text:
Community Management is a joy on most days. Those of us who have gravitated towards this career are suited for it. We love the banter, the challenges, and the triumphs of fostering a group of people as they share common goals.
However, as communities grow and flourish, they sometimes attract those who end up being disruptive.
Even for an experienced community manager, a few bad apples can make it seem like the whole world is against them. It can be subtle—starting off as innocent questions about the way things are handled or decisions that the management staff makes, but then it can grow into outright hostility. The challenge lies in knowing when to smooth things over, where to do it, and when to pull the trigger on outright banning or blocking.
Here's a real-world example from one of the communities that we manage. The community is over eight years old and is very active. A person who had been a member for six months (long enough to feel like a real part of the community) suddenly felt that the moderators (volunteers who have been brought up from within the community to help manage the flow of discussion, deal with spam, and generally keep things on track) were overstepping their bounds and wasn't happy with the way the site was managed.
This member then began conducting what almost, in hindsight, looks like psychological warfare on the community management team. He began firing off long, well-written explanations of what he felt was wrong with the way the site was run, all under the guise of being concerned for the health of the community. He then began mentioning "backroom" discussions with other unhappy members (off-channel: either they were discussing things on another medium or via the private messaging system), making it seem as if a tide of popular opinion was rising against the site. His consistent and deliberate arguments made it seem as if he was speaking for a whole group of community members—despite no actual evidence that this was the case.
At first, emotions kicked in. When a community manager is attacked, it's one thing. When a community manager feels like they're suddenly being attacked by a mob (even one spoken for by a single person), it becomes fuel for anger and rash communication.
In this particular case, the (volunteer) community manager in question came directly to us after a member had started attacking her—even going so far as to bring her personal life into the tirade. She did the right thing—copied the community managers on her response and included the original communication so that the community manager was in the loop. When the member escalated with further attacks, she bowed out and let us take over communication. The member was told that his tirade wasn't appreciated and he escalated even further by suggesting that there was a movement against the way the community was managed.
This is the point where a community manager has a tough decision to make. In this case, we simply banned the member and ceased communication with him; it was clear that no matter how reasoned our communications were, he simply felt the need to continue berating us with paragraph upon paragraph of reasons why we were bad managers and why everybody hated us. Again, stepping back, it's easy to see now that it was just a single person saying this, but by using language such as "we" and "a group of us" and "former members", he was insinuating that there was a mob of people out there behind his back.
This is where we took a breath and stepped back: This guy was just simply being a jerk. The solution? Ban him and block communications. Problem solved. When we did that, several members came out of the woodwork to thank us for making the community a more welcoming place and for getting rid of the source of drama. The real mob was people who were cowed into silence by one aggressive and loud member. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
The most important take-aways for situations like this are:
- Handle conversations like this privately, either through e-mail or private messaging
- Realize that not everyone has the community's best interests in mind
- Don't be afraid to simply ban and walk away
- Don't back down
As a community manager, it can be very tough to deal with situations like this because we become so attached to our online friends and communities. You want to make everyone happy, but it helps to step back and remember that the internet is full of somewhat anonymous strangers and that, once in a while, a bad apple will slip through. The arbitrator always comes down to: Does this person ultimately help move the community forward?
It can be extremely difficult to stop communications with people like that; but once you do, it's like turning off a faucet that has broken and is spraying all over your bathroom: Suddenly, silence. Peace.


text:
After yesterdays introduction into the new Error Handling Function Callback, I want to continue with another new feature in the error handling area – Error Display Location for Processes.
In previous versions of APEX, an error raised in a process was always displayed on the rather frightening "Error Page". Showing the error inline, so that the user actually sees what he has entered is much more user friendly. That's why Application and Page Processes of processing point
- "On Submit – Before Computation and Validations" and
- "On Submit – After Computations and Validations"
have a new attribute called "Error Message Display Location" which allows developers to select
- "Inline in Notification" or
- "On Error Page"
as error display location of a process.
This new setting which defaults to "Inline in Notification" for new processes can be used to specify where a process error message should be displayed. In previous versions of APEX, process error message have always been displayed on the error page.
"On Error Page" should be used if a page contains a manually created tabular form (using apex_item.xxx calls in the SQL statement), because a re-rendering of the page with an inline error would discard changes made by the user. For errors displayed on the "Error Page", the user can use the browser back button to preserve the entered values.
The new attribute is not visible for processes firing during page rendering, because that would end in a recursion if we try to render the page again with the error displayed inline. The same regions, processes, … would fire again with the same error and we would be in the same troubles as before.
As always, any feedback welcome!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hey. I am new here. I have a question.. I can't shutdown or reboot PC from shutdown dialogue.
I am running on Debian SID 2.6.18 kernel, and on Xfce 4.3.99..
are you featured in /etc/sudoers for shutdown or all with nopasswd?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes
That way, if they get angry, they're a mile away and barefoot
what exactly lines I need in sudoers?
I have the same problem
are you featured in /etc/sudoers for shutdown or all with nopasswd?
What lines I need in sudoers ?
# Members of the admin group may gain root privileges
%admin ALL= NOPASSWD: ALL
gives privileges to all in admin group. Just an example.
You need something like this:
%users ALL = NOPASSWD:<prefix>/libexec/xfsm-shutdown-helper
Use visudo for adding the sudo rule.
Thanks guys, it works..
my sudoers has this line
# User alias specification
%users ALL = NOPASSWD:/usr/sbin/xfsm-shutdown-helper
Hey, I forgot to try it.. but I can choose restart or shutdown, but it wants password (root and user passwd not work)
its "/usr/libexec/xfsm-shutdown-helper" for 4.4
Now it works.. Thanks guys
my sudoers
Aurora:/home/bright# cat /etc/sudoers
# /etc/sudoers
# This file MUST be edited with the 'visudo' command as root.
# See the man page for details on how to write a sudoers file.
Defaults env_reset
# Host alias specification
# User alias specification
bright ALL=(root) NOPASSWD:/usr/sbin/xfsm-shutdown-helper
# Cmnd alias specification
# User privilege specification
root ALL=(ALL) ALL
I cant write to it and im using the root terminal
I cant write to it and im using the root terminal
type visudo logged as root, and write these lines
user ALL=(root) NOPASSWD:/usr/sbin/xfsm-shutdown-helper
where user means your account, which do you want to allow to shutdown computer..
REMARK: xfsm-shutdown-helper is in /usr/sbin only in Debian distro.. if you have another distro, you need to
replace /usr/sbin/xfsm-shutdown-helper to /usr/libexec/xfsm-shutdown-helper


text:
Smith & Wesson Model 29 revolver modified by AAI corporation into Quiet Special Purpose Revolver (QSPR)
Cross-sectional drawing of the early version of AAI Corp Quiet Special Purpose Round, from 1971 US Army document
Quiet Special Purpose Revolver (QSPR; also known as 'tunnel revolver' or 'tunnel gun') evolved from 1967 US Army requirements for a silenced, multi-projectile hand weapon for use by 'tunnel exploration personnel' (so called 'tunnel rats'), which operated against Vietnamese communist forces in the numerous tunnels dug by NVA and VC personnel. The weapon concept was developed at US Army Land Warfare Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, in collaboration with AAI corporation, which was responsible for creation of the internally silenced ammunition, based on the "gas seal piston" concept (similar concept at the time was employed in a number of Soviet Spetsnaz weapons, firing PZ type internally silenced ammunition). The whole concept of the internally silenced ammunition is rather old and starts in the pre-WW1 era, but practical results were achieved only during 1950s and 1960s, when chemical and metallurgical technologies finally permitted manufacture of actual ammunition.Quiet Special Purpose Revolvers (QSPR) were based on commercially available Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum revolvers, rebuilt by AAI to handle their special integrally silenced ammunition. Earliest prototypes featured new, very short smoothbore barrels with .40" / 10mm bore, and with cylinder chambers reamed to accept QSPR ammunition which externally represented metal cased .410 gauge shotgun shells. Internally, however, the QSPR ammunition was quite different; it had a machined steel case with screw-in base. Primers were secured deeply in the cartridge base by screw-in bushing and additional anvil, which transferred the blow of the hammer to the primer (cartridges produced for tests in 1971 had no intermediate anvils). The small charge of gun powder was enclosed at the front and sides by the cup-shaped steel piston, which, upon discharge, was securely jammed at the mouth of the case by the internal thread. The QSPR ammunition fired fifteen tungsten balls (loaded into plastic sabot), each weighting about 7.5 grain / 0.5 gram, at muzzle velocity of about 730 fps / 222 m/s, which resulted in total muzzle energy of about 135 ft-lbs / 185 Joules. Due to the nature of the round (tungsten shot), the practical lethal range was estimated at about 30 feet / 10 meters, which was sufficient for extremely cramped tunnels of Vietnam war. The sound signature of QSPR round fired from QSPR revolver was about 110 dB, or similar to that of traditionally silenced .22LR pistol. It must be noted that QSPR revolvers had no sights, as these were intended for use at point-blank ranges and in very low visibility conditions of tunnels. The basic mechanism (double action trigger and swing-out cylinder) were retained from standard S&W revolvers, although there were some modifications done to the hammer, and new short smoothbore barrel was installed.
First ten specimen of QSPR revolvers were delivered for field testing in Vietnam in mid-1969. Testing continued until late 1969, with several live fire encounters with NVA / VC personnel. It is interesting that most of these encounters were actually not in the tunnels but during the ambushes made by US special operation forces on NVA or VC trails. The field testing proved extreme usefulness of the QSPR revolver but also identified a number of issues which required further improvement of both the gun and the ammunition. QSPR improvement and testing program was initiated in 1970, and lasted through 1971. However, withdrawal of US forces in Vietnam caused the decline of interest in this and some other developments, and the QSPR program was quietly terminated in around 1972. Total number of QSPR revolvers built is not known, and various sources estimate that number between 25 and 250 guns in total.Compared to the contemporary Soviet equipment of the similar nature, such as S4M silent pistol, the QSPR most probably provided somewhat more firepower at point-blank ranges (because of the higher muzzle velocity and bigger ammunition capacity), but it was also significantly heavier and bulkier. This is not surprising, as these guns filled different niches, the S4M being primarily a concealed-carry "spy gun", while QSPR was a holster-carry "short range ambush" weapon.