Please sign and share the petition 'Tighten regulation on taking, making and faking explicit images' at Change.org initiated by Helen Mort to the w:Law Commission (England and Wales) to properly update UK laws against synthetic filth. Only name and email required to support, no nationality requirement. See Current and possible laws and their application @ #SSF! wiki for more info on the struggle for laws to protect humans.
Talk:Board vote code
- I was very annoyed about that. The problem was that Hashar decided our code would be more efficient if we used single quotes everywhere instead of double quotes. So he converted the whole code base and uploaded the new code immediately, and in the process randomly broke features everywhere. The voting feature was broken such that it would get a fatal PHP error on submission, and return a blank page. It did this for everyone who attempted to vote, for maybe a day or two. I was angry, because I knew would damage the credibility of the vote and of my software. This is in my opinion a strong argument in favour of having the vote conducted on a separate secure server with a static code base.
- The bug was fixed shortly after it was reported, and Danny and Imran decided not to extend the voting period. They did this without influence from me. -- Tim Starling 16:46, 27 Jun 2004 (EEST)
This comment from an edit on board vote code was probably more interesting as a summary than the article itself: "1. who cares who runs Wikimedia, it's crooked 2. it's who gets to vote that's the main issue 3. ordinary people can't audit this mess 4. vandals and libellers control the code"
- Isn't it more correct to call this the "MediaWiki approval vote" feature?
Moved from article by Juxo
- That's your story. It could be a cover story. He is certainly your ally in developer vigilantiism (huge IP range blocks affecting whole cities simply to prevent challenge to the Sysop Vandal point of view) though he is prone to libel and so far you are not. --142.177.X.X
Look, [name deleted], just because two people hate you doesn't mean they are co-conspirators. Erik and I are quite different in most respects, however we share the ability (along with most humans) to spot an asshole when we see one. The reason you are harassed wherever you go is because you actively work to make people angry, not because the people you attack are all part of a vast conspiracy to suppress what you have to say. -- Tim Starling 05:03, 29 Jun 2004 (EEST)
- To say "you actively work to make people angry" is to practice amateur psychiatry. To attach names to anonymous parties is probably libel and is at best unwise (and deleted to keep the Consumerium Governance Organization out of trouble). To assert "the reason" is to claim God's Eye view. And "not because the people you attack are all part of a vast conspiracy" is probably more applicable to this theory that all the trolls are one person;
- It's my opinion, idiot. Not amateur psychiatry or a pronouncement of absolute truth from a "God's Eye view". You ascribe motives to me, I ascribe motives to you. This is not psychiatry, just ordinary human interaction. -- Tim Starling 05:56, 1 Jul 2004 (EEST)
- Bullshit. In "ordinary human interaction", you cannot gag and remove someone without serious physical consequences, like risking your own life and limb. Your sysopism lets you simultaneously claim you have "community" and behave in ways that no community would survive if it let people get away with.
- What makes Tim Starling and Erik Moeller the same? amateur psychiatry, libel, God's Eye view, and assumption that alleged and collective identity can be somehow determined by their own personal emotions, which are very very damaged.
- You accuse me of "amateur psychiatry" and go on to say that my personal emotions are "very very damaged"? Well that's an interesting diagnosis, [speculation deleted] Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You claim you are not the same person as EoT? Not everyone surfs the Internet with a souped up Commodore 64, you know. -- Tim Starling 05:56, 1 Jul 2004 (EEST)
- Trolls deliberately obscure and diffuse identity, and you know that. The assertion of damage has more to do with your own hypocrisy, especially this idea that "normal human interaction" consists of technological escalation without taking personal risk. Presumably you vote for those who bomb from 10,000 metres too!
- If you fail to have even this degree of self-reflection, you are just stupid. This is of course no surprise to the trolls, who will eventually eliminate you from any position of trust or responsibility in any serious project.
- Your delusions of grandeur are extraordinary. You really think you're going to lead an empire of trolls who will control every serious project in the world? -- Tim Starling 05:56, 1 Jul 2004 (EEST)
- Depending on who "you" is, yes, of course. We will not "control" anything but we will of course controll it, and your own stupid reactionary behaviour will be the instrument by which we will always be able to do so! But trolls do not make empires, rather, they make nests and tribes and other such primitive anti-civilization stuff.