Topic Locked due to Personal Issues

[julian67]

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=49904&p=287657#p287657



Craigevil don't be such a wuss. Your hurt feelings would have passed unnoticed and unremarked if you hadn't had a hissy fit. You even got two good posts that contradict the person who pressed your buttons, one from me and one from nadir.....it was all going your way....

[sickie]

I agree. No (good) reason for locking that thread.

[Jackiebrown]

hehehe.

It is the oposite of the sidux forums.

There, the post get locks if you talk about the merrits of smxi and here it gets locked if you diss it :)

That said, I guess some posts were deleted since I don't see any replies from craigevil.

I agree. No (good) reason for locking that thread.

I am guessing that all the troll / flaimebait threads where deleted.

That is the nice thing about being a mod.

Back when I posted on the linuxquestions forums, I learned to quote alomst everything I reply to because of people deleting (or editing) posts and making my repsonses look insane :)
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions ... se-676569/
specifcally posts 8 and 9

[Absent Minded]

I can't see any deleted posts from that thread. I did however note that it appears unlocked to me at this time.

[nadir]

same here: thread looks exactly like yesterday (+1 post), nothing is deleted. (and yes, its unlocked, good choice).
the post is ridiculous anyway (not the sid=sidux part, but the personal attack).

[milomak]

it seems a fairly straightforward thread to me. can't even see a personal attack.

[Raffles10]

Actually the thread isn't locked at all. I think he got you....

[julian67]

For the benefit of those who are apparently totally unable to see the 10th post in that thread, here it is:

Topic locked due to trolling/flaming.

That thread was definitely locked at the time I made this thread, and has since been unlocked.

The supposed trolling/flaming that provoked this was apparently piper mentioning that craigevil was banned from sidux forums and irc which is barely even mildly provocative. If it was untrue it might be seen as a nasty thing to say, but it does appear to be true. I made this thread because feeling huffy and defensive, or wanting to work out stuff that happened elsewhere than these forums, is a really crappy reason for exercising one's moderation powers and while moderators need to monitor members, the members also need to monitor the mods....helps prevent moderation rampages which can include ambushes, drive-by lockings and unexplained disappearances, virtual bodies being found in the desert I'm sure getting banned leaves a very bad taste and is infuriating, but that bad feeling isn't caused by anything that happened here, and moderation here shouldn't be done on the basis of animosity arising from disputes/situations elsewhere.

[Absent Minded]

For the benefit of those who are apparently totally unable to see the 10th post in that thread, here it is:

Topic locked due to trolling/flaming.

That thread was definitely locked at the time I made this thread, and has since been unlocked.

The supposed trolling/flaming that provoked this was apparently piper mentioning that craigevil was banned from sidux forums and irc which is barely even mildly provocative. If it was untrue it might be seen as a nasty thing to say, but it does appear to be true. I made this thread because feeling huffy and defensive, or wanting to work out stuff that happened elsewhere than these forums, is a really crappy reason for exercising one's moderation powers and while moderators need to monitor members, the members also need to monitor the mods....helps prevent moderation rampages which can include ambushes, drive-by lockings and unexplained disappearances, virtual bodies being found in the desert I'm sure getting banned leaves a very bad taste and is infuriating, but that bad feeling isn't caused by anything that happened here, and moderation here shouldn't be done on the basis of animosity arising from disputes/situations elsewhere.

While i agree with your statment 100%. It has been requested by our forum admins that if there is a problem with a moderator that you contact one of the administrators directly.

[nadir]

There is more chance of an entire public enlightening itself

For enlightenment of this kind, all that is needed is freedom. And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of all freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters.

But I hear on all sides the cry: Don't argue! The officer says: Don't argue, get on parade! The tax-official: Don't argue, pay! The clergyman: Don't argue, believe!
(Only one ruler in the world says: Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!).

All this means restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which sort of restriction prevents enlightenment, and which, instead of hindering it, can actually promote it ?
I reply: The public use of man's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men; the private use of reason may quite often be very narrowly restricted, however, without undue hindrance to the progress of
enlightenment.
But by the public use of one's own reason I mean that use which anyone may make of it as a man of learning addressing the entire reading public. What I term the private use of reason is that which a person may make of it in a
particular civil post or office with which he is entrusted.

i wrote this short essay on the subject at Konigsberg in Prussia, 30th September, 1784
... wait that can not be. i must of written it lately.

all of it

[smallchange]

For the benefit of those who are apparently totally unable to see the 10th post in that thread, here it is:

Topic locked due to trolling/flaming.

That thread was definitely locked at the time I made this thread, and has since been unlocked.

The supposed trolling/flaming that provoked this was apparently piper mentioning that craigevil was banned from sidux forums and irc which is barely even mildly provocative. If it was untrue it might be seen as a nasty thing to say, but it does appear to be true. I made this thread because feeling huffy and defensive, or wanting to work out stuff that happened elsewhere than these forums, is a really crappy reason for exercising one's moderation powers and while moderators need to monitor members, the members also need to monitor the mods....helps prevent moderation rampages which can include ambushes, drive-by lockings and unexplained disappearances, virtual bodies being found in the desert I'm sure getting banned leaves a very bad taste and is infuriating, but that bad feeling isn't caused by anything that happened here, and moderation here shouldn't be done on the basis of animosity arising from disputes/situations elsewhere.

While i agree with your statment 100%. It has been requested by our forum admins that if there is a problem with a moderator that you contact one of the administrators directly.

Would you care to explain the reasoning behind this? It seems to me that any problem with a moderator will have come up in public and should be resolved in full view. I would be willing to change that opinion if you can provide a good reason.

[Absent Minded]

All i could do is make speculations as to reasons why. I wasn't given a reason just told that that is how it should be handled.

[ComputerBob]

I'm a firm believer that private problems should be handled privately.

But public problems should be handled publicly.

Just as it would be inappropriate for a user to publicly air their private correspondence with another user, I believe it is inappropriate for a moderator to unilaterally and publicly perform a moderation act, without any public explanation or justification, and then request that the users who were publicly chastised or otherwise affected by the moderator's public actions should respond to those actions privately.

We all saw what happened in this very public situation, so many of us who didn't even post in that thread want to know why it happened. Why was the thread locked without any explanation? Why was it later unlocked? And why should questions about it be discussed "behind closed doors?" by individuals, instead of out in public, where the behavior took place?

If one of us publicly "steps out of bounds," on these forums, we are called out for our behavior publicly. Why shouldn't moderators be held publicly accountable for their public behavior, too?

Closing that thread and then later reopening it -- both without explanation -- was a public act that affected the public, so the public wants to know.

I believe that a good dose of "open source moderation" would greatly reduce the amount of confusion and resentment among this forum's users.

[Absent Minded]

I am unable to speak to why it was locked. I wasn't involved in that act. As for why it was unlocked, it was felt that was the best resolve for the community. I apologize for not having any more information.

[Telemachus]

We all saw what happened in this very public situation, so many of us who didn't even post in that thread want to know why it happened. Why was the thread locked without any explanation? Why was it later unlocked? And why should questions about it be discussed "behind closed doors?" by individuals, instead of out in public, where the behavior took place?

If one of us publicly "steps out of bounds," on these forums, we are called out for our behavior publicly. Why shouldn't moderators be held publicly accountable for their public behavior, too?

Closing that thread and then later reopening it -- both without explanation -- was a public act that affected the public, so the public wants to know.

I believe that a good dose of "open source moderation" would greatly reduce the amount of confusion and resentment among this forum's users.

Craigevil locked the thread - that's a known fact. I can't say precisely what his motivations were, but I believe that Piper baited him somewhat (by mentioning events from the Sidux forum). Again, let me stress, that's my belief. I didn't notice Piper's comments initially, but after I reread the thread, that's my view. I also think the thread should be open - again, just my view.

I didn't notice that thread at all until this thread was created by Julian. After reading this thread, I started a discussion in the Moderator forum about the locked thread. We spoke it over, and Craigevil re-opened the thread. Craigevil, Absentminded and I are all new at all this. It's not uncommon for us to discuss things together in there - often with other mods or spambusters as well.

I agree that transparency is - in general - a good thing. However, I can see the sense in keeping some things private to the moderator forums. Not for nefarious reasons (I hope), but because sometimes the issues are delicate. That said, in many cases the discussions in the moderator forum involve us fumbling around deciding what to do and many of the topics are just boring as hell (how to stop the latest spam-bots, etc.). Basically, I'm admitting that I can't fully decide if everything should be open or not. As a general rule, I like open, but there are some things that are probably easier to talk about in private.

I hope that there isn't a large "amount of confusion and resentment among this forum's users." I'm somewhat surprised to hear that, frankly. I didn't think it was the case.