|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: September 13, 2002 Reader Comments...
John, when a jackass comes along (you know, a jackass even bigger than me) and starts posting meaningless messages -- compare his IP address with that of previous posts. Ban the kiddie. Is WebWord on an Apache server? It would be super easy to block all access to specific IPs via htaccess. Posted by: Jack on September 14, 2002 01:48 AM
Jack, I disagree. I think people should only be banned if they cause offence or nuisance that is condemned by the majority of webworders after discussion. If someone is unable to express their argument without resorting to abuse or childish behaviour then it could just be that they are inarticulate. Maybe they have got something useful to say? However I generally only ever give a person one chance, then I would gladly get my can of whoop-ass spray, and use it mercilessly. Posted by: Mac on September 14, 2002 06:54 AM
"could just be that they are inarticulate" "get my can of whoop-ass spray, and use it mercilessly" Dang, and I was about to call you Gandhi, then you get all George W. on me. Posted by: Jack on September 14, 2002 09:46 AM
Sounds like "Kung Pao" (or Mr. Kung as he calls himself) to me. Jack, banning IP addresses works only for permanent connections. Dial-up users get randomly assigned IP addresses anyway. Posted by: MadMan on September 14, 2002 10:14 AM
Jack, I enjoy noise. It makes each signal seem so much better. (Just kidding.) Given the level of traffic on WebWord and the number of postings, there is no need to ban any person. Similarly, I've never removed any postings, except for one or two that were mistakes. For example, MadMan asked me to remove a posting once. Other than that, I say let people post what they want to post. Hell, how often do we stay on topic? Does it really matter? Posted by: John S. Rhodes on September 14, 2002 12:47 PM
MadMan, I'll bet many web designers, at least in the U.S., have cable or DSL -- and thus likely have static IPs. My simple rationale is that of all people who pay for fast access, it would seem likely that people who design for the medium would be willing to pay for speed. But if the kiddie is on dial-up, and he uses a local ISP (e.g., not AOL), he'd be easy to pick out from the crowd. John, a conversation that flows naturally from one topic to another is fine. Adults acting like kiddies is another. It troubles me that there are such people and that they design web pages. But on the other hand, I'm sure there are always job openings on Sesame Street (but I hear that Oscar's cubicle stinks up the whole office). Posted by: Jack on September 14, 2002 03:13 PM
First Rule of
Hee hee - that was a good one, Mick. And also right on target. Sometimes people mistake opinion for fact because we don't always take the time to write "In my opinion" before stating things. When you post as frequently as regulars (like Jack, MadMan, and Mac) this is bound to trip you up sometime. I remember one particular instance of being surprised by a really nasty comment MadMan got once about being too arrogant. I chalk this up to the "IMO" syndrome. Confidence is not arrogance, and readers can take or leave advice and opinion as they will. No one is forcing anyone to agree. My personal policy on web surfing is to mentally insert the words "in my opinion" before everything I read, unless the author is quoting sources. This makes things much more pleasant. Banning doesn't work. It just makes people find another way to come back. Best is just to ignore people who can't (or won't) live and let live. Posted by: Lydia on September 16, 2002 04:17 PM
The new rules for webword John? 1.: Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Daniel, But then we'll have to watch out for Farmer Jones and his dynamite. Posted by: Alan Fisher on September 19, 2002 04:42 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |
