, that's the open internet for you. I think some sort of vetting or at
> least removal of posting priveledges is needed.
>
> Roy
Take a look at Joker's homepage: http://www.mocpages.com/home.php/1124
Not a single of his so called"MOC's" has a picture. Maybe I missed one but still
what's the point of making a page for it if there aren't any pictures??
Those two problems are the only things I don't like about MOCpages.
Andrew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
All:
Sorry for the late reply on this thread ... I was away for a long holiday
weekend.
The reviewing mechanism on MOCpages was meant to be that - for reviews. I
created it as a means for people to offer praise and/or constructive criticism.
Want to chat? Use LUGNET.
The reviews, unfortunately, have the ability to be mis-used as a chatroom or a
message board, which was not the intent. Many of the teens from BZpower.com or
the folks from here on LUGNET are used to a less static means of communication.
When "reviews" are written that clearly are not reviews, I delete them. You would be amazed at how many people just write things like "i can do better", or "you suck", or "legos? get a life", or even simply "where are the pictures". There were even a few rude things directed at Anthony Sava after his message here on LUGNET.
The root of the tension in this thread is a result of volume: I couldn't
possibly moderate every review - there are thousands of them. So, instead,
MOCpages automatically "holds" the reviews that it considers questionable (based
on a set of keyword matches and other criteria) and I review them myself every
few hours.
I delete the bad ones before you even see them... While I believe in the
preservation of free speech, I do not condone cowardly attacks in a community
built upon toys, lightheardedness, and creativity. Reviews that are indeed
"reviews" are then censored by removing vulgarity or slander before being made
public.
The moderation process was not up-and-running when MOCpages was new, so vulgar,
rude, and attacking reviews from a year ago might still be up there. Let me
know if you have them on your site and I will look into it.
I've considered granting MOCpages account holders the ability to delete these
reviews from their pages themselves, but (as someone here mentioned) I am afraid
that people would abuse this right. More importantly, it does not prevent the
hurt that can be done to a very young child when a someone comes in and vulgarly
insults their creations. ("Stop building, you are awful" is a popular theme in
a lot of reviews.) With that, MOCpages would become something that parents
disallow for their children. So, someone still needs to "pre screen" things.
Also, I won't "force" people to create MOCpages accounts just to write a review.
The most compelling reason is the one that Spencer pointed out -- many of the
people that visit MOCpages are not part of the LEGO community. They surf in via
Google, or from blogs and "cool site of the day" links. I wanted to create a
mechanism that does not shun "outsiders". ... and people will very rarely go
through a "registration" process unless they really want to or have to. And
most of the most sincere reviews come from people who don't know about our
little world.
So... I still maintain that if there are reviews that you want deleted, just
e-mail me and I'll look into it. I've already gone and deleted the offending
reviews mentioned in this thread (did I miss any?), and a few dozen bogus pages
that that "Joker" guy created the other day.
Oh, and as a side note, I wanted to thank the three people that donated to
MOCpages this weekend. http://www.mocpages.com/about/donors.php (I can only
assume the dontations were spurred by this thread, because I usually don't get
any.) I spend about $100 each month out-of-pocket to host MOCpages, and I
really appreciate when folks help out.
Sean
MOCpages Administrator
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Sean Kenney wrote:
| |
I’ve considered granting MOCpages account holders the ability to delete these
reviews from their pages themselves, but (as someone here mentioned) I am
afraid that people would abuse this right.
|
What about granting the ability to turn on and off the review mechanism
completely? Personally, though I’m gratified by praise for my MOCs, I really
could get along without the whole thing. People can still send feedback to a
contact addy if one leaves one. That’s true feedback IMO. Rude comments (that
are publicly displayed) are mostly for the amusement of the poster anyway.
Since there are always going to be jerks in the world, this type of system will
always be abused and exploited.
Besides, don’t you have better things to do with your time than to moderate (if
even to a small degree) idiots who don’t have anything nice to say? I’m
guessing “yes”:-)
.02,
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Sean Kenney wrote:
>
> > I've considered granting MOCpages account holders the ability to delete
> > these reviews from their pages themselves, but (as someone here mentioned) I
> > am afraid that people would abuse this right.
>
> What about granting the ability to turn on and off the review mechanism
> completely?
I like that idea-- it's always been an annoying bug in my mind that people will
abuse the voting/reviewing right by simply cleaning out their cookies and
voting/reviewing multiple times; hence boosting their favorite MOCs and (more
devastating) trashing those they don't like (often probably for personal
reasons).
As John suggested, allowing people to turn that off might be a nice feature for
people who are just looking to show off their MOC's.
Another possible soltuion might be to have "trusted votes/reviews" and "public
votes/reviews"-- so if you're logged in, your votes get counted towards the
"trusted" score rather than the "public" score. It might also cut down on your
moderation, since trusted reviews could conceivably require less scrutiny on
your part.
Another benefit of that is saving results. I've voted for a few MOC's (in fact I
remember in the earlier days of MOCPages when I noticed that only a few MOC's
had any votes I went through like 50 in a day)-- however since I travel from
computer to computer, and periodically lose cookies or switch browsers, all my
votes are lost as being 'mine'. It's always nice to see "MOC's you've rated 5/5"
or something like that, but without tying votes/reviews back to loginid's
(rather than just cookies), they're as temporal as my cookie file :(
And of course there's always the idea of outsourcing your moderation too, to
trusted people in the community. If nothing else, it might help cut down on your
review workload :)
DaveE
| | | | | | |
