Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) My colleague Michael De Groote, who occupies a cubicle across the aisle from mine, has suggested there be some system of color-coding those who post on this message board according to "hates the Church or not."It was in jest, but I think the idea merits consideration. Edited August 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
BCSpace Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Wouldn't that "color" our view and judgement before even reading what they have to say? Plus who decides who gets assigned what color? Wouldn't such a person also be "colored"? To properly interpret someone's view, wouldn't this require an index with the color of the color assignor on the y-axis and the color of the assignee on the x-axis?It's simpler and more accurate for individuals to read or not read, judge or not judge, and for there to be fewer rules and less moderation (say, only for cuss words and x-rated topics). The truth will rise to the top quicker under such circumstances. Edited August 23, 2012 by BCSpace 4
ERayR Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 My colleague Michael De Groote, who occupies a cubicle across the aisle from mine, has suggested there be some system of color-coding those who post on this message board according to "hates the Church or not."It was in jest, but I think the idea merits consideration.Self identification as such would be problematic and identification by someone else would be too subjective. Besides it is sometimes quite sporting to sort out the trolls.
mercyngrace Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 It was in jest, but I think the idea merits consideration.Like team jerseys?
yootaw Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) I hope that the op is in jest. Edited August 23, 2012 by yootaw
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Wouldn't that "color" our view and judgement before even reading what they have to say? Plus who decides who get's assigned what color? Wouldn't such a person also be "colored"? To properly interpret someone's view, wouldn't this require an index with the color of the color assignor on the y-axis and the color of the assignee on the x-axis?You guys need to lighten up.Add on: Your last sentence (apparently added after I began my reply) is interesting. Might make a fascinating metric. Edited August 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 Aggie blue.That's all I ask.Hard to tell it apart from Cougar blue.
USU78 Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Hard to tell it apart from Cougar blue.If you're talking about "borrowed" b'gar blue, then I quite agree that the darkest shade of powder blue looks a lot like Navy.
KevinG Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) White for the saved, black for the damned and spots on a white background for those who need to repent.We will contact Bishops for recommend status.(I'll let Yootaw sweat it out as to if I'm serious or not) Edited August 23, 2012 by KevinG
William Schryver Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Aggie blue.That's all I ask.I think you mean Cougar Blue: Edited August 23, 2012 by William Schryver 2
William Schryver Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) I hope that the op is in jest.HELL no!(That's "fire brick" red, by the way.) Edited August 23, 2012 by William Schryver
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 Self identification as such would be problematic and identification by someone else would be too subjective. Could be an aggregate thing. Board participants who have attained a certain status (such as "Contributor") get to vote. The numbers are crunched and the colors assigned according to the resulting computation. And it could be a continuous thing, like awarding rep points. Might be fascinating to see how an individual's color changes over time along a given spectrum.Besides it is sometimes quite sporting to sort out the trolls.In the old days, the moderators would let us play with the trolls for a while before giving them the boot. They still do, to some extent.
wenglund Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 As MLK intimated, we should be judged by the content of our character, and not the color of user ID. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 As MLK intimated, we should be judged by the content of our character, and not the color of user ID. Thanks, -Wade Englund-Theoretically, color of user ID would be determined by content of character -- or the perception thereof.
Tacenda Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Could be an aggregate thing. Board participants who have attained a certain status (such as "Contributor") get to vote. The numbers are crunched and the colors assigned according to the resulting computation. And it could be a continuous thing, like awarding rep points. Might be fascinating to see how an individual's color changes over time along a given spectrum.In the old days, the moderators would let us play with the trolls for a while before giving them the boot. They still do, to some extent.That sounds "catty" to me.
Walden Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Theoretically, color of user ID would be determined by content of character -- or the perception thereof.Yes, unfortunately, perception is a funny thing, and is relative to the eye of the beholder......thus the debates over Joseph Smith's character, etc.I have a feeling I would be perceived to be black if such a system were implemented, which I am actually quite comfortable with, having been the black sheep in my TBM family for years now.
cinepro Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) I think it's a good idea. But why limit it to a discussion board? If wards could do it with armbands, it would be a good way to see who the different people are in the ward. People who pay a lot of tithing could get green arm bands, people who don't do their home teaching could have black armbands, people who should be ignored by teachers in classes could get purple armbands. Temple recommend holders get white armbands. And of course, the "easy" Laurels could have scarlet colored ones. Edited August 23, 2012 by cinepro
cursor Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Aggie blue.That's all I ask.http://www.youtube.c...e?v=mnymgz3BdjEhttp://www.youtube.c...e?v=iIML3fh0fR0[ What's the bbcode format for embedding a YouTube video? ]
DavidB Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 My colleague Michael De Groote, who occupies a cubicle across the aisle from mine, has suggested there be some system of color-coding those who post on this message board according to "hates the Church or not."It was in jest, but I think the idea merits consideration.Who gets to determine who "hates"the Church. As I have seen disagreement with certain posters gets a person labeled as an enemy of the Church or some other label insinuating that a person is a cohort to self professed critics of the Church.You might want to read with your coworker Matthew 13:24-30, wkipedia has some good info on those verses too.
cursor Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 I think it's a good idea. But why limit it to a discussion board? If wards could do it with armbands, it would be a good way to see who the different people are in the ward. People who pay a lot of tithing could get green arm bands, people who don't do their home teaching could have black armbands, people who should be ignored by teachers in classes could get purple armbands. Temple recommend holders get white armbands. And of course, the "easy" Laurels could have scarlet colored ones.Imagine how colorful one might be if he/she is a temple recommend holder, who pays a full tithe, and who should be ignored by teachers in classes. 1
DavidB Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Imagine how colorful one might be if he/she is a temple recommend holder, who pays a full tithe, and who should be ignored by teachers in classes.Maybe this is what Jospehs coat of many colours was about.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 People are taking what was intended as a light-hearted thread too seriously. I'm exercising my prerogative as originator and locking it down.(And what a feeling of power one gets from that! )
Recommended Posts