Gregory's Server@mo I don't want to. It makes me angry that there's no proper tooling around this.
|
72 comments
 1. Polytrees (which is basically what I propose here) are still directed and acyclic, so looping is completely irrelevant here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytree 2. I don't care about technicalities at this point. 3. Some don't but may be some do. I do. But yes, the UI will need to accomodate, somewhat, but I'm sure we can figure something out 4. This is actually a way to *avoid* hellthreads, and avoid parroting the same points all the time.  @drq @drq also: your suggestion is not a polytree. Like, on the image from wiki, nothing stops G to be reply to both D and E @mo Nothing stops, but they aren't. Some messages are not replies to some other messages, you know. @drq on the pic — arent. But there could be such thread if multireply is implemented @drq how would you render such a mess if they will? @mittorn Basically, joining two adjacent threads into one down the line. Yes, that's what I want. @BigFoxBoss We already have abilities and opportunities to mention a shitton of people at once, so it's a wash. Also, I already answered to how 3 will work under the hood. @BigFoxBoss By linking to a collective memory of people who already had this conversation. @BigFoxBoss In places where moderation is alive, yes, I expect some decency of people. Where it isn't, well... They can do pretty much whatever. @BigFoxBoss No, I expect the moderation to fend off spammers and trolls who would abuse a feature (any feature).  @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo we do not have such amount of moderation. Why add potentially harmful features? Or you want use some AI for moderation like big corps? @mittorn Uh... We're already doing this. I mean, moderate abusers. @drq @mittorn @mo Bringing up a previously discussed topic or getting someone to reiterate a point previously stated is abuse or what? Spammers and feature abusers are an entirely different beast. > Bringing up a previously discussed topic or getting someone to reiterate a point previously stated is abuse or what? No, why? I'm talking about cases as described in: https://masturbated.one/@mittorn/112525266945060081 > Spammers and feature abusers are an entirely different beast. No they aren't. Spammers abuse technology to send spam. @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo this might be useful with premoderation, but not with postmoderation @BigFoxBoss Uhhh... those are separate topics, so... nothing? > Different not from each other, but different from people who may talk about a topic previously discussed or have a point being reiterated by someone Yes, and that's a very clear distinction, the latter are just talking, and the former use automated tools to send as much as possible, what's the question, again? @BigFoxBoss I already told you: by allowing reference. The number of "platinum threads" will be reduced, at least. Yes, threads will be bigger, they will be more long-lived, but there will be fewer of them. @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo so you just need reference tool, not multi-reply @mittorn Allowing reference as reply, gosh darn it. Do I have to reiterate everything in every post? @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo you asked for multiple entities in replyTo, not references and said that you do not want references (i do not want to search this post in so big thread now) @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo but it is not just a reference, but graph connection. And you asked to use not just single-root directional tree, so you wanted to change main graph @mittorn How is it "not just a reference"? It points to a previous point in conversation, semantically linking it with the current one. Which is almost textbook definition of a reference. @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo nobody will read big threads. Maybe, 2-3 doomscrollers, but anyway it is very few @drq @mittorn @mo I also told you if basic FAQ doesn't alleviate support centers from silly questions and squabble, then this feature is unlikely to prevent further dramas. @BigFoxBoss Well, if someone is being irrational to the point of being annoying, that's what's moderation for. @BigFoxBoss I would ban anybody being sufficiently annoying and abusive, no matter how they do it. @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo you want to introduce tooling that allows flood in almost semi-automate way @mittorn 2. We overhauled protocols in 2017. We can fucking do it again. 3. Up to the implementer, I guess. We can have an option to show additional parents or not, I think. 1. Well, this is not really a loop, is it. The graph still goes in one direction. Rendering is another question entirely, it may be up to the implementer. Maybe someone will actually build a graph view instead of linear feed. Who knows. The options are there, earlier you even suggested a few. 2. Everything breaks eventually. Ostatus broke. So will AP. |
@drq @mo @BigFoxBoss so we need tooling for this, not multireply