Topic Locking

[ComputerBob]

After I read http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php? ... 74&start=0, I was inspired to write the following reply:

I just find it annoying when someone makes a post, then later removes what was written in an edit. There are a few people on this board who are notorious for that. People can't take back what they say, I don't think they should take back what they write either. If a mistake is made, simply make another reply to rectify the situation. Just my opinion.

I feel the same way, but Michael did the same thing when he replied to my question in
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=47080
and then later edited his reply to add to it.

I don't know if it's because he's a mod or not, but his reply doesn't show "Edited by...." like mine do whenever I edit them afterward to correct typos. Doesn't seem fair to me.

The problem is that when I went to "submit" my reply, the forum notified me that the topic is locked.

It wasn't locked when I started my reply.

What's going on here? Why have we suddenly gotten lots and lots of unfriendly moderation lately? And why was that topic locked?

<edit>And craigevil's "stop bitching" comment didn't appear in that thread until after I first posted this new thread.</edit>

I believe in all things in moderation - including moderation.

[craigevil]

I locked the topic . It was out of hand when it started and was time to end it. Like I posted if someone has an issue with a mod they need to take it up in a pm. Not whine about it in the forum like a little kid.

[ComputerBob]

I locked the topic . It was out of hand when it started and was time to end it. Like I posted if someone has an issue with a mod they need to take it up in a pm. Not whine about it in the forum like a little kid.

Well, since you took it upon yourself to publicly chastise others for voicing their opinions, I think it's appropriate for you to allow others to publicly voice their opinions about your chastisement. This is a supposed to be a discussion forum, not an unchallenged soap box for moderators.

I personally think it was unnecessarily patronizing of you to characterize other people's questions and concerns as "bitching" and "whining." And that it discourages discussion for you to close any topic that you personally are tired of, when hardly anyone else has had a chance to voice their opinions about it.

[JohnDeere630]

Man, I bet you three are sure glad to be moderators now....looks like a hoot. Good thing the pay is good, huh? What was this forum about again? I seem to have forgotten......

[Absent Minded]

For my part in things. I made that edit to my post to you almost imediately ComputerBob so you must have been rite on top of things to have noticed the edit. Since it seems to bother people that I tried to correct my mistake by editing my own post (just like I feel most people would do) I will no longer edit them. I try to be fair, honest and upstanding. I didn't feel that it was good to leave incorrect information about a user in my post as I don't want to hinder someone elses reputation on the forum. I can not change what has happend already but I will make a change that will be evident in the future. That is the best I can offer.

As for your post in Tips for our new Members ComputerBob, I specifically had stated in the very first post that the thread should not have any questions in it. You choose to ignore that but I still feel that I was not disrespectful to you in my reply. Instead I just gave a reminder not to post questions to that thread along with an answer to your question. An only moments later added that it was fine for you and others to PM me if there were other questions.

[julian67]

I have something to say as it was me that started the thread that got locked.

First I want to get one thing out of the way: Absent Minded apologised and I accepted that, no problem. I don't always agree with him but I've always found him to be straightforward and honest. This is not a personal issue.

OK.

Making changes to posts can be a big problem. Corrections typos, correcting technical errors, adding pertinent information are all good reasons for editing posts. Normal forum etiquette is to note these changes. Ideally they should take the form of annotated additions, not unremarked substitutions. There is clearly some room for variance based on context.

However there are several members here who edit and delete portions of their posts, sometimes even delete entire posts, for less than positive reasons. Sometimes it's because they regret saying something or they don't want to appear mistaken/foolish/mean/whatever. Even worse is when it's done with a view to distorting or invalidating subsequent posts and replies which have already been made. Well we're all human beings. That means we all say and do things we regret. We get stuff wrong. We sometimes look foolish in front of our peers. But nobody dies The honest approach is to apologise where appropriate, even though this can be uncomfortable, and just accept that sometimes one will be wrong and be seen to be wrong. Nobody worth the time of day will think any less of someone for saying "I'm sorry, I got that wrong". It's good to realise that most people don't dwell on a mistake, they accept people in the round, and it's not the end of the world to look like an ass occasionally (or even regularly in some cases ha ha ha). This forum relies on the goodwill of its members and equally on people being straight with each other, and on everyone feeling that they are treated fairly. Behaving in a way that is deceitful or manipulative undermines the cooperative spirit that makes this place work. Behaving in a way that suggests one has been disingenuous or manipulative, or in a way that invites someone else to suggest it, or in a way that makes it impossible to tell, is almost as problematic. That means a retrospective substitution or deletion, though done in good faith for good reasons, can look very odd. It's best not done.

The convention is that if one needs to edit a post then that edit is noted and it is done, whenever possible, as an addition not a substitution or a deletion. This satisfies every requirement of honesty and good manners. It also protects the editor from being accused of being disingenuous or manipulative or dishonest. The one thing it doesn't do is protect someone's precious ego or maintain an illusion of personal perfection. That's a good thing in case you were wondering

Moderation:

Craigevil what is going on with you?

Enough bitching already, if you have a problem with a mod please take it up in a pm.

Like I posted if someone has an issue with a mod they need to take it up in a pm. Not whine about it in the forum like a little kid.

It's not acceptable to use personal insults and address people in a disparaging way in public while simultaneously insisting they respond in private.

ComputerBob and I are not best buddies but I have to say you owe him both an explanation and an apology. You are the one who is out of line. This style of contemptuous moderation is out of place here.

[Absent Minded]

Thank you Julian, I appreciate what you have said. It means allot to me that you came forward to speak on my behalf.

[anxious]

"can't we all just get along?"

[julian67]

"can't we all just get along?"

Getting along is a lot harder when the rule is "Do as I say, not as I do. I can behave badly but you can't. I can chastise you and insult you publicly and you may neither challenge nor discuss it publicly."

You might wonder if people who have the status of moderator but whose behaviour is immoderate lack a sense of irony.

[nadir]

"contemptuous" is a word i had to check, but it fits how people like me feel if threads are locked or moved.
the most users over here are or seem to be grown up enough and have earned a bit of esteem or honor (for what they know and for what they are)

im not refering to the acute "problems", but in general. locking (and moving and moderating in general) is a delicate thing. "because i can" is a bad thing in that case. sorry for my english, just try to understand what it says.
---
the "clear it in a pm" is completely beyond me. cause a mod is a mod or in general? is it kind of a taboo? then it should get in the guidelines. I for one know only one authority: reason, given in arguments.

ok, thanks for your time
greetings

[debil]

Sshhh, you're replying to a thread that's about to be locked any time soon

[julian67]

Sshhh, you're replying to a thread that's about to be locked any time soon

But did you notice how a single locked thread spawns multiple others, replete with quotes? So everyone gets to have their say in the end.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[debil]

But did you notice how a single locked thread spawns multiple others, replete with quotes? So everyone gets to have their say in the end.....

Bound to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

A name for the phenomenon. Thanks.

[Mez]

This topic is now closed.

Complaints regarding moderator behaviour, or regarding any member of the team's conduct should be directed, via email, to

admin@forums.debian.net