Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Activity for Lorenzo Donati
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #282833 |
I say it again, to be completely clear, I have no problem with you criticizing my bringing up the topic. We can discuss that.
I have some problems with your stated reasoning behind that criticism. Because it seems to me that you use SE network as a paragon stone for how we should behave here, and ... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282833 |
What I criticized in your comment was the sentence I quoted. And I quoted it to focus just *on that very sentence* and the attitude that transpires from it.
You add to that (apparently in the same vein):
*"Doing so is not tolerated on SO so I don't see why it should be tolerated here."*. May I a... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282833 |
Moreover, I think humor goes a long way to deescalate things in a community. It also helps *building a community*. The title in my post should have made it clear, since it was meant as an ironic rebuttal of the profile description in question.
"*Discussing individual users on a public meta...*" I... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282833 |
Disciplinary action? I'm not really sure there is a clear basis for mod intervention without Olin Lathrop chiming-in. Since, technically, you can't "prosecute" irony and sarcasm "in the name of the powers that be". Besides, I'm neither trying to bully people nor to organize lynch mobs, which you seem... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282833 |
About my lack of mod experience on the web, you are right. However, when I wrote that post I didn't see any *severe* problem about that profile. Irony and sarcasm is an old way to display dissent, and was allowed even under the most tyrannical rulers (court jesters anyone?!?). I think the ultimate ju... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277961 |
Moreover, dangerous doesn't mean automatically *not working* or *flawed*, but it's a good indication that whoever is doing that must really know what they are doing.
Putting a clear "Danger! Don't try this unless you are knowlegeable because it involves considerable risks!" is a good way for peop... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277961 |
In EE there are things that can be deemed dangerous right-away by an expert. Ofc. there are borderline cases. However, for example, if someone posted a design for a mains-powered linear lab power supply without short circuit protection and without a fuse on mains side, that would be obviously a dange... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277968 |
Something like 2. and 3. didn't work on SE (or the beginning of SO, IIRC; ). Forcing people to fill fields when they are in a hurry will lead to lot of `wqweqekj` comments. It is a feature just asking for clutter. Comments should always be optional, IMO. (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282808 |
*"answer "acceptance" is broken on SE"* I agree completely. (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282808 |
@#8046 Yep. I hope we get to have a relevant traffic in the future. If the network get to "lift off" we should think of mechanisms to keep that from happening (too many times). Probably that's unavoidable once you get past some number of users. Maybe keeping the ratio "active reputable users"/"cluele... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282808 |
And the irony is, on rare occasions, the *wrong* answer was accepted instead of blatant evidence mine was the right one (with high-rep users commenting on my answer highlighting the fact)! Of course the accepted answer was upvoted even more. On EE that was somewhat manageable. I stopped completely pr... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282833 |
About `staff doesn't need input from random users about their "opinions" on the matter.`. I beg to disagree. **The whole CoDidact project started because someone in the StackExchange company thought users had no say in things.** I would be very wary to contribute if we start building the same toxic e... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282833 |
Strictly speaking, that wasn't impersonating (except for the photo). And it was evident that the user intent wasn't to impersonate Olin Lathrop. So I didn't find something blatantly against the rules (since the stuff is in the profile description). (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282808 |
I've got a couple of high-score answers on EESE that were well researched and thought-out, but really basic stuff, and they got tons of votes. OTOH I've got some other answers I was very proud of that were really tricky to iron out (with obscure research references and a lot of effort put into them)... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282808 |
Yes, just today I was reading the help about how the score is calculated. I was a bit puzzled by how my rep was changing (I'm a bit spoiled by the scale of numbers of SE :-).
Once I read about that scoring formula all was clear, and the more I experience it the more I like it. Of course rep numbers ... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282810 |
@#8046 Thanks for pointing that out, Monica! I already feared I had to use the chat to get things moving. Please, don't get me wrong, I know that some people appreciate a chat as a quick interaction method, but it's really not my thing. Among other things, I hate being compelled to reply in real time... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #281378 |
@#8046 Yes. I agree that being able to weigh-in on a post-by-post basis is *much* better. I had thought of it, but I didn't suggest it because I thought it might be more difficult to implement: you must change the interface of the site, then probably define a new ability (or set of abilities) that al... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #282810 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #282810 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #282810 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279384 |
@#8046 When you implement the payment thing maybe you could create a page listing all contributors (on an opt-in basis) as well as a "total contributions received" page. This could help further sponsorships and convince people to donate. (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282810 |
"And, he didn't do anything wrong.", well, depending on jurisdiction using an image of another person without permission may be an issue (legally speaking).
Maybe I should have posted on the specific site's meta, but I've only become active here recently and SE network workflow is still too ingra... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #281378 |
It achieves sort of what bounties did on SE network, but without all the "market" thing (i.e. "rep as money that changes hands"), and less intrusive (e.g. a high-rep vote can only weigh max 4 times more a "regular" one, decreasing quickly when the low-rep user rises above some rep level). (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #281378 |
This could be an increasing function of the difference (or the ratio) between the reps of the voter and the poster at the time of vote (if feasible), so that a high rep users' vote could weigh much more toward a low rep user. To avoid sectarianism, this could be implemented only for positive votes, s... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #281378 |
The problem of some good answers being dwarfed by "fastest" or "funniest" ones could be mitigated by allowing the votes of high rep users to weigh more.
I understand that at the early stages of a site this could be disrupting and create "self-amplification" effects. However, when a site matures an... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282810 |
@MarkGiraffe I'm fairly new to this site (at least activity-wise) and didn't know a chat was implemented.
Besides that, I hate chats in general (various reasons) and don't use them. *Ever*. I find the multi-way real-time interaction problematic for me (various reasons).
Anyway I thought that M... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #282810 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #282810 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
Please, don't kill Olin Elthrop! I just found this user Olin Elthrop and read the profile description. I felt like I had to report it, since it may be considered trolling or insulting against another user Olin Lathrop (a high-rep user and a mod on EECo). But, really, it's such a beautifully crafted piece of ironic writing (an... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #282808 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #282808 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #282808 | Initial revision | — | almost 3 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Why is there a rep system in Codidact? I largely agree with the answer of Olin Lathrop, but I'd like to put things in a slightly different perspective. We need a rep system, even if it is not ideal, especially on technical/scientific sites. Why? Because Internet is what it is and no one is forced to reveal its true identity. Reputa... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next →