Question about delisting

[Nexx]

I've been listening in on the delisting conversations for awhile now, and I think I just had an epiphany about it, though it might be obvious to some.

To those who want to delist their maps, would you be fine with it if the map continued to exist and be accessible, but you were no longer associated with it? I realize this isn't technically possible since you can't redo history. But I was thinking that the author tag would automatically be removed from the map (thereby removing it from all author-specific listings), and then the author could choose if they also wanted to remove the description and comments. But even so, the people who played it might still remember who it belonged to, and they could come to the forums asking whose map it was.

But in any case, both semantically and practically, what do you think of this idea?

[SkyPanda]

I think it's a good idea.
So when a map is delisted only the title and map data are kept, while the author, tags, comments and rates are removed.

[a happy song]

I like the idea.

It solves the two main opposing problems:

That certain maps shouldn't be deleted from the system as other users enjoy them.
That certain authors would wish to rid themselves of work they're unhappy with.

I don't see a downside.

[TribulatioN]

I support this.
It only seems like the intention of delisting in the first place, only implemented much better.

[Kablizzy]

I'm all for this, actually. This is not a bad idea whatsoever.

[BNW]

Wow, this idea actually makes sense.

Good job.

[Condog]

I think this is a great idea, however there still needs to be an option to make a map private. Maybe still have delisted maps, but then add an option to, donate, for lack of a better word, to the public. Maybe replace all the tags with a single tag that denotes the 'donated' status. That way they can all be searched easily, and we can still have maps that are private which are found if you know the number.

[MattKestrel]

Good idea, I feel like delisting quite a few of my old maps, but then people would ask why I delisted them and w/e, so yeah I support this.

[GamingWolf]

I think this is a great idea, however there still needs to be an option to make a map private. Maybe still have delisted maps, but then add an option to, donate, for lack of a better word, to the public. Maybe replace all the tags with a single tag that denotes the 'donated' status. That way they can all be searched easily, and we can still have maps that are private which are found if you know the number.

Hmm, how about that such a donating author can also choose to specify which authors can see which 'donated' maps belong to him or her?

[Nexx]

Well do to the positive response and a few bits of confusion, I'll elaborate a bit.

Of the things associated with a map, you've got:
(1) things that will always indicate the author
(2) things that may indicate the author
(3) things that cannot possibly indicate the author

In those categories, I put the following:
(1) author tag
(2) description, comments, other misc. tags
(3) rating, genre tags

So that's the reasoning behind my initial statement. Thinking more about it now, even things in (1) should be optional, because I imagine some authors just want a piece of work out of their "this is my work" list, though they needn't have the author tag removed (I think GamingWolf falls into this category). Furthermore, description and tags can be edited by the user, so deleting them shouldn't be an option in the system. Rather, there should be a notification alerting the user that the description and tags will remain as they are and the user should edit them to their liking before they delist.

Comments might still be incriminating, but I don't know. I mean, in the first place, I don't know if Arachnid can even do that. In the second place, that would create a loophole. I'm sure most poeple like that delisting can be undone, though this system seems to be pointing to permanent delisting. On the other hand, if there were a way for the system to keep track of such things without displaying them, then relisting is possible, but then a person could just take a decent rating and delete all the bad comments and relist immediately.

In any case, ratings should not be deleted. Again, I don't know if Arachnid could even do that, but in any case there's no reason to do that. Why would you want that, SkyPanda?

And Condog, as I just explained, tags shouldn't be replaced unless the author does it themselves (this also gives the chance for the author to keep useful genre tags there). But in any case, why would you want to keep the current delisting system as well? In what way does this proposed system not satisfy your concerns? Even if it's a really horrible and/or embarrassing map that you're "donating", who cares? You won't be associated with it anymore.

[SkyPanda]

Comments might still be incriminating, but I don't know. I mean, in the first place, I don't know if Arachnid can even do that. In the second place, that would create a loophole. I'm sure most poeple like that delisting can be undone, though this system seems to be pointing to permanent delisting. On the other hand, if there were a way for the system to keep track of such things without displaying them, then relisting is possible, but then a person could just take a decent rating and delete all the bad comments and relist immediately.

In any case, ratings should not be deleted. Again, I don't know if Arachnid could even do that, but in any case there's no reason to do that. Why would you want that, SkyPanda?

You're right about the comments and ratings. I approached this from the opposite direction, thinking "hey, all we need to keep is the title and map data", but for the reasons you've given it would probably only be feasible to remove the author tag, yes.

[Rikaninja]

Broad idea, Well thought out.

But I have found on minor downside. It's fairly complicated, from many different perspectives. Overall I do like the idea and shall support if strongly.

[blue_tetris]

I like it.

Contact arachnid, yo.

[Geti]

i agree with b_t, cool. guilt free not-quite deletion.

[origami_alligator]

I don't get it.
Delisting it automatically says, "I no longer want to be associated with this."
Removing author tags just means its easier for someone to plagiarize a map. And if we can pinpoint whose map was plagiarized then we now have 2 identical delisted maps with no author tag on either of them.
Deleting comments? That's a job for moderators and admins and should not be an option available to a user by means of delisting.
Removing rates is an absolute no.
Back to removing the author tag, how would one be able to relist their map if NUMA no longer associates that map with that author? I believe that's how delisting and relisting works, as a function of the author tag.


I don't like the intention of this idea to begin with and I find a lot of flaws with it.

[SkyPanda]

I don't get it.
Delisting it automatically says, "I no longer want to be associated with this."

The author tag is still there. They're associated with the map whether they like it or not.

Removing author tags just means its easier for someone to plagiarize a map. And if we can pinpoint whose map was plagiarized then we now have 2 identical delisted maps with no author tag on either of them.

Rather than being removed, the author tags could simply be hidden. So mods and such would be able to check them for plagiarism if needed.

Deleting comments? That's a job for moderators and admins and should not be an option available to a user by means of delisting.
Removing rates is an absolute no.

Sure, but these are side issues that don't affect the main idea of removing the author tag.

Back to removing the author tag, how would one be able to relist their map if NUMA no longer associates that map with that author? I believe that's how delisting and relisting works, as a function of the author tag.

The author tag could be hidden, not removed?

I don't like the intention of this idea to begin with

Good for you, but so far it seems to be the best compromise between the delisting crowd and the deleting crowd.

[Nexx]

You beat me to it, SkyPanda. :P

Delisting it automatically says, "I no longer want to be associated with this."

Not quite. Instead of saying "I no longer want to be associated with this", it says "I no longer want this to be associated with me." The problem with that is the map goes away, instead of the author tag. My system allows the author to dissociate from the map while also allowing people to still wander upon and play and enjoy the map.

The author tag could be hidden, not removed?

Hopefully, yes, delisting could work almost like the current favoriting system does. When someone favorites a map, a "favorites:username" tag is added to the map. This tag isn't visible anywhere, but it is searchable. The only difference is the author tag of a delisted map would have to not be searchable, though that may present a problem for coding. But that is my proposed solution.

Deleting comments? That's a job for moderators and admins and should not be an option available to a user by means of delisting.
Removing rates is an absolute no.

As I already made clear, I agree that removing ratings is an absolute no, and I also agree that deleting comments would be questionable. The problem is that if the author posted a comment on the map, simply removing the author tag will not dissociate the author from the map, as it will still be completely obvious whose map it is. I'm not sure how to get around this.

I don't like the intention of this idea to begin with and I find a lot of flaws with it.

The intention is to allow people to still dissociate themselves from a map while not forcing that map to be removed from the community. What's so wrong about that?

[origami_alligator]

Part 1:

Delisting it automatically says, "I no longer want to be associated with this."

Not quite. Instead of saying "I no longer want to be associated with this", it says "I no longer want this to be associated with me." The problem with that is the map goes away, instead of the author tag. My system allows the author to dissociate from the map while also allowing people to still wander upon and play and enjoy the map.

Part 2:

I don't like the intention of this idea to begin with and I find a lot of flaws with it.

The intention is to allow people to still dissociate themselves from a map while not forcing that map to be removed from the community. What's so wrong about that?

Part 1:
I believe you said the same thing. Disassociating yourself from something and disassociating something from yourself are the same things just said differently. It's like saying x>a and a<x.

Part 2:
There is nothing wrong with disassociating yourself from a map, I just don't see how delisting doesn't already do that. It removes it from the viewable system. Not even moderators can see delisted maps when looking at an authors map page, they have to search the map number specifically.

The issue here is that you're just wanting to create a system of anonymity when there needn't be one. When was the last time anybody here received a comment on a map sometime after one week after delisting it? Anybody? I think I have had one or two comments on delisted maps of mine, and they were all within minutes of delisting it from people still having the page up after I had delisted.
In all respect it seems like a completely useless idea from the standpoint of who cares if a map that almost nobody can see has your name on it? Once Arachnid gets the separate section for delisted maps set up you won't ever have to see them clutter your maps page again.

I don't really get some of the support in here anyway. Atob has deleted all of his maps on multiple occasions and yet he still associates himself with them by providing links to all the maps he deleted. So what point is there in disassociating yourself from a map if you're just going to associate yourself with it later on?

[SkyPanda]

You beat me to it, SkyPanda. :P

hell yeah! I'm supporting your idea all the way, Avarin :P
ROAR!

I believe you said the same thing. Disassociating yourself from something and disassociating something from yourself are the same things just said differently. It's like saying x>a and a<x.

I fail to see here a compelling argument against the thread idea, so i'll ignore this and move on.

There is nothing wrong with disassociating yourself from a map, I just don't see how delisting doesn't already do that. It removes it from the viewable system. Not even moderators can see delisted maps when looking at an authors map page, they have to search the map number specifically.

Delisting currently doesn't disassociate the author from the map. The author tag is still there. It removes it from the viewable system, except for, hang on.. favourites, bookmarks and links. With the author tag removal idea, even favourited, bookmarked and linked maps won't be associated with the author.

The issue here is that you're just wanting to create a system of anonymity when there needn't be one. When was the last time anybody here received a comment on a map sometime after one week after delisting it? Anybody? I think I have had one or two comments on delisted maps of mine, and they were all within minutes of delisting it from people still having the page up after I had delisted.
In all respect it seems like a completely useless idea from the standpoint of who cares if a map that almost nobody can see has your name on it?

Don't try and play down the benefits of this. Perhaps it doesn't benefit you personally, but I believe quite a few people would want this. Even if it only benefits a few, it wouldn't have any negative effects on anybody else! Supposing there are some who want to delist a map but still be associated with it, make the disassociation optional, a simple checkbox.
Q1. Are you sure you wish to delist this map? Y/N
Q2. Do you wish to remove(hide) your author tag from this map? Y/N
Simple. With respect, the real issue here is why you are trying to oppose a good idea that efficiently compromises the needs of people with opposing viewpoints, when you haven't given a single negative effect implementing this idea could have.

Once Arachnid gets the separate section for delisted maps set up you won't ever have to see them clutter your maps page again.

It'll be great once that happens, but it's a totally separate issue and irrelevant to this idea.

I don't really get some of the support in here anyway. Atob has deleted all of his maps on multiple occasions and yet he still associates himself with them by providing links to all the maps he deleted. So what point is there in disassociating yourself from a map if you're just going to associate yourself with it later on?

So.. what.. we're all atob? How can the actions of one author possibly represent everybody? You're not making any sense.

[Lenny]

Hmm...

It's actually quite a good idea, I just see the problem that some people actually do want to get rid of their maps, like it's actually an accidental submission, or terrible... or something.

Also, people could still remember the map, others could claim it as theirs... so it does have potential flaws.

[a happy song]

I don't really get some of the support in here anyway. Atob has deleted all of his maps on multiple occasions and yet he still associates himself with them by providing links to all the maps he deleted. So what point is there in disassociating yourself from a map if you're just going to associate yourself with it later on?

Actually, I used to do this and I didn't link to every single delisted map of mine. I'd be happy with a separate page for delisted, but this idea (with a little fine tuning) would be fine too.

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

[mintnut]

I believe you said the same thing. Disassociating yourself from something and disassociating something from yourself are the same things just said differently. It's like saying x>a and a<x.

I fail to see here a compelling argument against the thread idea, so i'll ignore this and move on.

That is a shitty thing to write skypanda. I feel ashamed for you. There is just no need, why quote something which requires no response? It just comes across as a blatant attempt to twist things so southpaw looks like an idiot.

[origami_alligator]

More of my issue with the idea and less of a response to SkyPanda.


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. Bupo is responsible for every comment he's posted, especially the many comments I have deleted. And what does this have to do with submitting maps? Because submitting maps makes people responsible for what they have posted on NUMA. Every map you or I have submitted, deleted, delisted, we have all been responsible for our respective submissions. Every comment and rate that you have made you have been responsible for. If someone hacks into an account, the person whose account that really belongs to has to assume responsibility, even if it wasn't them.

Anonymity removes all the responsibility from an author for creating the map to the general public. See, those of you defending this to the end are saying, "But what if moderators and admins could see who made the map? Wouldn't that be enough?" No. It wouldn't. People need to know who is responsible for what has been submitted to NUMA, even if it happens that they stumble upon it by accident through typing in random NUMA map numbers.

There. Probably won't convince the lot of you but that's fine. There is my main issue with it.

EDIT: Thanks, mintnut. ^_^

[SkyPanda]

That is a shitty thing to write skypanda. I feel ashamed for you. There is just no need, why quote something which requires no response? It just comes across as a blatant attempt to twist things so southpaw looks like an idiot.

nonono! xD Avarin and southpaw were debating something and I just said there's actually nothing in there that would be reason to not go through with this. It's not my intention to make anybody look like an idiot, i'm just trying to cover everything. I don't think anybody should be thanking you for this contribution, mintnut, its nasty and silly. ;____;

Manus Australis- the responsibility thing, I think the only time when this would ever become a problem is when people are posting offensive or indiscrete material (and offense maps are far less common than offensive comments). In which case, it would be up to the mods to handle it and issue punishments, not the general community. You're sort of suggesting that the person would need to be responsible to the community as well, sort of put on public trial? It's not an idea that I agree with, but it's really a matter of opinion. Furthermore, I don't think that its a good idea to stop a good idea from going through because of the actions of a few troublesome folk.

[Nexx]

Question! Does NUMA currently recognize if a map being submitted is like one that has already been submitted? Will it prevent someone from submitting two identical maps one right after the other?

Back to the current discussion, here's my response to southpaw's old response:
Southpaw, what's going on? You quote 4 sentences of mine, but then you only respond to 1.5 of them, bringing up issues I address in the other 2.5. -__- Watch:

Part 1:
I believe you said the same thing. Disassociating yourself from something and disassociating something from yourself are the same things just said differently. It's like saying x>a and a<x.

Try again. Here's what I said (which you even quoted!):

Not quite. Instead of saying "I no longer want to be associated with this", it says "I no longer want this to be associated with me." The problem with that is the map goes away, instead of the author tag. My system allows the author to dissociate from the map while also allowing people to still wander upon and play and enjoy the map.

The wording of the first sentence was to bring up a subtle difference. It's true that association is association, but there are two ways of removing an association with something. Either remove your ties to it, or remove it. I'm saying that delisting removes it (in this case the map), whereas my idea removes your ties to it, allowing the map to remain accessible by the community.

Part 2:
There is nothing wrong with disassociating yourself from a map, I just don't see how delisting doesn't already do that. It removes it from the viewable system. Not even moderators can see delisted maps when looking at an authors map page, they have to search the map number specifically.

As I've gone over this point a few times already, I'm at a loss. Perhaps you're missing the context. Here's the overall summary, crystal clear:

Yes, delisting removes the map from the viewable system, thereby dissociating the map from its author in the mind of the public. The problem is that some people may like the map, and not just the people who have already played it. The problem with the current delisting system is that it REMOVES maps from the general public. My problem is an attempt to address that issue, allowing maps to remain accessible in listings while still allowing the author to dissociate him-/herself from the map. atob also said it nicely:

It solves the two main opposing problems:

That certain maps shouldn't be deleted from the system as other users enjoy them.
That certain authors would wish to rid themselves of work they're unhappy with.

---------

In all respect it seems like a completely useless idea from the standpoint of who cares if a map that almost nobody can see has your name on it?
[...]
When was the last time anybody here received a comment on a map sometime after one week after delisting it? Anybody?

Hopefully you now see why these questions of yours are all wrong. The point is to NOT make the map invisible, in which case the presence or absence of your name IS important, and new rates and comments actually have a chance of appearing on it.

---------

Now in all honestly, while I like this idea semantically, I see several problems with this system in practice. Southpaw, your new post highlights one of those problems. 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). Also, I guess I can understand that author anonymity in general would be strange to see. And coding this new delisting system really might be a problem since I think all tags, visible or not, are always searchable.

Because of these issues, atob's recent post has caught my attention:

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 don't know how acceptable it would be from a coding perspective, though it seems like you could just add a simple two-case variable such that it would be 1 by default (on all maps), and 0 if "delisted". All author tag searches/listings would only return maps where that variable = 1, but maps with variable = 0 could still be found by genre tags searches and whatnot. That's a bit complicated, but what do you guys think of it?