Question about delisting

[origami_alligator]

Would a system that keeps the author tag but removes the map from the author's main listing be acceptable semantically?

Yes. That's the point I've kinda been going for.

If you don't mind suggesting a compromise to this idea, it would be that the maps delisted would be removed from the main listings of an author. From there, if you wanted to add a new section called "delisted maps" I would go for a page of neatly separated thumbnails of maps, but with no tags, author tags, descriptions, etc, shown ON THAT PAGE. As soon as you were to click on a thumbnail, though, it would take you to the delisted map of that author, where all the tags, comments, ratings, etc. would now be visible. This page would be updated according to order of delisting, not by map number. The second someone delists a map it would get moved to the delisted page.

Anonymous thumbnails I could go for. Anonymous maps I cannot.

Otherwise I have no idea what kind of compromise you'd rather have. I see it as anonymity in browsing maps is fine, but in the end the author tag should never be removed from a map, period.

[Nexx]

I don't really understand your idea fully, but I think I get the basic concept. But it's complicated and doesn't integrate with the site easily. And I agree that anonymity is not preferable.

I stand by my previous suggestion that removes maps from the author listing but otherwise doesn't change them at all. Without knowing more about the coding of NUMA, I also stand by my suggested implementation the two-state invisible variable.

Are you saying you would be okay with a system such as this?

[origami_alligator]

I don't really understand your idea fully, but I think I get the basic concept. But it's complicated and doesn't integrate with the site easily. And I agree that anonymity is not preferable.

I stand by my previous suggestion that removes maps from the author listing but otherwise doesn't change them at all. Without knowing more about the coding of NUMA, I also stand by my suggested implementation the two-state invisible variable.

Are you saying you would be okay with a system such as this?

You're basically saying that a map would be removed from author-specific searches but not from tag-specific searches? That way if a tag were searched the map could still be found by the general public, it just wouldn't appear in author listings?

As long as rating the map didn't effect the authors overall ratings then yes, I'd be completely fine with that. Possibly the author would not be notified of any comments on the map though... But then again, if they delisted it I would not see why they would need to be notified of any comments on the map.

[SkyPanda]

I believe you're saying something to the effect that if a member submits an offensive map and delists it (in the way this thread is suggesting), only the mods would be able to pin that map to a user. Users could still flag it, but the author's name wouldn't get hurt in the eyes of the NUMA public (unless the mods chose to release that info somewhere).

NUMA appears to have dropped the public listing of bans on the news page, so it shouldn't be too hard to adjust for this- the mods could say: "This map, by user 'superblah24', is offensive and any further offence will result in a ban".
That way the user is still responsible for their postings, and still gets 'hurt in the eyes of the public', if that's the way the mods want to do things. One possible problem though is how the mod would contact the user to inform them that they've broken the rules.. perhaps by posting on another of their maps? That seems to be how it's done at the moment, right?

I just want the maps I don't like any more removed from my main listing.

Would a system that keeps the author tag but removes the map from the author's main listing be acceptable semantically?

I'm a little confused about where this one is going, if you keep the author tag, then surely no matter where you end up sticking the delisted maps (in a separate section or page or whatnot), they're still not anonymous at all, even less anonymous than the current delisting system. If you don't mind, can you or atob explain this one a bit more, you've lost me :p

EDIT: ohhhh I see. The maps wouldn't be hidden from search listings as in the current system, and they'd still have the author tag, but they'd be removed from an author's listings? Hmmm. That's not disassociation, that's making it harder to locate the map :P What is the problem with the original disassociation idea?

If you don't mind suggesting a compromise to this idea, it would be that the maps delisted would be removed from the main listings of an author. From there, if you wanted to add a new section called "delisted maps" I would go for a page of neatly separated thumbnails of maps, but with no tags, author tags, descriptions, etc, shown ON THAT PAGE. As soon as you were to click on a thumbnail, though, it would take you to the delisted map of that author, where all the tags, comments, ratings, etc. would now be visible.
Anonymous thumbnails I could go for.

This sounds interesting, but how does it work with the whole concept of disassociation?
It's not hiding the author at all, it's just delaying the moment where the person browsing can see the author tag?
Currently when a map is delisted, it still has the author tag, but doesn't appear in any listings, and the thumbnail doesn't appear in any listings either. With this compromised idea, the map still has the author tag, but now the thumbnail will appear in listings somewhere?
I'll admit i'm very, very lost with this new compromise :P, but this seems to be more association, not less.

I see it as anonymity in browsing maps is fine, but in the end the author tag should never be removed from a map, period.

Would your opinion change with my suggestion at the top of this post in reply to Avarin? :/ *crosses fingers*

Possibly the author would not be notified of any comments on the map though... But then again, if they delisted it I would not see why they would need to be notified of any comments on the map.

I think perhaps it needs to be considered that some people aren't going to want to delist their maps anonymously.. so what do you think of the extra checkbox suggestion? Although now I don't see how that would fit in with the entirely opposite direction you guys are taking this xD


Has anyone suggested the idea to Arachnid yet?

[origami_alligator]

I believe you're saying something to the effect that if a member submits an offensive map and delists it (in the way this thread is suggesting), only the mods would be able to pin that map to a user. Users could still flag it, but the author's name wouldn't get hurt in the eyes of the NUMA public (unless the mods chose to release that info somewhere).

NUMA appears to have dropped the public listing of bans on the news page, so it shouldn't be too hard to adjust for this- the mods could say: "This map, by user 'superblah24', is offensive and any further offence will result in a ban".
That way the user is still responsible for their postings, and still gets 'hurt in the eyes of the public', if that's the way the mods want to do things. One possible problem though is how the mod would contact the user to inform them that they've broken the rules.. perhaps by posting on another of their maps? That seems to be how it's done at the moment, right?

I see it as anonymity in browsing maps is fine, but in the end the author tag should never be removed from a map, period.

Would your opinion change with my suggestion at the top of this post in reply to Avarin? :/ *crosses fingers*

No, it would not change my opinion.
The less work I have to do as a mod the happier I am to moderate NUMA. Hence, if I had to post a comment on a map telling everybody that the map was made by such and such and was abusive, and then had to place a verbal warning on an entirely different map of theirs because of this, then have to report the person to the admins in case it is an especially worrisome case... Do you see how I wouldn't want to do all that in the slightest? I'd much rather delist the map and say *MAP DELISTED* because of such and such and you all know the author already.

The issue that has come about is the line between disassociation and complete anonymity. The latter isn't useful and breeds a lot of potential for breaking the rules. The former requires that the map be separated from the author in such a way that the author feels he/she is no longer associated with the map.

I'm mostly waiting for Nexx though, to see if we are on the same page.

[SkyPanda]

No, it would not change my opinion.
The less work I have to do as a mod the happier I am to moderate NUMA. Hence, if I had to post a comment on a map telling everybody that the map was made by such and such and was abusive, and then had to place a verbal warning on an entirely different map of theirs because of this, then have to report the person to the admins in case it is an especially worrisome case... Do you see how I wouldn't want to do all that in the slightest? I'd much rather delist the map and say *MAP DELISTED* because of such and such and you all know the author already.

No it shouldn't be that bad-
current: "MAP DELISTED, because of [etc]"
new: "This MAP by Joe is DELISTED, because of [etc]"
So you're only typing 4 extra words. :P
You'd report it to the admins if it was serious anyway, so there's no extra work there.
Furthermore, suppose that authors once they delisted a map would still be notified if a comment was posted there, like how it is under the current system. They'd have to be, to account for people who don't want to be disassociated with the map. So then you wouldn't even need to post a warning again on a different map! :P Simple, identical to the current system, and no extra work.

The issue that has come about is the line between disassociation and complete anonymity. The latter isn't useful and breeds a lot of potential for breaking the rules. The former requires that the map be separated from the author in such a way that the author feels he/she is no longer associated with the map.

Isn't useful? It's the perfect compromise between those who support deleting and those who support delisting. That's been covered- it would be useful to some. Not many obviously, as there only seems to be 3 people interested in this idea :P But still useful, and with no negative effects.
As for breeding potential to break the rules, I think you might consider the following (this is for the original thread idea, not the compromise):
1. Mods would be able to locate and punish offenders as easily as under the current system.
2. Offensive maps only represent a tiny proportion of the content submitted to NUMA.
3. I doubt that this proportion would increase at all if delisting is anonymous, because mods can still find them and take appropriate action identical to the current system.

Now to me, the original idea, dissociation by removal of author tag was good, and is yet to be discounted. I think i've already replied to this concept of merely separating the author from the map:

It's not hiding the author at all, it's just delaying the moment where the person browsing can see the author tag?
Currently when a map is delisted, it still has the author tag, but doesn't appear in any listings, and the thumbnail doesn't appear in any listings either. With this compromised idea, the map still has the author tag, but now the thumbnail will appear in listings somewhere?
I'll admit i'm very, very lost with this new compromise :P, but this seems to be more association, not less.

So is my understanding correct? Incomplete? Do you agree/disagree?

Yep see what Avarin thinks, but I reckon this is zooming off in a totally different direction for no good reason. The original idea was fine.

[Geti]

To me, anonymity is an awful thing. I mean, sure it works in some places because it allows people to post things without having to worry about being responsible for what they say or do (take Metasecret, for example). But when you take anonymity and add it to NUMA, here is where things get a little iffy. I think that on NUMA everybody should be responsible for that which they post on there.

rates are still anonymous. i dont really see why though, but thats just me. do you support anonymous voting?
people should be just as responsible for what they vote as what they say.

also, would it be plausible to have 2 buttons for this?
"delist" "disown"

[SkyPanda]

rates are still anonymous. i dont really see why though, but thats just me. do you support anonymous voting?
people should be just as responsible for what they vote as what they say.

If rates weren't anonymous, people would be more hesitant to give out low votes for fear of reprisal or offending their aquaintences or whatever. People should feel comfortable rating honestly, and anonymity is the best way to achieve that.

[blue_tetris]

Who would plagiarize a delisted map?

Secondly, who would care?

[SkyPanda]

If no one has emailed Arachnid yet or posted on uservoice, then i'm happy to.

[Nexx]

EDIT: ohhhh I see. The maps wouldn't be hidden from search listings as in the current system, and they'd still have the author tag, but they'd be removed from an author's listings? Hmmm. That's not disassociation, that's making it harder to locate the map :P What is the problem with the original disassociation idea?

Nope, it's not dissociation, but for members who just want a certain map out of their "maps by this author" listing, it's fine. That way the author doesn't have to see it. You know what though? It might be a good idea to have that "this map has been delisted by the author" text on the top of the page, so that if someone stumbles upon it they'd know that, for example, if they leave a comment, the author probably won't see that comment anytime soon. And also, Arachnid might want to implement that second page thing to include these maps, so that they'd be together in a listing somewhere (for example, in case the author wanted to relist them, they wouldn't have to go to the ends of the earth to find them again), though I'm not entirely sure how that'd work, since we just set up a system to prevent people from finding such a listing.

As for why I went against my original idea, I don't like the anonymity either. But if that's what it takes, then I'd rather have the anonymity than authors removing their maps from the system. Perhaps we should put both variants on uservoice and see which one is more popular?

[origami_alligator]

EDIT: ohhhh I see. The maps wouldn't be hidden from search listings as in the current system, and they'd still have the author tag, but they'd be removed from an author's listings? Hmmm. That's not disassociation, that's making it harder to locate the map :P What is the problem with the original disassociation idea?

It makes the map easier to find. Would you rather have to search for specific map numbers to find delisted maps? Or specific tags? And when title search comes back, you only have to type in the title to find the map instead of looking for the map number.

Who would plagiarize a delisted map?

Secondly, who would care?

You know how some newer members can get ideas into their head. If it doesn't look like it has ownership then it is free for the taking, right?

[SkyPanda]

Nope, it's not dissociation, but for members who just want a certain map out of their "maps by this author" listing, it's fine. That way the author doesn't have to see it. You know what though? It might be a good idea to have that "this map has been delisted by the author" text on the top of the page, so that if someone stumbles upon it they'd know that, for example, if they leave a comment, the author probably won't see that comment anytime soon. And also, Arachnid might want to implement that second page thing to include these maps, so that they'd be together in a listing somewhere (for example, in case the author wanted to relist them, they wouldn't have to go to the ends of the earth to find them again), though I'm not entirely sure how that'd work, since we just set up a system to prevent people from finding such a listing.

Here's what I think would work so far:

-Author wishes to delist a map, they click the delist button on the map.
-They are given two questions "do you really wish to delist this map?" and "do you wish to remove (hide) your author tag on this map?".
-If yes to both, then the map would appear in search listings (easy to find), but the author tag would be hidden to all but moderators and admins.
-In the author's profile, there would be two links "my maps" and "my delisted maps". Only the author would be able to see the "my delisted maps" link.
-Comments received on any delisted maps would appear in the "You have # maps with unread comments".
-Once relisted, the author tag would become publicly visible again.

I think i've covered everything, not sure though.
The main problem is probably going to be the Google App engine's limitations.

Perhaps we should put both variants on uservoice and see which one is more popular?

Ok, how would you like to do it?