Angus Wrote-

The project still has not edited the file to enable the 'x' function to work for those who can see the 'x'.

[color=blue]"This project has not yet defined an administrator to handle this kind of forum reports. [b]Please contact the project and tell them to add this information in their html/project/project.inc file[/b]"[/color]

This is not a bug, it's a failure of the project to properly configure the forum software. I'm contacting and telling.

This aspect of the issue was reported to the project by me twice. They are already aware that the feature is disabled, and I presume they have not activated it for a reason. I do not have the admin rights to activate it myself.

You of course are free to ask them a third time. However, it is not as simple as just turning the feature on. The report has to be sent to someone who has the time and authority to act on the report. While the project staff may have the authority required, based on my communications with them, it is unlikely they have the time.

That is decidedly non-responsive on their part. The ONLY avenue available to report an offensive post in confidence is disabled by choice. ....

Angus asked: (edited for brevity)
[quote]...How much time canit possibly take to edit one parameter in one config file to assign a project moderator to take some responsibility as the reporting recipient for their forum?

[quote]

Have you considered offering to do the code changes for them? Or tried to use the system they have put in place to see if it will work?

If you want to report something, either of those options would be a far more productive approach than continuing to proceed on the path you have chosen. The time to perform the edit you describe might in fact be short, however you have clearly illustrated the point that dealing with the resulting contacts will not. I think it is becoming increasingly apparent why the Project Team might have decided to pass this function off to the Moderators.

Vavega Wrote-

Mod9........

perhaps it would help if you included the contact email address in your signature line

example:

__________
Moderator9

contact me at.... Rosettamod9 at yahoo dot com (replace the "at" and the "dot" with the correct symbols to properly format the address)

I thought of that too. I know you have been following all this for the last few weeks, and I think you would agree that availability of the information is not the underlying issue in this case. That said I may do just what you have suggested. I am still not totally convinced that people will be happy having to reveal a return address to use that form of contact, no matter what assurances I or the Project team offer that the information will not be misused.

In any case here it is again - To contact me off line send an e-mail to.... Rosettamod9 at yahoo dot com
(replace the "at" and the "dot" with the correct symbols to properly format the address)

So except for the fact that the e-mail report would be an off project function, it is a difference without a distinction.

Moderator9:
Perhaps you are unaware that you can provide this service to the project from your computer at home. There is no need for you to drive anywhere or be involved in a confrontation at anyones door. All you have to do is offer to fix the problem, and if they take you up on the offer they can give you the rights you need to do the repair. Now I have no idea if they will do that at the level you may require to implement the fix, but they have provided various accesses for those of us trying to help solve the work unit failure issues.

As for spending a lot of time talking about the issue, that has not been my choice or the choice of the project. This is a situation where we can "DO" or "TEACH" your choice has been teach, what is your pleasure?

I have presented your issues to the project team, as I am certain you must have by now your self.

They have taken a decision as to how they will handle it. I have reported the decision back to you, and implemented the proposed solution. You are seemingly unhappy with the decision they have made, and have elected to persue the messenger.

Since the entire discussion has been available for over 36,000 users to comment on, and the vast majority remain silent, I can only conclude that this may only be a problem for a handful of users, only one of whom continues to take issue with the proposed solutions. Clearly the project has reached a similar conclusion. So it is no mystery to me why the project may not see it as a significant problem, that remains unaddressed.

Angus wrote-

As I said below, EVERYTHING has been public on the forum EXCEPT one email to David Kim on another matter entirely.

Since you have been crowned with the authority to contact the project and report back, I have taken the public route for everything.

Perhaps you could report VERBATIM the project's replies on this issue (if they have indeed replied at all), not filtered by your personal views on this. Without that, we only have your interpretation of what the project is 'thinking'.

I do not accept silence as a reply.

Actually, as far as the project is concerned I am afraid you will have to accept silence as an answer, unless they choose to communicate with you further. I have no control over that.

As far as I am concerned, the tone, and accusatory nature of your communications are increasingly counterproductive to continued reasonable, or intelligent discussion and border on outright offensive. I can only assume that the project team may have been approached in the same manor, and that may explain their silence in your case.

Your accusations of bias on my part are unfounded and gratuitous. So until and unless that changes you will have to accept silence from me as the answer on this issue as well. While you are obviously not happy with the answers to your questions, your questions have been answered.

I have a WU Here that has been Peniding for hours. This is not normal as usually they are granted immediately???

Probably because that computer doesn't meet the minimum marginal memory requirements to run Rosetta, with only 511.48 MB of memory. Also, you'd better take that box in and get it checked out - something obviously wrong with it if it can't report memory correctly :)

How is this joking post, with an obvious smiley, considerd a flame/hate post worthy of being deleted?

I have a WU Here that has been Peniding for hours. This is not normal as usually they are granted immediately???

Probably because that computer doesn't meet the minimum marginal memory requirements to run Rosetta, with only 511.48 MB of memory. Also, you'd better take that box in and get it checked out - something obviously wrong with it if it can't report memory correctly :)

Just a guess but It might have been the context.

"Fuzzy"

I can do that but I am advised that the latest Ralph application is about to be deployed in Rosetta. The time frame I saw was within the next 48 hours. I gather from the reports that the current version of Ralph has fixed the Keep in memory problem. So such a thread would be very short lived.

I think you actually posted in the correct thread for this type of error.[

[b]"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me[/b]