clarification:

Have something to say about forums.debian.net itself?

Re: clarification:

Postby Telemachus » 2011-01-02 18:56

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
Telemachus
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53

Re: clarification:

Postby Pick2 » 2011-01-02 20:19

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
Pick2
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 2007-07-07 13:31
Location: Decatur Il

Re: clarification:

Postby julian67 » 2011-01-02 20:31

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
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Re: clarification:

Postby bmc5311 » 2011-01-02 20:34

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 ..
macbook air /stable amd64/openbox

http://www.debianuserforums.org/ - By the community. For the community.
User avatar
bmc5311
 
Posts: 539
Joined: 2008-11-16 15:21
Location: lost in the vast machine

Re: clarification:

Postby AMLJ » 2011-01-02 20:53

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

Re: clarification:

Postby julian67 » 2011-01-02 20:54

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
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Re: clarification:

Postby Mr James » 2011-01-02 21:02

You people do realize you're arguing over dog shit, don't you?
asus S551L laptop :: debian stable :: dwm
User avatar
Mr James
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: 2010-09-10 13:02

Re: clarification:

Postby julian67 » 2011-01-02 21:03

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
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Re: clarification:

Postby MeanDean » 2011-01-02 21:31

Somebody apparently has dog shit 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: 3953
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

Re: clarification:

Postby MeanDean » 2011-01-02 21:36

Telemachus wrote: I volunteered then, as did .... MeanDean and some others.

woahhhhh tonto..... hold up there......dont think so....
User avatar
MeanDean
 
Posts: 3953
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

Re: clarification:

Postby nadir » 2011-01-02 21:43

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
nadir
 
Posts: 5964
Joined: 2009-10-05 22:06
Location: away

Re: clarification:

Postby MeanDean » 2011-01-02 21:50

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 shit 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
MeanDean
 
Posts: 3953
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

Re: clarification:

Postby Telemachus » 2011-01-02 22:01

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
Telemachus
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53

Re: clarification:

Postby traveler » 2011-01-02 22:13

Mr James wrote:You people do realize you're arguing over dog shit, 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
traveler
 
Posts: 942
Joined: 2010-06-09 22:07

Re: clarification:

Postby Telemachus » 2011-01-02 22:14

MeanDean wrote:
Somebody apparently has dog shit 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
Telemachus
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53

PreviousNext

Return to Forum stuff & feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

fashionable