Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Sorry. :p I just woke up (7am here in Oz) and read the first 20 pages or so and got disgusted at what I read so I just posted. I can only assume the damage has already been done.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

why are you speculating about the past then? that is something I dont get. it is easy to stick with the past -tone (as witnessed by jakiman imo).


where are your arguments? I think I argumented my version pretty well. I see zero valid counter-arguments here. "Little harsh" isn't one. yes this thread is more than little harsh, but with those words this thread probably would never appeared here anyway. that harshness is called risk&reward. when risk is high enough, there is no need for monitoring even because even with near zero probability the risk is unbearable and reward is really small anyway.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

There were valid counterarguments ossipena, particularly the matter of your suggestion being disproportionate to the crime.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Yay Defensive...

Anyway.

I was saying it's harsh telling people that if create a duplicate account they'll get permanently banned for all eternity with no hope of recovery.

So, assume for a minute I create an account with an email and never get activation or what have you.. either they or my email system is FUBAR'd at that time, and after a day or two I think maybe something is broke and so I create another one. I just created a duplicate.. should I get run out of the community before I even start?

Simply create a rule that says not to create duplicate accounts. That's all that's needed... punishment and/or criteria for what to do when people break the rules would be handled in a separate area, IMHO.

ETA: Plus what Tex said... Punishment <> Crime.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

i can't draw a line from "a little harsh" to that even how hard I try. what others were there then?

lets argument my solution further

1. why would one ever need two accounts?
2. how would punishment influence the will to create two accounts? (spoiler: the harder the punishment, ....)
3. who defines the proportions?
3.1 must the general tmo guidelines about multiaccount punishments be followed? really? those are for chitchatting, not software QA.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

you don't know how to send an email?

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

*sigh*

I can see this isn't going to get anywhere....

Please.. continue telling people they should be de-handed for swiping some bubble gum from a corner market.. I won't stop you.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I thought it would come to that by your original replies..... so I wont bother anymore because this is frustrating when you only keep dodging.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

There must be some community discussion in every case. I think we can agree that:

Developer A bypasses the QA system to make money faster is bad.
Developer B bypasses the QA system to steal passwords is much worse.
Developer C bypasses the QA system to brick devices is even worse.

Do they all get the same announcement "Developer bypassed the QA system and software has been removed."?

Or do Developers B and C get a more detailed announcement? So that the community is aware they were acting in a very anti-social manner?

I think, obviously B and C get a more detailed announcement. But where do we draw the line? We need the actions and consequences spelled out. But once you do that, it is easy to infer what the offense was based on the announcement. At that point you may as well detail it in the announcement to prevent speculation. And that brings us right back to this thread.

I'm not in favor of a public stoning, but the public must be aware of what is going on. If it is decided to punish developers behind closed doors, Extras (for me) will lose some of its' credibility as a "safe" repository.

Because unless I am part of a select group, I won't know if a developer/application has been reprimanded before and may fall victim to someone on their 2nd or 3rd .... transgression. If I know a particular developer has had issues in the past I may skip their applications or install and carefully evaluate them. But that is my choice, without that knowledge, my choice has been taken from me.

Yes, I take a chance installing anything from extras, or the other repositories, but again it is my INFORMED choice.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Well, I think the obvious one is Debian. There are certainly people in leadership positions, but they're put there by the wider Debian community, and are accountable to that community. It's not always pretty - Debian mailing list flamewars are legendary - but it produces a top quality distribution, and one we're all running a derivative of.


That's a different thing though; decisions are delegated to various people, you don't hold a vote in advance, but any decision that a Debian leader takes is subject to being overturned by the community with a General Resolution if it's felt to be necessary. In practice, that doesn't happen very much, but it couldn't happen at all if the process weren't public because you can't object to something if you can't see it happening.