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 Mithrandir24601
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #276507 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What help pages need to be written? As I write this answer to say that there's nothing I can think of, I see there's an option for me to pick the license I want to use for this post. Aside from the fact that the category and site defaults are CC BY-SA 4.0, I'm not really sure what these licenses are effectively for or what the actua... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276209 |
N is just some constant, yep. My *opinion* on the timescale thing is that it doesn't matter if someone rarely edits, as long as they're consistently good at it, while someone who had a bad string of edits to start with, but improves, will see a gradual increase in score. Maybe your idea of 'last X nu... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276209 |
@Zerotime The formatting, font size etc. would need to be improved, but [here's a link to another one](https://meta.codidact.com/uploads/gxZrzk7PFTimHAgpwBgqNFYQ) (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276209 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #276209 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
Scoring System for Trust Level Requirements Currently, we're planning to implement a system for user privileges based on Trust Levels. These are of the form of 'if you satisfy [these requirements], you get [these perks]', where [[these requirements]](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RzHFAHEm2XEnUpkNVocAOHw5MNi3ABD8FxIIuTpLnM/edit#gid... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275797 |
I do like the sound of 'future science', as long as it doesn't imply that 'this science will definitely be true in the future'. Still better than speculative science though... 'Futuristic science'? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275779 |
I can't confirm this is what's actually happened (which is why I'm not answering and am instead commenting) but an upvote on a question-type post is usually 5, upvote on answer-type 10, so is it possible that you've had e.g. 1 answer upvote, 1 question upvote and 2 downvotes (at 2 each?)? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75020 |
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is the same as yours - we're legally allowed to do such a thing under the CC license. Having said that, if someone actually wants their posts removed, I'd perhaps suggest to them that actually asking us (um, yes, at least 'not rudely') is the way to go about the p... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74943 |
I could imagine that really nice speculative questions about weapons exist, but this is me (... yes, I've looked at the physical mechanics of swords before) and there are a few on WB that stray at least *close* to 'speculative science' (underwater weaponry?), so of all the tags in this list, that'd b... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74934 |
We have a lot of ideas, just because I didn't list them all doesn't mean they don't exist and to be honest, I felt frustrated and mocked enough at seeing phrases like "Oh dear, here we go again" that I had no wish to continue the discussion (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74934 |
@MaskedMan I believe you're referring to me... And that's not what I was saying, which was that we had ideas for dealing with things like downvote piling, of which *getting rid* of rep *entirely* is *one*. I used the phrase "getting rid of rep", so I'd appreciate people not misrepresenting what I sai... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74907 |
What about something such as 'referenced [speculative science] Q&A'? Point being that a hard science answer should have actual scientific references, but this might make it confusing for ex. non-scientists who think Wiki counts as a reference? I don't like 'rigorous Q&A' as different people have diff... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74870 |
All the changes we're planning on making to how we do stuff differently to SO aren't finished, we've barely *started*. On downvotes, we have ideas (both on the superficial 'this is what you see' and the fundamental 'how does getting rid of rep change how downvoting is viewed?' levels) on how to try a... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #39445 |
@MonicaCellio [how do I reply/ping here?] Seems reasonable to me - it's not like I was panicking or anything about meta meta not being used, it was just a random thought that might/might not have been any good really :) (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #39445 |
What about using the codidact meta meta site for questions about qpixel, while codidact meta would be more about the future site that will be Codidact? Is that too much/too confusing/putting boundaries where there doesn't need to be any? (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next →