Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT 4401-4405 (Nov 23th to Nov 27th, 2020)

<< < (17/25) > >>

N.N. Marf:

--- Quote from: Pilchard123 on 25 Nov 2020, 11:47 ---Marf, it's not the forum software, and it's not the server hosting the forum software. It is, at a very great stretch, the fault of the users' browsers for not resolving the .onion TLD - but since those RFCs specifically say that DNS operators must return NXDOMAIN for .onion requests I can hardly fault them for trusting that the domain does not exist.

--- End quote ---
I didn't say the difficulties were that some can't access the directly pointed-to resource. I pretty clearly stated that that was the most recent thing that I had tried, to ameliorate the reported certain these forums' features' activation delay, that seemed to be the `Tor2Web' gateway misbehaving (I saw it misreporting errors, claiming it had gotten HTTP errors in the 500s---internal server errors---that the host I use never gives). I don't find it so important that everyone see my user-photo---that's not an error I care about, and neither do others, it seems, because it's never been reported before, except that another user's user-photo similarly not display properly, reported in comparison to my user-photo not displaying and `causing' delays---so I changed it to the direct pointer: the delay has been reported to have been reduced, and no further problems have been reported to me.

--- Quote from: Pilchard123 on 25 Nov 2020, 11:47 ---Dang, there's a lot of faulty software out there.

--- End quote ---
Yes. Yes that is. A lot and a lot of of faulty software. Here's the thing: that domain exists---so, yes, they're wrong. What they should be saying is they're unaware of that domain existing. But they say it doesn't exist---they're making false claims. Sadly, in this case, that's the majority, so some assholes consider themselves right in not accommodating---even going so far as sneering at---certain minority cases, without even considering that there might be a legitimate reason that the minority case does things that way. Here's a hint: most minority cases, have a good reason.

--- Quote from: Pilchard123 on 25 Nov 2020, 11:47 ---Or maybe - juuuust maybe - using a .onion address on a site intended to be used on the non-Tor Internet is a silly idea.
If you want metaphors, you're walking around Edinburgh and wondering why people look at you funny when you tell them to visit you in Brigadoon.

--- End quote ---
Geographically-localized metaphors about the internet tend to not work well. The internet is all around the world, more like international postage: mentioning a TOR resource on the `clear' internet, would be like mentioning something that can be delivered by one postal company, in a message delivered by a `the' (i.e. the `usual' or `standard') postal company. Some persons might not want to get things delivered by that postal company---that's fine, let them not. That's a terrible reason to prevent such things being mentioned.

Cornelius:
Maybe do yourself a favour, and look up the places? Brigadoon is a fictional place, that locked itself away from reality, for safety reasons, and is only accessible under well-defined and very limited circumstances.

You might also want to consider the reason it's reporting it doesn't exist, and whether that is fit for purpose as intended for that network.

But fine, maintain that your one use case trumps all else.

Edited: I really should switch off autocorrect.

Thrillho:

--- Quote from: N.N. Marf on 25 Nov 2020, 09:38 ---
--- Quote from: Thrillho on 24 Nov 2020, 15:35 ---I strongly advise you don't ever use this comparison to a wheelchair user ever again.

--- End quote ---
You're right. A better metaphor would be to tell a person who can walk on their own, though perhaps with a gait that might be clumsy, especially on these crude floors, to use braces, even going so far as pointing, multiple times, to the braces you have for them to use. Except not considering the possibility that those braces won't fit them, or might damage their legs. I want to be perfectly clear, in case it wasn't: the metaphor, isn't about me being crippled, but about you telling crippled persons to deal with their being crippled a certain way.

--- Quote from: pwhodges on 25 Nov 2020, 03:05 ---
--- Quote from: N.N. Marf on 24 Nov 2020, 12:10 ---I'd switched it from the (obfuscated/shortened by TinyURL) `Tor2Web' gateway pointer to the resource, to the direct one. This might reduce delays caused by a client waiting for that resource to load.

--- End quote ---
You realise that you can simply upload the avatar image to the forum and avoid all this fuss (over the avatar image, at least)?  As I said before, deliberately continuing to use a URL which you know causes issues for other users is unfriendly to the community.

--- End quote ---
And these are the braces you're pointing to, incredulous at my not using them, considering that somehow unfriendly to some vague `community.' And the metaphor continues: it's difficult to brace and unbrace; it's difficult to change my user-photo that way. And, no, I don't know that it causes problems. I know that a certain confluence of circumstance, which seems happens to include my user-photo pointer, has been reported to cause problems for other persons. They seem to emphasize my user-photo. Maybe that's what's most visible to them. And sure, similar problems have occurred in the past. This is time, though, is the first time that I'm getting any helpful feedback about what, exactly, the problem might be---so is the first time I even have an opportunity to try something better than random.
I think there's a deeper problem with a certain mentality, where, after something is recognized as a possible answer to a problem---just use our braces---that would alleviate some difficulties, all other potential solutions are rejected, and very little is done to even try coming to something that might accommodate everyone better. And again, about the vague `community'---unfriendly to whom, exactly? To everyone? Certainly not: it's not unfriendly to me---unless you're excluding me from the community, but do explain on what grounds, if not arbitrary. To a part of the community? Maybe, but the insistence that it's primarily my problem, is also unfriendly to a part of the community. Maybe, if you would be so kind, please be more descriptive about what, exactly you mean, rather than using that weasel-word, and, at the least, explain what action, exactly, in what way, exactly, is unfriendly. It's starting to look like maybe you just don't like me for whatever reason.

--- Quote from: pwhodges on 25 Nov 2020, 03:05 ---I am considering withdrawing the facility of using URLs for avatars altogether - it has caused other problems in the past, and most forums don't allow it anyway; but I would have to consult first, as a few other people use it (as I do, in fact).

--- End quote ---
That seems would be an equitable solution: make it equally difficult for everyone. Force everyone who wants to walk, to use braces. As a temporary fix, until you get better control of the server as you claim to be planning, that might be tolerable.

--- End quote ---

Global Moderator Comment Stop.

MrNumbers:
As a disabled person myself, sometimes, when I'm rejected from a job application process because I can't 'supply my own transport' for a job that does not require it at all, I think to myself: Damn, this must be how it feels like to be told I should just upload my avatar directly to a webcomic forum.

hedgie:
I blocked them quite some time ago, and feel better for it.  This lack of basic netiquitte only confirms that decision.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page