Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

clarification:

Code of conduct, suggestions, and information on forums.debian.net.
Message
Author
User avatar
Telemachus
Posts: 4574
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: clarification:

#31 Post by Telemachus »

nadir wrote:ok, last time and as short as possible:
I think editing a post without being able to "see" the problem is very serious.
Yup, this is reasonable. Given the situation, however, I maintain that AbsentMinded's compromise was reasonable. (Note also that although he may not have been able to personally verify it, he had awfully good reason to believe it was exactly what it was, a picture of dog turd.)

The thing about compromise is that often both parties end up unhappy with the person making the decision. Here, you're unhappy - your post got edited though AM couldn't see it. However, he left it in a state that it wasn't really edited away. That is, anyone could easily still follow it. So, very likely, the complainer was upset since the dog turd was still (sort-of) there. Solomon and the split baby: no fun for anyone.

@Pick2 - God, I hope you're right (about it being over soon...)
"We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful."
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System

User avatar
Pick2
Posts: 790
Joined: 2007-07-07 13:31
Location: Decatur Il

Re: clarification:

#32 Post by Pick2 »

One forum I go to has a locked thread that they move the intact objectionable post to , then put a link to the original post.
then edit the original post and link it to the locked original copy.

Every one can see what it was ( if they want ) and what it became ,and it serves as an example of what is expected in posting here.
It seems to work well there , but there is not here

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: clarification:

#33 Post by julian67 »

Telemachus wrote: Solomon and the split baby: no fun for anyone.
Agreed. Moralistic endings are so dull. If they ever make the movie let's hope Ken Russell gets to direct it, or maybe Michael Winner.
Wisdom from my inbox: "do not mock at your pottenocy"

User avatar
bmc5311
Posts: 545
Joined: 2008-11-16 15:21
Location: lost in the vast machine

Re: clarification:

#34 Post by bmc5311 »

julian67 wrote:Agreed. Moralistic endings are so dull. If they ever make the movie let's hope Ken Russell gets to direct it, or maybe Michael Winner.
Quentin Tarantino may be interested ..

User avatar
AMLJ
Posts: 973
Joined: 2009-03-18 07:40
Location: Mierlo, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: clarification:

#35 Post by AMLJ »

Telemachus wrote:So I think that you are incorrect that you need some personal connection to become a mod of any kind. In fact, I think (though I can't be certain) that none of the current mods are personally acquainted with Mez or any of the other admins at that level. We're volunteers, just like anyone else here. Obviously many of us have been at it longer than some, but I believe that sort of thing is the only way anyone has "gotten to know us."
Well... Mez was the one who gave me that answer...

I had more important things to do, but I thought I could help the forums this way too, and that was the answer I got...

I don't care about that now..
AMLJ**0-1-47

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: clarification:

#36 Post by julian67 »

bmc5311 wrote:
julian67 wrote:Agreed. Moralistic endings are so dull. If they ever make the movie let's hope Ken Russell gets to direct it, or maybe Michael Winner.
Quentin Tarantino may be interested ..
Perhaps, but in the end he's another conventional moralist and his movies are too much like cartoons, and each other, and, like dog shits it's hard to care about their relative qualities and differences, better just to keep your eyes open and avoid if possible. Michael Winner's films have the quality of being actually shameless, instead of ersatz shameless, so he'd get my vote for making "The Old Testament - The Movie"....he'd fit right in with all the smiting, slaughtering, raping and enslaving, in fact he could probably save some money and use cuttings from his old movies for some of the scenes.
Wisdom from my inbox: "do not mock at your pottenocy"

User avatar
Mr James
Posts: 1258
Joined: 2010-09-10 13:02

Re: clarification:

#37 Post by Mr James »

You people do realize you're arguing over dog crap, don't you?
asus S551L laptop :: debian stable :: dwm

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: clarification:

#38 Post by julian67 »

AMLJ wrote: I had more important things to do, but I thought I could help the forums this way too, and that was the answer I got...

I don't care about that now..
You didn't do too badly. I pm'd mez and offered to help out with the spam cleaning and I didn't even get the courtesy of a reply, though I did hear second hand, from the grapevine, that exact same phrase "People who ask are generally not the kind of person that we want on our staff." so I now know for sure that what I was told was on the money. I tried thinking back to any of the places I've been employed/worked as a volunteer/been a director but I have to admit this little philosophical gem somehow had slipped past me, and apprently everyone else too. Several places I've worked would have simply ceased to function if run on that basis. I bet it works great in family life and social situations too. I expect we'll see it adopted as part of the DD induction procedure :D
Wisdom from my inbox: "do not mock at your pottenocy"

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

Re: clarification:

#39 Post by MeanDean »

Somebody apparently has dog crap as a wallpaper. Someone else, of delicate sensibilities no doubt - and more importantly who felt (wrongly I think) he was being insulted by the dog turd wallpaper - made a complaint. AbsentMinded,....
or to put it in more general terms...personA complained about something personB posted and a mod took action without any proof whatsoever and without any backing of any forum rule

if you cant see that as a problem (and I get the feeling you cant) then there is nothing further to discuss

and the feeling I get is that the other mods do not see anything really wrong with the mods actions I have to assume that it is not a problem and the same action is likely to occur in the future

probably just wanted everyone to stop acting like four year olds over in the screenshot thread, compromised.
now now....it is not polite to tell someone they are acting like a four year old

Your "slippery slope" argument is based on fallacious logic. It is no more reasonable to suggest that removal of an image featuring a close-up of dog feces will lead to enforcement of mandatory politeness on these forums than it would be to suggest that permitting such an image should lead to the forums being inundated with images of child pornography. Your argument presupposes that a transition of any kind necessarily proceeds to (one of) the extremes, failing to recognize that there may exist "middle ground" solutions from which little deviation is necessary to maximize the benefit and satisfaction of the broad membership of these forums.

As it is effectively the duty of the Moderators to promote gravitation towards this "middle ground" (hence the term "moderation"), I see little productive value in the argument you've provided.
and who decides this 'middle ground'?.....it appears any mod that feels it MAY be outside of middle ground will act as they please...

as far as my sliperry slope....you are taking it a bit too specifically...

the broad membership is the point....people need to be less sensitive because debian is all inclusive (or at least it use to be) and the forum should also allow a LOT of latitude in everything because it is diverse....people should realize that on a diverse forum you will run into diverse 'things' and to be offended by them is asinine....

as far as chold pornography that would be a legal matter and is obviously a issue, a dog turd really is not....at least not that I am aware of....although our local park does write citiations for it we aren't really talking about a park
You seem intent upon fabricating staff behavior people would consider outrageous and then proceeding to rail against that hypothetical behavior. Such rhetoric is pretty much nugatory towards the purpose of discussing the actual situation.
just trying to get the ball rolling....
the slippery slope has been tread upon and now there is no reason to waste time getting to the bottom of it....
It is obvious, at least to me, that there must be some degree of staff intervention into the posting that takes place in these forums so they might provide a reasonable environment for Debian users to share their experiences and assist each other in their endeavors.
oh yes...before you mahhhhvalouuus mods came along this place was horrible.....just horrible....damn Lavene was a disgrace and this place was utter chaos with child porn and personal attacks all over the place.......thank geebus for you guys....you guys have solved everything....keep up the good work...
Last edited by MeanDean on 2011-01-02 21:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

Re: clarification:

#40 Post by MeanDean »

Telemachus wrote: I volunteered then, as did .... MeanDean and some others.
woahhhhh tonto..... hold up there......dont think so....

User avatar
nadir
Posts: 5961
Joined: 2009-10-05 22:06
Location: away

Re: clarification:

#41 Post by nadir »

or to put it in more general terms...personA complained about something personB posted and a mod took action without any proof whatsoever and without any backing of any forum rule

if you cant see that as a problem (and I get the feeling you cant) then there is nothing further to discuss
I already had the feeling i would come from outer space.
For me it is so obviously against all common behavior ...

One marginal question:
I am not an expert, but how can one recognize it as being from a dog?
Not that it would matter for me, i like the general look&feel, not that part, and the wallpaper/desktop is not the problem here.
"I am not fine with it, so there is nothing for me to do but stand aside." M.D.

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

Re: clarification:

#42 Post by MeanDean »

Telemachus wrote: I will say that this whole thing looks to me (at a quick read), like a tempest in a teapot. No doubt with a little team spirit and commitment we could stretch this thread out for 10 or even 20 pages, but really, is it worth it? ?
ahh yes....Teles preference is for things not to become a big issue...no ugly arguments and all that.....maybe time for a new rule???

things should run the way the mods want them to run afterall....

but I wont stretch the thread out any further....no more to say besides THANK YOU to the admins/mods....really have needed for this last bastion of sensibility to turn to crap so I could feel comfortable not visiting it anymore....so thanks...the fact that a turd wallpaper is the reason is just WAY too good....way too good....


rule #15 - no turds for your wallpaper, naked chicks are fine (although debian-women wont like it) and religious figures/signs are fine as is political thingys but no turds....no no no....no turds....

User avatar
Telemachus
Posts: 4574
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: clarification:

#43 Post by Telemachus »

MeanDean wrote:
Telemachus wrote: I volunteered then, as did .... MeanDean and some others.
woahhhhh tonto..... hold up there......dont think so....
Huh? You were for a time a spam-buster. Then you quit. I thought maybe I was crazy about this, but here's the thread where you resign: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=45145.

I grant that you did this in your persona of Gnudude. I didn't remember that. Or maybe you're objecting to me saying you volunteered? I can't say that for sure - no idea, actually.
"We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful."
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System

User avatar
traveler
Posts: 942
Joined: 2010-06-09 22:07

Re: clarification:

#44 Post by traveler »

Mr James wrote:You people do realize you're arguing over dog crap, don't you?
The discussion is over whether a poster's comments should be censored without a proper review to confirm forum rules were broken. The thing that makes it so funny is that a couple of dog turds were the impetus for the discussion. I still think it should be the default wallpaper for at least one derivative distro.
I'd add a smiley, but I'm really only half-joking.
I wish for a conjugal visit and world peace. (Don't want to seem selfish.)

User avatar
Telemachus
Posts: 4574
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: clarification:

#45 Post by Telemachus »

MeanDean wrote:
Somebody apparently has dog crap as a wallpaper. Someone else, of delicate sensibilities no doubt - and more importantly who felt (wrongly I think) he was being insulted by the dog turd wallpaper - made a complaint. AbsentMinded,....
or to put it in more general terms...personA complained about something personB posted and a mod took action without any proof whatsoever and without any backing of any forum rule

if you cant see that as a problem (and I get the feeling you cant) then there is nothing further to discuss
I think your description of AM's actions is not quite fair or accurate. First, there is a rule against "Links to inappropriate websites" and content is supposed to be "polite". Both are mentioned as things that may get your post edited. We can debate whether or not the turds were appropriate or polite, but there rule is there. Second, you don't mention that AM asked nadir what the picture was. Third, as I keep saying, I think it matters that AM compromised: he didn't lock the thread or make the link disappear. He made it a little harder to get to, in an effort to please both parties - the person who complained and the person who posted the link.
"We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful."
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System

User avatar
Absent Minded
Posts: 3464
Joined: 2006-07-09 08:50
Location: Washington State U.S.A.
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: clarification:

#46 Post by Absent Minded »

Dean, you couldn't care less about the forum rules on any given day. You have made this quite apparent in the past. The fact is that you have some kind of personal beef with me apparently. It doesn't matter whether I would have consulted with other staff or not. This has been made apparent in the past already as you have specifically mocked me for consulting with others instead of making the decision of my own accord. Either way, you are trying to bully your way threw things. I find it hard to believe that "now" all of a sudden you are clinging to the forum rules that you keep showing such disregard for.

As for my actions, I had just cause to take them. As far as I am concerned, I could have been harder on those involved and it would have still been reasonable. With all the trash talk and bickering the thread probably just should have been locked. There are several more severe actions I could have too rather than just obfuscating a link for a time.

From what you are saying if someone were to of posted child porn instead but I could not have seen it, I should have just left it. That is asinine.

So big deal, the link was obfuscated for a few hours while things were checked out. Anyone who really wanted to view it could (assuming they had the capability). With all this fuss one would think I deleted someones account for no reason at all. Get real and grow up.
Serving the community the best way I can.
Spreading the tradition of Community Spirit.
Please read some Basic Forum Philosophy
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, he eats for life.
Updated Nov. 19, 2012

User avatar
bmc5311
Posts: 545
Joined: 2008-11-16 15:21
Location: lost in the vast machine

Re: clarification:

#47 Post by bmc5311 »

nadir wrote:One marginal question:
I am not an expert, but how can one recognize it as being from a dog?

Not that I claim to be an excrement expert, but it does look a little feline to me .. :lol:


and speaking of excrement, I think it's about to hit the fan in this thread. :(

higgins
Posts: 56
Joined: 2008-05-03 20:26
Location: Indiana, USA

Re: clarification:

#48 Post by higgins »

wow, what a suprise. Posts have been removed from this thread.

User avatar
Telemachus
Posts: 4574
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: clarification:

#49 Post by Telemachus »

higgins wrote:wow, what a suprise. Posts have been removed from this thread.
They have been? I'm not aware of anything like that. Can you elaborate, please?

Follow-up: after a quick check in the logs, I see that three users appear to have removed their own posts from the thread. Since there has been some anger about moderator edits more generally, I want to make clear that I don't think any mod or admin has edited this thread in any way. I may be wrong about that, but it's what I can see in the logs.

Just for what it's worth, I would hope that we could give each other the benefit of the doubt and not assume the worst (nor jump to conspiratorial, worst-case conclusions). So far as I know, it has always been the case that except for moving outright spam or in the case of very extreme pornography, racism or hate, edited or locked posts are marked as such. I don't believe any of the mods does this sort of thing secretly or on the sly.
"We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful."
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System

User avatar
nadir
Posts: 5961
Joined: 2009-10-05 22:06
Location: away

Re: clarification:

#50 Post by nadir »

give each other the benefit of the doubt and not assume the worst
You can see why i quote this?


I did remove my last post, cause in this section not much is going on. I don't want nadir to be there, at top of this section, for a long time. I am tired of him. That was all. In case no one will post after this one i will remove this post too
(assuming no one will make it non-editable)
Checking old posts of oneself will not hurt.
"I am not fine with it, so there is nothing for me to do but stand aside." M.D.

Post Reply