Topic Locked due to Personal Issues

[julian67]

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php? ... 57#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.

[nadir]

i will keep it short (and its difficult for me):
a) thanks for the plain and clear words (to both of you)

b)

Telemachus:
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.

i can speak only for me: my expectations here are much higher than at any other board (the level of freedom, not of knowledge). somehow one might see this as a compliment. i hope. in my world i do.

greetings

[ComputerBob]

...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...

You have misunderstood me. I fully and 100% agree with you that it is very important for this forum's moderators to be able to have private discussions between themselves.

So my request for "open source moderation" was not about private communications betweeen moderators.

It was about the fact that it has been requested that USERS who question a moderator's public behavior (i.e., unexplained locking and then unlocking of a thread) should privately (AKA secretely) write to a moderator about their concerns, instead of bringing up the subject in the very same public forum where the moderator's confusing public behavior took place.

To me, that request makes it look a lot like this forums' moderators are trying to make themselves immune from public accountability for any unjustified/unexplained/confusing public moderation behaviors that they perform that affect the public on these forums. So, what I suggested is that, instead of requesting more secrecy, I think that if the moderators would embrace more transparency in the moderation process, it would go a long way to reduce the levels of frustration and resentment that have already been expressed in this thread.

[Absent Minded]

I would like to point out that i did not say to tell another "moderator" I said that an administrator should be contacted. All of the moderators are on equal ground, meaning for instance that I can not take action against another moderator. In order for anything to be done to resolve the problem an administrator must be contacted.

[julian67]

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.

I don't think there is either. I just think moderation should be done for the benefit of the board (meaning its members as a whole) and not exercised to suit any one person, or out of some distinctly personal irritation. Generally it's done well. Very occasionally it isn't and while I know the admins think/insist that individual instances shouldn't be raised publicly it's hardly a realistic policy. Of course discussions between admins and moderators are conducted privately because often it's none of anyone else's business and nosiness isn't a compelling justification. But if someone has a tendency to use their moderation rights for personal reasons it is definitely going to get a public airing sooner or later, even if that's not supposed to be the right way to do it. I know such a policy is well intended and generally makes sense but it can produce a situation where someone 'moderates' in an extremely objectionable manner and then uses this policy to try to squash any objection. This has happened before, and not long ago either. I don't want to open an entire can of worms so I won't link it here, but the tendency exists. In theory any members who object should all be unaware of each other's objections and everything should be done ever so silently and privately via pm and email (all tip toeing around blindfolded pleading for wisdom/patience from those blessed with sight), with us regular board members being blissfully isolated, unaware and impotent. Or we can do what human beings actually do and say "excuse me, but I don't think that's right."

[ComputerBob]

I would like to point out that i did not say to tell another "moderator" I said that an administrator should be contacted. All of the moderators are on equal ground, meaning for instance that I can not take action against another moderator. In order for anything to be done to resolve the problem an administrator must be contacted.

Point taken. I understand.

But, again, I think it is both counterintuitive and counterproductive to request that individual users should individually contact an administrator privately if they have questions or concerns about a moderator's confusing public moderation behavior that has affected all of us publicly.

And you know, all of this discussion would have been unnecessary if the original locking of that thread -- and then the eventual unlocking of it -- had been explained at the time of the locking/unlocking.

But when a thread is locked without explanation or justification; and then it is later mysteriously unlocked without explanation or justification; and then users are asked to write privately to an administrator if they have any questions about that whole mysterious process... that just seems unnecessarily secretive instead of transparent -- which can easily result in confusion and resentment that could have been avoided with a little more moderating communication up-front.