Wow a pre-existing Bug & Test group!

I don’t know the pw yet.  group Test    pondering
ipH2SO4

Tags

  1. old bugs

Comments


Mark de LA says
Mark@mark 2015-12-24 09:31:32 [item 19368#39069]
Wow the group statement doesn’t parse.

Si says
there were a lot of old groups beginning with a like group aaaaaaj maybe or something. There are some I forgot the pwds of also like group bearded-clam or something like that. Can we not delete a group ourselves?
Not if you don’t know the password. And even if you do that would give one group member total annihilation power on a whim. Seems a bit much to me. Should be moderated somehow.

Seth says
seth 2015-12-24 10:07:30 [item 19368#39071]
wizzard do you want me to reset the password for that group for you?
Mark@mark 2015-12-24 10:26:31 [item 19368#39072]
not really.  I figured it out.  It probably will end up an archived group or deleted.
seth 2015-12-24 10:31:33 [item 19368#39074]
okay

…. the  group administrators ability to delete a group is certainly on our “feature wish list” here …. woops, nobody will find such a wish in a mere comment.
nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 13:30:46 [item 19368#39094]
5 nickels.
seth 2015-12-24 13:34:30 [item 19368#39096]
make it so wizzard
nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 13:43:50 [item 19368#39103]
yes Now tracked in the Nickel Bank.
like

Si says
there were a lot of old groups beginning with a like group aaaaaaj maybe or something. There are some I forgot the pwds of also like group bearded-clam or something like that. Can we not delete a group ourselves?
seth 2015-12-24 13:41:55 [item 19368#39102]
wait for it … wait for it ...
I was talking about right now. I don’t think you can remove the group data from the database now. One can delete all items slowly though … see [title clam] .
ok i understand … but personally i am waiting for when i can do it myself.
nathan@fbi 2015-12-24 13:59:05 [item 19368#39113]
Brings up the point that the group hide feature should really be a group archive feature, which I can make it. But ability to view archived groups and unarchive them would be extra Nickels. 5 Nickels only makes them go away to oblivion or an archive.
is “group hide” the same thing as putting all the subjects in the group in it’s back room?
No. Group archive would literally transfer the group and all it’s items, (real items, not just subjects, so that would include subjects, comments, tags), to an archive. Back room is just a tag with a little display magic.

Seth says
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:09:01 [item 19368#39205]
Things “curated” by administrators & owned/created by others should not be deleted without due notice to the owner/creator.pondering
well in this domain there has been very little, if any, curating by wizzard … and i intend to keep it that way.   the wizzard does actively curate several groups here and that is as it should be.

the only thing i know that could be called “owned/created by others” would be comment threads.   any group member has the allowance to delete these now (i presume) unless nathan changed that.  there is a way that a foreigner could delete another foreigners’s comment by possessing the train and then deleteing it, i suppose.  that should be up to discussion.

Seth says
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 08:49:21 [item 19368#39198]
wizzard it would help others look at the river if people would curate their blogs.  for example putting stuff in back room if it is no longer of interest, and/or hiding comments, and or making things private that are not of any public interest. 
nathan@fbi 2015-12-26 08:54:22 [item 19368#39199]
As much as I agree with proper curation, the default system here probably needs a complete overhaul. People shoudn’t have to do extra things to blog normally … which “blog normally” needs to be defined obviously.  
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 09:01:26 [item 19368#39201]
i agree … needs an overhawl ...

… but am not sure how it can be automated … i don’t want the computer putting things out of my awareness … please ma, i want to do it myself … er, unless the computer is very very sure it won’t piss me off.
nathan@fbi 2015-12-26 09:21:06 [item 19368#39211]
Obviously when you are just seth (seth@seth) for instance, you would always have full access to everything and equally in any group. These particular kind of defaults would only apply to rivers and plublic news.
yes … well that makes sense.   … looking forward to seeing how that would feel.

Si says
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:09:01 [item 19368#39205]
Things “curated” by administrators & owned/created by others should not be deleted without due notice to the owner/creator.pondering
nathan@fbi 2015-12-26 09:18:34 [item 19368#39209]
There are exceptions, both in regards to people, and in regards to context. For instance, I just deleted your comment about there not being tags on an item because that was a transient condition which went away as I finished saving files and was not relevant. As developer, I reserve the right to curate comments relating to development and also change content where a bug interfered with something coming out right on someone’s post etc.
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 09:21:07 [item 19368#39212]
like
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:29:18 [item 19368#39215]
I am talking about censorship, not technical triage. I wonder pondering how popular facebook would be if self-appointed censors could delete eachother’s posts. surprise
I have no idea what you are referencing. First, Facebook does have exactly that kind of censorship. Myself and others I know have been censored for a variety of reasons and they have legal blrubs about what is allowed. Second, who is censoring or talking about censoring here? Third, there has been a censor feature here for a long time, but it only makes posts private. It does not delete them.

Si says
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:09:01 [item 19368#39205]
Things “curated” by administrators & owned/created by others should not be deleted without due notice to the owner/creator.pondering
nathan@fbi 2015-12-26 09:18:34 [item 19368#39209]
There are exceptions, both in regards to people, and in regards to context. For instance, I just deleted your comment about there not being tags on an item because that was a transient condition which went away as I finished saving files and was not relevant. As developer, I reserve the right to curate comments relating to development and also change content where a bug interfered with something coming out right on someone’s post etc.
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 09:21:07 [item 19368#39212]
like
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:29:18 [item 19368#39215]
I am talking about censorship, not technical triage. I wonder pondering how popular facebook would be if self-appointed censors could delete eachother’s posts. surprise
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 09:37:06 [item 19368#39218]
mark i don’t think that is what is being proposed here at all.

we are talking about hiding from public places … not deleting.  and my proposal is that people do it naturally of their own accord …. not that it would be done by a domain censor. 

… that said … when we get to many people and groups in the same domain, there will be diversity and static that will detract from the domain focus … should that exist.   You see, this is not being proposed as the next big Facebook jumble … but rather as a way for us to focus.
like

Si says
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:09:01 [item 19368#39205]
Things “curated” by administrators & owned/created by others should not be deleted without due notice to the owner/creator.pondering
nathan@fbi 2015-12-26 09:18:34 [item 19368#39209]
There are exceptions, both in regards to people, and in regards to context. For instance, I just deleted your comment about there not being tags on an item because that was a transient condition which went away as I finished saving files and was not relevant. As developer, I reserve the right to curate comments relating to development and also change content where a bug interfered with something coming out right on someone’s post etc.
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 09:21:07 [item 19368#39212]
like
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:29:18 [item 19368#39215]
I am talking about censorship, not technical triage. I wonder pondering how popular facebook would be if self-appointed censors could delete eachother’s posts. surprise
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 09:40:08 [item 19368#39221]
mark i don’t think that is what is being proposed here at all.

we are talking about hiding from public places … not deleting.  and my proposal is that people do it naturally of their own accord …. not that it would be done by a domain censor. 

… that said … when we get to many people and groups in the same domain, there will be diversity and static that will detract from the domain focus … should that exist.   You see, this is not being proposed as the next big Facebook jumble … but rather as a way for us to focus.   so what happens when discordant energies sring up?  is the domain to just try to ignore them?  … or does it have a way to better focus?
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 10:13:15 [item 19368#39226]
Depends upon the meaning of the word discordant ! One could arrange that items start out as private & groups are private & participation in a group is by invitation only & can be revoked by the group creator. 
discordant can also mean/be anything that does not agree with one’s ego 
I am less worried about discordant material than stuff that is a waste of time reading that shows up over & over after I have even read it twice.  Wizzards should be able to figure out how to make that not happen with some kind of hide feature. thumbs up
seth 2015-12-26 10:25:29 [item 19368#39228]
well i think we can imagine a whole slew of setting and defaults that flow and enforce the roles domains , groups, and people.   so when that is happening here, me thinks your concerns will be well addressed.

I think when, in any of those hierarchies, that too much discordance prevails, then there is provocation for a cell division.   Since thingys have motility in this media, the trauma of such should be minimal … and will help us grow smug

So, i don’t think we have too much discordance in fastblogit yet … but when we do, what will you call your new domain … http://icyberspace.net ?
like

Si says
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:09:01 [item 19368#39205]
Things “curated” by administrators & owned/created by others should not be deleted without due notice to the owner/creator.pondering
nathan@fbi 2015-12-26 09:18:34 [item 19368#39209]
There are exceptions, both in regards to people, and in regards to context. For instance, I just deleted your comment about there not being tags on an item because that was a transient condition which went away as I finished saving files and was not relevant. As developer, I reserve the right to curate comments relating to development and also change content where a bug interfered with something coming out right on someone’s post etc.
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 09:21:07 [item 19368#39212]
like
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 09:29:18 [item 19368#39215]
I am talking about censorship, not technical triage. I wonder pondering how popular facebook would be if self-appointed censors could delete eachother’s posts. surprise
seth@fbi 2015-12-26 09:40:08 [item 19368#39221]
mark i don’t think that is what is being proposed here at all.

we are talking about hiding from public places … not deleting.  and my proposal is that people do it naturally of their own accord …. not that it would be done by a domain censor. 

… that said … when we get to many people and groups in the same domain, there will be diversity and static that will detract from the domain focus … should that exist.   You see, this is not being proposed as the next big Facebook jumble … but rather as a way for us to focus.   so what happens when discordant energies sring up?  is the domain to just try to ignore them?  … or does it have a way to better focus?
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 10:13:15 [item 19368#39226]
Depends upon the meaning of the word discordant ! One could arrange that items start out as private & groups are private & participation in a group is by invitation only & can be revoked by the group creator. 
discordant can also mean/be anything that does not agree with one’s ego 
I am less worried about discordant material than stuff that is a waste of time reading that shows up over & over after I have even read it twice.  Wizzards should be able to figure out how to make that not happen with some kind of hide feature. thumbs up
nathan@fbi 2015-12-26 10:20:40 [item 19368#39227]
Old shit doesn’t happen. If it’s in the river or the news it is new since you last cleared, unless someone very deliberately re-posted it for your viewing pleasure. Perhaps you are thinking of how things worked yesterday or long ago. Or perhaps you are re-reading inside comment threads, and if so, that’s your business.
seth 2015-12-26 10:34:07 [item 19368#39230]
like
Eiammyme@mark 2015-12-26 11:06:34 [item 19368#39237]
I read this about half an hour ago – IT IS OLD SHIT!
FOAD!!!! MF!!

See Also

  1. Thought An Oldie but a Goodie with 0 viewings related by tag "old bugs".