| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Proposed rule change
I would like to propose a rule change. If an admin is involved in posting in a thread they are not allowed to use their admin powers to delete posts, issue warnings or lock threads. This would help stop the situations where an admin who loses an argument can abuse their powers to remove the posts they personally disagree with.
|
|
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
omg
|
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Quoting taper
Seriously, just as a BBS, CSDB is not a democracy. Ofcourse we can whine when admins do something we dislike (in the past I used to whine that they were too nice to certain eggheads on here who constantly broke rules, for example). However, we can not demand anything, and certainly not who should be in charge or not.
If that's not acceptable, build something yourself and impose your own rules.
Just an opinion of another thread which also matches in this case. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
http://noname.c64.org/csdb/help.php?section=rules |
| |
Moloch
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2928 |
haha |
| |
SIDWAVE
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238 |
stop the bs and just say the truth: groepaz is a socalled admin, and is known to being a factor to stir up the mood in a thread, by opposing and writing "its useless" and so on, and even many times has been the initializer of a thread going bad.
and i have said a couple of times, this, in those threads, that this is no way an admin should work, and therefore he is not fit to be an admin.
so for the last time, if people agree, then say it out flat as it is, and dont beat about the bush.
else you can change nothing, and the moaning will go on forever.
|
| |
SIDWAVE
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238 |
if this website was a company, the psychic atmosphere is of lowest standard, and only fools would wanna work here, in the long run. |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3193 |
 |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
SIDwave you aren't exactly the example of person easy to get along with, internets-wise. |
| |
Sixx
Registered: May 2005
Posts: 229 |
omg |
| |
Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 686 |
OK so if this like old BBS now, then I propose that the cock for non posters be added immediate.
Also, I propose 90% of the people here are black listed immediate as they are not 31337.
Also, I propose that all non scene releases be deleted immediate as it has nothing to do with the scene, therefore irrelevant.
Also, after all elite BBS protocols and management has been instituted, enjoy csdb as much as possible when 3 posts per month, and nearly no one visiting it ever like SH.
:P |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Yeah. Fungus is right.
Therefore I really enjoy whenever we have some lively active people around ... like the one who posted this lovely message for us mods:
Quote:"... is a troll, should not be a mod, my opinion will not change, do whatever you want idiots."
Looking into the mirror would help. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Please try to keep the replies on topic. The proposed change has been made to try to help improve the relationship between mods and posters. Which would therefore help improve debate in the forums. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Martin has a fair point don't you think?
Mod=Moderator
definition:
mod·er·a·tor/ˈmädəˌrātər/Noun
1. An arbitrator or mediator.
2. A presiding officer, esp. a chairman of a debate.
therefore to be a "moderator" the person in question should, by definition, remain neutral.
They "should" therefore logically, give up moderator rights on any debate they become actively "involved" in on a personal basis.
you aren't allowed to be a prosecuting or defence counsel and a judge at the same time are you?
Steve |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Thank you Steve. You explained it better than I. |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Is this a private site ? |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
see now thats getting personally involved in a debate isn't it?
exactly what we are referring to. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Public or private isn't an argument against the proposed change per se. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Martin. As I see it. What happened was moderators mistake. He should have clicked the evil "censor" button on the posts starting by yours, and fill in the reason "off topic". He might eventually also close the thread, because it wasn't serving the purpose anymore anyway.
You can't avoid such situations completely.
The rule wouldn't change much. We would have internal debate and then give the person who made the mess the "green light" on cleaning of the mess that he has made.
|
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Quoting Martin PiperPublic or private isn't an argument against the proposed change per se.
From my site it is as you can not expect one running a private site the way you want to have it. You can do proposals but than again if the changes wont happen you have to live with it. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
and you took down oswald's new SSDB logo before you made that remark?
now THAT's irony :) |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
CreaMD, by making the rule change public it helps to reinforce the message to mods and posters alike. Which is a good thing.
You seem to have an idea of a recent mod mistake that might be the one I'm thinking of. I'm glad you appear to agree that the posts should not have been deleted. But they have not yet been restored. Is there a reason why not? |
| |
TWW
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 545 |
I would like to propose the following suggestion:
Why not a show-down of the mod's vs. the aniti-mods.
Get a large round table and spread dry crackers all over it. Then whip out your slongs and whomever jizz off last looses and must eat the crackers and has to step down / stop whining according to their standing...
+1 for locking this thread.
and also get sterilized and stop dying... Worse then Falcon Crest at times... |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Martin.
What I said was "He should have clicked the evil "censor" button on the posts starting by yours, and fill in the reason "off topic".".
Which means: he should have deleted them without commenting on them. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: Quoting Martin PiperPublic or private isn't an argument against the proposed change per se.
From my site it is as you can not expect one running a private site the way you want to have it. You can do proposals but than again if the changes wont happen you have to live with it.
It is a public site that accepts donations. I've donated quite a large chunk of cash in the past. If the site never took a donation you might have a point. But as I said public or private is not relevant to the point.
Now do you have a valid argument against the proposed change? |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote: Martin.
What I said was "He should have clicked the evil "censor" button on the posts starting by yours, and fill in the reason "off topic".".
Which means: he should have deleted them without commenting on them.
So because groepy doesn't like some of us had something new to say, nobody else gets to see it either. ROFL It was a perfectly valid line of discussion, using a rle list to draw spans. The fact a machine that does that was used as an example has got nothing to do with it and wasn't "name dropping" as groepaz called it. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: Martin.
What I said was "He should have clicked the evil "censor" button on the posts starting by yours, and fill in the reason "off topic".".
Which means: he should have deleted them without commenting on them.
They were not off topic. So that would be the wrong action to take. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Quote: Martin.
What I said was "He should have clicked the evil "censor" button on the posts starting by yours, and fill in the reason "off topic".".
Which means: he should have deleted them without commenting on them.
we all know it was nothing to do with OT and everything to do with who had posted.
give us credit for some intelligence PLEASE. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Martin. Moderator evaluates, decides, deletes, gives a reason for deletion. That is how it works. What new rule are going to propose? That moderators should vote on every "deletion"?
And as far as your posts in that thread are concerned. Be so kind and don't start the whole debate again. It's pointless.
You don't seem to understand how moderation works.
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Christ you guys can be condescending. I think everyone knows how moderation works, the problem is when someone is supposed to be modding AND gets involved in or even starts arguments. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
we know EXACTLY how moderation works and therefore know this isnt it.
you can't objectively moderate on thread you are involved in. PERIOD. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
JCB: and have you read carefully what I said? I said that it was mistake (to get involved). He should have done the mod work without commenting.
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: Martin. Moderator evaluates, decides, deletes, gives a reason for deletion. That is how it works. What new rule are going to propose? That moderators should vote on every "deletion"?
And as far as your posts in that thread are concerned. Be so kind and don't start the whole debate again. It's pointless.
You don't seem to understand how moderation works.
I do understand, which is why I proposed the change. When a moderator debates in a thread like a normal poster would, then when they are shown to be wrong, that moderator its not the right person to then make a decision on what is off topic and to delete posts. Obviously because their actions have personal bias.
Can you explain how in a thread about 3D graphics algorithms the RLE approach is off topic? Obviously it is on topic. So obviously it was wrong to delete those posts and lock the thread. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
STE'86, you are partially right. After you get involved, it seems that you are abusing your rights. Especially when there is an argue. Therefore it's best to do what you consider right, because if you choose to get into argument with users it's a way to that hell that happened in that thread. |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote: JCB: and have you read carefully what I said? I said that it was mistake (to get involved). He should have done the mod work without commenting.
Yes, I read it and yes I understood what you're saying and yes, we still all know how moderation works...
The problem in that thread was nothing to do with it being off topic or not, as has been said, if it was it should have just been deleted then maybe some polite PMs could be sent to sort it out. As it was, it was nothing more than trolling THEN bringing out the moderator card after trying to justify the post. You've only got to restore the posts in that thread to see how ridiculous he made it...
|
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
can we take it then that groepaz will be discouraged from "getting involved" to euphemistically refer to it in discussions/arguments while a mod then? |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: STE'86, you are partially right. After you get involved, it seems that you are abusing your rights. Especially when there is an argue. Therefore it's best to do what you consider right, because if you choose to get into argument with users it's a way to that hell that happened in that thread.
Actually no. It is better for the mod in the argument to try to debate properly or to stop posting and to not use their powers, or threaten to use their powers. In the particular thread is was all fine and on topic until the mod came along and made an incorrect post which was off topic.
The correct moderation decision should have been to delete the mod's post as off topic and leave the on topic posts, i.e. leave my post and the other posts discussing the on topic RLE method. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Quote: I do understand, which is why I proposed the change. When a moderator debates in a thread like a normal poster would, then when they are shown to be wrong, that moderator its not the right person to then make a decision on what is off topic and to delete posts. Obviously because their actions have personal bias.
Can you explain how in a thread about 3D graphics algorithms the RLE approach is off topic? Obviously it is on topic. So obviously it was wrong to delete those posts and lock the thread.
I agree with the first part. Except of the fact about "moderator proven wrong" it's relative and depends on point of view. Especially on internet where persistence sometimes win over the common sense.
As far as offtopicness is conerned. Moderator decides. That thread was about the 3d card being developed by Stingray. The coder guys were giving him some hints on what features of card they would find useful. Everything else in that thread is more or less oftopic, especially after Stingray stopped posting to it. The purpose of that thread went away. Of course it is just an individual point of view. Mine. According to that I would also consider your posts offtopic. They weren't helping the developer, which was long gone, and they weren't adding value to coders debates either, because that hardware isn't avalable on C64.
And now see what you have done. We are back to debate about your posts. But maybe, now you will at least admit that there was some sense in Groepaz's objections. If not, then there is still that "it's on moderator to decide" option. And that beats all argumentation we have here. ;-)
|
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
or to put it another way in another place, years ago...
"he was only obeying orders" |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
If a mod is going to just delete things then wtf is the point of anyone ever posting? Some idiot is going to think they know better and PRESTO your post is gone. I understand mods doing that type of stuff with files, might not agree with it sometimes but understand, but just deleting posts??
As I suggested to gropeaz at the time, all a mod has to do is ask people keep it on topic NOT post some sarcastic crap because they know it'll get a reaction (the very definition of trolling)
Offtopicness (sic) in a thread like that, as you've said hardly mattered as most of it was. Or do you guys pay by the word? If not, and it wasn't "Today I went to Zoo!" or something really off topic like that, it should just be left. Who knows, the hardware dev might see it if he picks it up again and decide RLE would be an interesting thing to explore. It sure as crap wasn't hurting anyone. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: I agree with the first part. Except of the fact about "moderator proven wrong" it's relative and depends on point of view. Especially on internet where persistence sometimes win over the common sense.
As far as offtopicness is conerned. Moderator decides. That thread was about the 3d card being developed by Stingray. The coder guys were giving him some hints on what features of card they would find useful. Everything else in that thread is more or less oftopic, especially after Stingray stopped posting to it. The purpose of that thread went away. Of course it is just an individual point of view. Mine. According to that I would also consider your posts offtopic. They weren't helping the developer, which was long gone, and they weren't adding value to coders debates either, because that hardware isn't avalable on C64.
And now see what you have done. We are back to debate about your posts. But maybe, now you will at least admit that there was some sense in Groepaz's objections. If not, then there is still that "it's on moderator to decide" option. And that beats all argumentation we have here. ;-)
I think you're wrong for the following reasons:
The thread was very much still alive.
The topic of using RLE spans for 3D acceleration are relevant to the developer, it is why I made the post.
Even if the original poster stopped posting the topic of the thread still remains and might be useful to someone else in the future. To delete posts that are on topic and useful is incorrect moderation.
Because the posts were deleted and the topic locked the original poster was not even given a chance to comment on the useful nature of the posts. The first post in that thread by Stingray was in 2004, the last post was in 2010. Judging by the length of time the poster was still posting in the thread you cannot logically claim the poster "stoppoed posting in it". You have to concede that it was perfectly possible Stongray could have seen our on topic posts and come back with more posts regarding an RLE addition to his project.
The mod's post was not useful, it was off topic. The moderator is no longer performing the role of moderator when they make off topic posts in a thread. Ergo they are no longer a moderator per se.
As such there is no logical sense for Groepaz's objections.
You cannot logically fall back to using "it's on moderator to decide" when the moderator has a biased involvement in the thread and is therefore no longer able to perform the role of moderator. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Quote: If a mod is going to just delete things then wtf is the point of anyone ever posting? Some idiot is going to think they know better and PRESTO your post is gone. I understand mods doing that type of stuff with files, might not agree with it sometimes but understand, but just deleting posts??
As I suggested to gropeaz at the time, all a mod has to do is ask people keep it on topic NOT post some sarcastic crap because they know it'll get a reaction (the very definition of trolling)
Offtopicness (sic) in a thread like that, as you've said hardly mattered as most of it was. Or do you guys pay by the word? If not, and it wasn't "Today I went to Zoo!" or something really off topic like that, it should just be left. Who knows, the hardware dev might see it if he picks it up again and decide RLE would be an interesting thing to explore. It sure as crap wasn't hurting anyone.
Moderator decides. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
shame the whole shebang crashes down when the moderator chooses to be a dick really. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: Moderator decides.
As I said you cannot logically fall back to using "moderator decides" when the moderator has a biased involvement in the thread and is therefore no longer able to perform the role of moderator.
Which is why I proposed the rule change, it would help to improve debate in threads by clarifying that when moderators post like everyone else they are subject to the same rules as everyone else in that thread.
|
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Quote: I think you're wrong for the following reasons:
The thread was very much still alive.
The topic of using RLE spans for 3D acceleration are relevant to the developer, it is why I made the post.
Even if the original poster stopped posting the topic of the thread still remains and might be useful to someone else in the future. To delete posts that are on topic and useful is incorrect moderation.
Because the posts were deleted and the topic locked the original poster was not even given a chance to comment on the useful nature of the posts. The first post in that thread by Stingray was in 2004, the last post was in 2010. Judging by the length of time the poster was still posting in the thread you cannot logically claim the poster "stoppoed posting in it". You have to concede that it was perfectly possible Stongray could have seen our on topic posts and come back with more posts regarding an RLE addition to his project.
The mod's post was not useful, it was off topic. The moderator is no longer performing the role of moderator when they make off topic posts in a thread. Ergo they are no longer a moderator per se.
As such there is no logical sense for Groepaz's objections.
You cannot logically fall back to using "it's on moderator to decide" when the moderator has a biased involvement in the thread and is therefore no longer able to perform the role of moderator.
And you are coming up with new arguments which are dragging your own thread to total mess.
First of all. I'm not going to delete anything, nor closing this. I'm chosing ignoring it. But of course I will post one last post here. Which is this one.
so..
The thread was dead for almost year.. it wasn't alive.
This post appeared after almost a year
Quote:"I followed this thread waiting to see the birth of a new hw but it looks like too much time has passed since last Stingray's post... It sounded very promising, I really hope this thing still being under development.
... any news about this lil beauty?"
I would have expected Stingray to reply. That would be on-topic.
Your JCB's and STE'86 posts weren't useful for me. I have read the whole thread for the first time when it reappeared. And your posts later after the thread was closed and mentioned in moderators forum. I found posts by C64 coders very useful. Your post's vere somehow releated but not useful.
If Stingray returns back, he can start new thread easily.
The mod's post shouldn't have been there. He should have deleted your posts if he thought they were offtopic. That what mods are doing and should do (if they feel it is right thing to do).
As far as people vs. groepaz in that thread is concerned. My independent point of view is, that Groepaz deserves the blame for getting into silly argument with you.
But it seems it is really easy to get into silly argument with you guys. Live long and prosper. EOT for me.
|
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
it only looks silly when you havent got a better argument than "because i say so" |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:
As far as people vs. groepaz in that thread is concerned. My independent point of view is, that Groepaz deserves the blame for getting into silly argument with you.
But it seems it is really easy to get into silly argument with you guys. Live long and prosper. EOT for me.
well said. and as for the rest, i wont get into such argument with some people anymore. promised.
and now for shits and giggles, look at some of the past "omg the evil nazi mods" threads and see how its always the same 5 people whining. thats totally moderation proven wrong!
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting CreaMDAnd you are coming up with new arguments which are dragging your own thread to total mess.
Actually no, I didn't want to or start discussing particular people or posts. I specifically kept the original post neutral. I am only responding to your points specifically about those particular posts and mods.
I also note that nobody has come up with a good argument against the proposed rule change. Which is the real topic of this thread.
Quoting CreaMD
The thread was dead for almost year.. it wasn't alive.
I would have expected Stingray to reply. That would be on-topic.
Given the very short amount of time between new on topic posts about RLE 3D and the eventual lock and delete I put it to you that the original poster was not given enough time to actually check and respond to the thread. So you cannot logically say if the thread was alive or not.
Also the fact is the deleted posts only came after it was pointed out the mod made off topic posts and then apparently got angry and went into a huff. You have to concede this is not good moderation.
Quoting CreaMDYour JCB's and STE'86 posts weren't useful for me. I have read the whole thread for the first time when it reappeared. And your posts later after the thread was closed and mentioned in moderators forum. I found posts by C64 coders very useful. Your post's vere somehow releated but not useful.
Other posters found them to be useful and on topic. I would also point out that because the thread was locked and the posts deleted I was not able to comment or clarify further.
Quote:If Stingray returns back, he can start new thread easily.
It would be more useful and the better choice if Stingray could read our posts and contribute to the same thread he started. Instead of having to create a new thread on the same subject.
Prompted by Stingray's project I started my own retro themed 3D accelerator for the C64. Do you mind if I start a thread about it?
Quote:The mod's post shouldn't have been there.
...
My independent point of view is, that Groepaz deserves the blame for getting into silly argument with you.
So I take it moderators should be reminded that they should not do this in the future?
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:So I take it moderators should be reminded that they should not do this in the future?
indeed, no doubt.
however users should also be reminded that moderators are just like you, are not machines and might like some silly bickering every now and then. (and just for the records: it works most of the time, except for these annual case when a silly argument explodes into a flood of void)
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Groepaz. It isn't the silly bickering so much, as you say mods are not machines they are people as well.
It is the silly bickering then deleting on topic useful posts and locking the thread. That just looks plain bad.
I think you should restore the posts and unlock the thread to give those of us who were discussing on topic a chance to continue the discussion. At least it will show that you can admit you're wrong and clean up your own mess. This would demonstrate good qualities that people expect from good moderation. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:It is the silly bickering then deleting on topic useful posts and locking the thread. That just looks plain bad.
agreed - i think i said that before.
Quote:At least it will show that you can admit you're wrong and clean up your own mess. This would demonstrate good qualities that people expect from good moderation.
if anyone from the moderation team felt like the case would be handled wrong, you can be sure he would speak it out and act accordingly. however, in this case i am with creamd.
i'd like to give your initial idea another thought though - eventhough i think it is unrealistic in practise for several reasons so making it mandatory is likely not going to happen - it is probably a good idea to "keep in mind" anyhow. i totally understand and support the idea behind it - the entire thing would have likely turned out differently if another moderator had stepped in. (atleast we'd get some evil communist images instead... or something =P)
i'd also like to think it a step further - what about if some user gets into an argument or otherwise disagrees with a moderator or rule, then he can not complain about it because he is personally involved - he must find another user, who is not involved, who does that? (yes, another unrealistic idea that wont work in practise. it rocks in theory though :=P)
because, you know, it isnt like that we dont want or dont listen to feedback of whatever kind - especially if it involves the rules we impose or the moderation in general.
it is more like, that very often (most of the times infact) the kind of feedback that comes from users who are directly involved is not very useful. eg it is obvious that someone who just got into an argument and then some of his posts were deleted most likely feels that this wasnt the right thing to do. we know that already :) what is a whole lot more interesting in such cases is feedback from those who are not directly involved (and preferably not big buddie with someone involved either) - because that'd really be the only way to get a half neutral view from a user perspective.
and in fact, although this kind of feedback is rare (unfortunately), it is almost always useful and leads to an improvement of some sort. eg i am just right now working on making some particular rule more elaborate, because some (even totally new) user noticed us about something that leaves too much room for interpretation and needs a small addition to avoid some silly arguments :)
on the other hand, opening a thread and posting silly nazi references is, even if you are right and were treatened wrong, completely counterproductive and will always lead into the respective actions, even if you are right and were treatened wrong. if that is your feedback, then you really shouldnt complain about what emerges from it either =P
another thing learned from this thread though: for those who like nitpicking on words, "moderators" should probably rename themselves to "co-sysops". it'd be more fitting in any case.
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
I can think of one easy way the board code can be changed to put the rule into force. Any post by a moderator in a thread removes the admin flag for that user, unless the moderator ticks a box when posting that signifies the moderator is posting with their moderator hat on
In that case the post background changes colour to signify the moderator nature of the post. Such flagged moderator posts will obviously need to follow the rules. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
By the way I don't think anyone has explicitly said deleting the posts was a good idea. |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
I think the mods (all mods) do a pretty reasonable job here and Im ok with errors on their side/site.
Also the only drawback _here_ is Stingray who posted i.e. something important in that very thread after 1 year delay beforehand. Next time he will find his thread hijacked (and not explicitly by mods).
People overreact all the time, so do mods on occasion. No harm done IMHO. |
| |
Skate
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 494 |
Quoting Groepazlook at some of the past "omg the evil nazi mods" threads and see how its always the same 5 people whining
always the same 5 people whining? it was my first time and i don't feel like whining, sorry. i've never complained about admin/moderators before. why did i open a thread on misjudgment this time? first, let's see what happened.
1) topic is closed.
2) (arguable) irrelevant messages are deleted.
don't you think there is an ordering mistake here? if you had deleted the irrelevant messages first, you didn't need to close that topic anyway, right? closing that topic was wrong. deleting messages afterwards was an even worse decision. i still think deleted messages are not off-topic, i was interested in the content, i have learned something new called cd-i etc. now the topic is closed and messages are deleted. worst possible scenerio if you ask me.
you can always say "moderator decides" but that doesn't change the bad moderation fact. and i'm not talking in general. i'm just referring this VIC-X topic case.
i had no urge to write this message until i've seen "its always the same 5 people whining" comment. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Me neither, my first time as well. |
| |
Skate
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 494 |
I just noticed "Account closed" under Oswald's handle in the forum. Protest or wtf?
|
| |
Moloch
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2928 |
@Skate -> Temporary ban -> http://csdb.dk/forums/?roomid=7&topicid=84847#84892 |
| |
Skate
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 494 |
I thought Oswald closed his account (or asked admins to close) as a protest. But apparently story was different. :) |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
It is also time to put to rest the failed notion posted by The Communist that this is a "private site". It isn't private when you're accepting donations from members of the public. As someone who has donated quite a large chunk of cash to help keep this site running I find it incredibly insulting that The Communist keeps on trying to claim otherwise. To "The Communist" you should listen to your members instead of trying to hide behind a smokescreen of misrepresentation. |
| |
Achim
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2010
Posts: 28 |
Martin: It's not that easy. You can donate e.g. for the red cross, but that doesn't mean you can tell them how to work.
In general I think mods should act like watchmen. That's why Martins proposal sounds reasonable: If a mod joins a thread he shouldn't be able to act like an admin.
|
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting AchimYou can donate e.g. for the red cross, but that doesn't mean you can tell them how to work.
Absolutely. But then again, don't be surprised when your donators start vanishing. I'm just saying. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
And the Red Cross don't operate a forum with moderators that is mostly directly supported by donations of its members. ;) The point is I don't think comparisons between this board and the Red Cross can really be made. ;) |
| |
Zyron
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2381 |
The donations go directly to funding bandwidth & disk space on the server. I'm not sure whether you're under the impression we're getting payed for moderating the site or not, but just to make it clear; we do this for free in our spare time. |
| |
Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 686 |
I am a moderator at some other places. I think I am a good moderator also, because I may take offense at many things posted or uploaded, however I put my personal feelings aside and look at the post or upload from a non-biased point of view. If I deem it is only offensive to myself and otherwise completely legitimate, I put my feelings aside and let it be.
However if I receive a lot of complains from other users or even other moderators discussing said material, then it has to be looked at again and determined by the whole staff if it's appropriate to remove or not.
Just my 2 cents. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting ZyronI'm not sure whether you're under the impression we're getting payed for moderating the site or not, but just to make it clear; we do this for free in our spare time.
That has never been doubted. Still, if you want to play hard ball like "we run the site. your donations are welcome but otherwise stfu", expect people to be offended.
|
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
BTW. can a moderator close threads/delete posts on his own or does he at least have to have the vote of two other admins to do so? |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
yes, he can. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting The general CSDb staff attitudewe do this for free in our spare time.
So do we.
I really don't want to sound like a dick but with all respect,
without the users logging on to this site each day and writing all the posts, uploading stuff writing comments etc, all this site would be is just another soul-less database on the interwebs.
Sometimes i really think some of you would prefer this to be a purely archeological database with a stripped down search-frontend. Hell, That would save us all a lot of spare time.
Why am i even getting involved in this.
|
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting The Communistyes, he can.
Now isn't that convenient. |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
yes it is.
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: yes it is.
You just missed the point Stainless was making. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: The donations go directly to funding bandwidth & disk space on the server. I'm not sure whether you're under the impression we're getting payed for moderating the site or not, but just to make it clear; we do this for free in our spare time.
Yes I know. My point sill stands, by accepting donations from the public this is not a private site. |
| |
TWW
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 545 |
Quote: Quoting The general CSDb staff attitudewe do this for free in our spare time.
So do we.
I really don't want to sound like a dick but with all respect,
without the users logging on to this site each day and writing all the posts, uploading stuff writing comments etc, all this site would be is just another soul-less database on the interwebs.
Sometimes i really think some of you would prefer this to be a purely archeological database with a stripped down search-frontend. Hell, That would save us all a lot of spare time.
Why am i even getting involved in this.
Actually, I try do do this as much as possible during my working hours. This way I can think of it as a paid activity.
Now can someone do a funny FFFFfffuuuu cartoon of Oswald when he got temp-banned??? |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting MartinYou just missed the point Stainless was making. No he didn't. I rather suspect he just doesn't give a rats ass about it.
|
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Quoting Martin PiperYou just missed the point Stainless was making.
how do you know what i am missing? are you the little man in my head talking all day to me? |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Quoting Stainless/ParamountQuoting MartinYou just missed the point Stainless was making. No he didn't. I rather suspect he just doesn't give a rats ass about it.
No, you just got an answer based on the factual layer based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_sides_model . |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Quoting Martin PiperYes I know. My point sill stands, by accepting donations from the public this is not a private site.
there are two condtions, public and private. as this site isn't funded by taxes and doesn't belong to a gov organization it is private. though it does accept donations doesn't turn it public outside your universe. we do not give a fuck about the opinions of others but we also do not accept every demand of the users (some are quite abstract or barefaced).
when i compare this to forum64.de this threat would have been already closed and the one or other user temp. banned. |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Quoting Martin PiperYes I know. My point sill stands, by accepting donations from the public this is not a private site. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
The fact you still don't get it just makes you and the site look bad. The fact is you're wrong for the reasons already given. It also demonstrates a very poor attitude for a moderator to have. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:Sometimes i really think some of you would prefer this to be a purely archeological database with a stripped down search-frontend. Hell, That would save us all a lot of spare time.
i'd remove the forum and the useless comments right now, indeed. and maybe also kick every user who didnt upload shit in the last months =P
Quote:when i compare this to forum64.de this threat would have been already closed and the one or other user temp. banned.
good one - been there done that. didnt agree with moderators and non existing rules. solution: i am no more posting.
as for private donations, i take them too: http://hitmen.c02.at/html/hitmen_donations.html
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting The Communistwe do not give a fuck about the opinions of others
And at last, we see the utter failure of what you're resorting to, i.e. "don't care la la la".
I wonder, do you speak for the owner of this site and the other mods?
I do not think so. You're wrong and your posts demonstrate exactly how you're failing to make any valid argument.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
you were loosing it the very moment you tried to construct some kind of right that you got from the fact you donated.
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: Quoting Martin PiperYes I know. My point sill stands, by accepting donations from the public this is not a private site.
there are two condtions, public and private. as this site isn't funded by taxes and doesn't belong to a gov organization it is private. though it does accept donations doesn't turn it public outside your universe. we do not give a fuck about the opinions of others but we also do not accept every demand of the users (some are quite abstract or barefaced).
when i compare this to forum64.de this threat would have been already closed and the one or other user temp. banned.
By the way, it has nothing to do with taxes or government funding, you're completely missing the point.
The point is this board does not have closed membership and accepts donations from the public. Both of these things make this board the opposite of "private" as you repeatedly and fallaciously claimed.
If you want to continue to claim this board is "private" you're going to have to change it to a completely closed private membership by invitation model and stop accepting donations from the public. Since you cannot accomplish this then your claims about being private are nothing but misrepresentation. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: you were loosing it the very moment you tried to construct some kind of right that you got from the fact you donated.
I've not claimed anything about "rights linked to donations", so you wrong to say it.
I have only pointed out the public donation aspect to show how the claims of being private are wrong. |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
martin with "we do NOT give a fuck" i meant that "we DO care about the users in general" otherwise i would have said "we give a fuck" |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:The point is this board does not have closed membership
last time i checked new members have to apply and then the moderators decide if he may join. thats pretty closed membership to me - pretty similar to good old BBSs. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
In common English "we do not give a fuck about" means "we do not care about".
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: Quote:The point is this board does not have closed membership
last time i checked new members have to apply and then the moderators decide if he may join. thats pretty closed membership to me - pretty similar to good old BBSs.
As I said the membership is not invitation only. The account registration page is public. Ergo it is public.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
you have a funny interpretation of what is public and what is not. and yes it is "invitation only", the same way your home is. everyone may come knock at the door, but not everyone will be let in. (and most importantly, noone has the right to get in) |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Quoting Martin PiperIn common English "we do not give a fuck about" means "we do not care about".
and "we give a fuck" means "we care about" ? |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: Quoting Martin PiperIn common English "we do not give a fuck about" means "we do not care about".
and "we give a fuck" means "we care about" ?
Is English your mother tongue?
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: you have a funny interpretation of what is public and what is not. and yes it is "invitation only", the same way your home is. everyone may come knock at the door, but not everyone will be let in. (and most importantly, noone has the right to get in)
Actually you have a strange way of looking at things because this board is not like a home where someone is invited. You don't have a large portion of your home on public view, like this board. You don't have people asking to come in and then update parts of your home, like this board.
This board is more like a library, which is one way of describing a database in fact. The contents of the board/database/library are publicly viewable. If someone wants to "borrow a book", i.e. interact with the library, then they apply for a library card and when they are accepted they are able to interact with the contents of the library and perhaps add their own content.
This the usual phrase to describe that is *public* library. Ergo this board is *public*, not private as you claim.
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Indeed, for examples of "private" sites, go check out some of the torrent trackers. You can't view most of them, you certainly can't download from them unless you join and even then some of them are invitation only (not request and wait for decision).
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
that doesnt change the fact that the right to use a public library is earned by the fact of public founding. just like you dont earn the right to participate in a football club because large parts of its activities are publicly viewable. or to not get your stuff deleted in wikipedia for that matter :)
(some parts of the database are not visible if not logged in, btw)
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
The donate button is public. I don't even need an account to donate. This site is funded by public donations. It is public not private. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting Groepazpretty similar to good old BBSs.
So this is what you would like this site to be ? just like the good old BBSs, where Sysops/Cosysops with infantile and overblown ego's can rule with an iron fist?
As much fun as it was in the 80's i dont think that's going to work in this day and age. But i've been wrong before.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:The donate button is public. I don't even need an account to donate. This site is funded by public donations. It is public not private.
notice the difference between "public donations" and "public founding". ie "some" vs "all". there are countless examples of organisations not founded by the public, but founded on "public donations" by individuals - someone mentioned the red cross already.
Quote:So this is what you would like this site to be ? just like the good old BBSs, where Sysops/Cosysops with infantile and overblown ego's can rule with an iron fist?
no, what i said is that the site IS like that. i am a dickhead, and i be censoring whatever doesnt fit my twisted views. see?
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Unless you post a list of running costs and donations the only difference between "funding" and "donation" is the words. If everyone stopped donating would the site continue to run? I'm sure it might be nobody donating has that info. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:Unless you post a list of running costs and donations the only difference between "funding" and "donation" is the words
uh, its about "some" vs "all" still. and the difference between founding by the general public, and the founding by donations by some individuals.
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Yes, some vs all, read what I posted. Nobody here knows if the donations are covering the running costs for the whole site and if they stopped would the site stop also?
Also comparing this site to the Red Cross is somewhat crazy. It's much more like the torrent sites I mentioned earlier.
The Red Cross is funded in many ways, from the public directly by donations, by governments (so probably indirectly to some degree by the public again) but generally the "donations" (public) are from people with no vested interest apart from philanthropy, to massage their conscience for some reason or even a nice way to write off some tax.
This site, the donations are from people who are directly involved in the site, be it visiting it, downloading from it, creating the content for it. Just like those pesky torrent sites.
|
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting Groepaz i am a dickhead, and i be censoring whatever doesnt fit my twisted views. see? If all else fails, resort to sarcasm. Way to go chief. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Strike that, i think you might actually be serious about it. Which is even sadder. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:This site, the donations are from people who are directly involved in the site, be it visiting it, downloading from it, creating the content for it. Just like those pesky torrent sites.
exactly. ie not founded by the general public, but individuals.
as for the running costs and how much the site depends on donations - i guess everyone should be able to estimate what a damn rootserver in hungary costs (everyone knows how "fast" it is too =D)
Quote:i think you might actually be serious about it.
obviously
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Still totally missing the point. As I said, the Red Cross isn't funded by people with a vested interest, unless maybe they're planning on going to a war or disaster zone some time soon. Funded by one or millions doesn't matter in this instance IF the total running cost (or the cost of sustainability) is paid for by people who don't own the site. Those donations are made by those people so that a site they visit keeps running and so everyone else can come here.
Quote:CSDb is run on a voluntary basis, free to use for everyone and 100% non-profitable.
Sounds public to me.. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
I don't think we should blow this donations issue too much out of porportion.
Because thats not what it's really about. Also i don't think ragging around on Groepaz is very constructive either.
He was, in his own words, just being a dick. Which isn't very surprising. It's human.
I've said it before, I'll say it again :
I appreciate the time and work Groepaz and the other moderators put down for this site. And yes, i also found Oswalds nazi anaolgies to be quite offensive and those posts were rightly deleted.
Still, i think some of you mods need to seriously improve your social skills.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
as i said the red cross was just an example of one of countless organisations who work similar. they get donations and the donaters earn no right whatsoever because of that.
and no, "free to use" doesnt somehow mean "public". |
| |
Skate
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 494 |
oh man, i never thought it could turn that ugly. i will never criticise mods/admins again 'coz it's completely waste of time. plus, things go even worse. we had a single closed topic at the beginning. now we have two closed topics, deleted messages and a banned user. i take my words back, ok? |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quote: as i said the red cross was just an example of one of countless organisations who work similar. they get donations and the donaters earn no right whatsoever because of that.
and no, "free to use" doesnt somehow mean "public".
It was a poor example just like the "private home" example. Both examples have been refuted. So the point still stands, this is not a "private" board as claimed by some. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting JCBSounds public to me..
Indeed, public board, not private. Saying it is "private" is just trying to hide behind a false claim in the hope nobody questions it. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
seriously, you really want to consult whoever you consider competent in related laws and ask him how this website may be considered public and why not. you are correct, the examples were bad, mostly because this is a very diverse issue, and there are big differences between a website and a library. i am also sure that depending where you live, the matter can be much different. i dont know - nor care - about UK or US law for that matter =) |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
You want to use a legal definition now?
Fine.
Since you're the one claiming it is "private" the burden of proof is on you to prove it is "private" with a legal ruling from a court with jurisdiction on the matter.
Until you provide that proof then you cannot claim it is "private".
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
I really don't think private by it's definition in law is the point being argued here (should maybe keep law out of a site full of unlawful files anyway. lol). At it's basics in law, private means "owned by an individual". This site however is full of other people's work, which hasn't been paid for, just co-opted, so the content, the stuff people actually come here for is public. Take the content away, by all means.
The fact the owner then requires donations from the public to allow other members of the public to view them furthers the public nature.
It's probably closer to an art gallery if anything ;) Discuss.. =P
I don't think anyone will agree on the public/private point. I'm done.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:The fact the owner then requires donations from the public to allow other members of the public to view them furthers the public nature.
how exactly does this site require donations from anyone? choosing not to donate will change what exactly for you? |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote: Quote:The fact the owner then requires donations from the public to allow other members of the public to view them furthers the public nature.
how exactly does this site require donations from anyone? choosing not to donate will change what exactly for you?
ROFL
There's a button at the top of the screen "Donate" which takes you to a page that requests donations. As I said before, we don't know without actual running costs vs donations what percentage of that cost is covered BY donations. Take them away and the site goes down? or not..
Quote:choosing not to donate will change what exactly for you?
What has that got to do with it being public or private? Another twist of direction...
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting Groepazhow exactly does this site require donations from anyone? choosing not to donate will change what exactly for you?
http://noname.c64.org/csdb/donate.php
"if you want to help keep CSDb running"
"CSDb is currently funded for 16 days"
"All donations are strictly paying for the hosting only"
All of which strongly implies if the donations did not happen then the site could go down, or change to a less costly server, either way the site as we know it uses the donations. Less dontations can logically mean less site.
If you're trying to contend nothing would change without donations you'll need to support that claim with detailed financial reports of running costs and donations received. Otherwise you're making unsupported claims.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
oh dear. try using google. find out what a damn root server to run a small website like this costs. please.
alternatively you can donate, and then see how much days it was worth :)
and yes, there is a difference between "help we need your money to pay the hosting" and "if you like to support our hosting by donating, you can do that here".
but ofcourse, its your full right to understand that differently. and if you dont believe that the site wont go down without donations, then dont. you probably know better than those who run the site =P
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
You obviously know, stop being obtuse and just tell us ;) I don't know how much bandwidth and storage it uses, I don't know how much people are donating. If I thought the site was run well I would donate and find out how many days it added ;)
*edit*
And yes, it's my right to understand the donations differently. Until there are figures or no donations (to see the effect) to go from I'd be guessing either way.. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting Groepazoh dear. try using google. find out what a damn root server to run a small website like this costs. please.
It depends on many factors, but anyway the burden of proof is on the person making the claims about privacy, i.e. you're the one who has to provide figures, not me.
If you cannot support your claim that this is a "private" site then with the overwhelming arguments against your unsupported claim it doesn't look good. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
yeah, now throwing this privacy nonsense in the mix again....
i rest my case. the site is public and depends on donations by its users. really.
(at this point the thread should be closed because it is moving in circles anyway. i have learned to leave that for another moderator though.)
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
"throwing privacy into the mix..." hasn't that been the subject of the last X number of posts?
No need to close the thread, that'd be far too convenient ;)
I think we can all agree to disagree on if it's public or private and save ourselves some time.. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
the last (i was referring to anyway) was about the costs of csdb and/or who pays for it. which has little to nothing to do with wether the site is private or not.
and before i even consider disagreeing with anyone claiming this site isnt private i'd like to hear whose definition of something beeing public or private he is referring to. if it isnt the laws definition that is (and i am pretty sure that even according to most local laws the site wouldnt be public at all. no i am not going to google for you.)
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting Groepaz(at this point the thread should be closed because it is moving in circles anyway. i have learned to leave that for another moderator though.)
Circles... Right. Time to bring it back on track.
Do you have any counter to the proposal in the orignal post?
At the moment it looks like most people think it is a sensible suggestion. |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote:the last (i was referring to anyway) was about the costs of csdb and/or who pays for it. which has little to nothing to do with wether the site is private or not.
err no, the WHOLE subject of privacy came about when Communist or someone said the site was private and Martin mentioned he'd donated.. That's what kicked this whole thing off, jsut because it didn't get mentioned for 5 minutes doesn't mean it's not relevant. To other people, donation to a site has a lot to do if it's private. As I say, we'll never agree.. enough..
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
read my original answer, its not practical. ask someone who is moderator in some other forum if you want to know why and what i wrote is not enough for you.
also, the whole thing is largely blown out of proportions. there is no moderator problem regarding deleted posts and closed threads at all. in every other webforum i know there is more deleted and censored and closed in a week than we do here in an entire year.
and sometimes mistakes happen, big deal.
my proposal would be: go make a demo about it!
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting Groepazread my original answer, its not practical. ask someone who is moderator in some other forum if you want to know why and what i wrote is not enough for you.
Saying "it is not practical" without supporting argument is a weak argument. Given that I've explained exactly how it can be implemented then I think the onus is on you to provide something substantive.
Actually most of the other forums I frequent have very similar rules to the one I proposed, specifically to stop this very situation under discussion from happening.
So all those boards think it is practical. This is exactly why I proposed it here because it would help improve this board.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
it is impractical for a similar reason for why a single moderator (or admin, which is indeed something entirely different, moderators do not have admin powers :)) can entirely on his own and for himself (even if temporary) ban a user instead of eg requiring the entire team to vote and decide (which however, is still needed to place a permanent ban) - which is reaction time. and atleast from my experience the vastly increased reaction time does generate more problems than the few mistakes it might help to avoid are worth. so basically with such a rule, you handle some problems better and others worse. and at this point we are where the personal preferences of what problems someone is willing to deal with come into play. and back to why those who run a site usually also impose the rules. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
You're not talking about the same thing so the comparison is invalid. The point is your action was rash because you acted too quickly. The point being to stop that in the future. Which is why the other sites implement something similar. |
| |
Mason
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 461 |
I usually don't take part in those threads - mostly because it usually starts because one or two persons whine about a decission a moderator made.
Keep in mind noone force you to use the site. It's people own choice - if they don't like the way people administrate the site then don't use it. Alot of people already left over the years, because of these kind of threads appears from time to time.
I can only repeat what I said before: Find old sceners, find out if they got disks, get them transferred. This will keep you busy. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:You're not talking about the same thing so the comparison is invalid. The point is your action was rash because you acted too quickly. The point being to stop that in the future. Which is why the other sites implement something similar.
i was talking about a very similar thing. and preventing to act quickly in the future is exactly what will cause other problems. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
First of all, thanks to Groepaz for at least trying to put his personal issues aside
and come forward with some reasonable arguments instead of resorting to sarcasm and elitism :-D
While i understand the need to "act quickly" when circumstances require it,
i still think martin has a point. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
yes he has a point, like i said. solves some problems, creates some new. and those who run the site decide what they prefer. and, again, this particular problem is largely blown out of proportions. i'd totally support the idea if we had an actual problem of moderators closing threads and deleting posts all the time. i'd also like to point martin to post number #51 again - what about if users can not complain if they are involved either? or atleast, they cant do it anywhere else but in the originating thread (and not open whining threads like this one, which as mason mentioned piss off a good number of people aswell)? |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Groepaz, this was not started as a whine thread. It is constructive criticism.
The example you gave is not a good example because it incorrectly conflates banning a user with actively posting rubbish in a thread and then wanting to abuse mod tools to hide that mistake.
In the case of your mistake being able to act quickly as a mod makes the mistake worse not better.
To have good moderation someone else needs to act quickly, not you.
That is the whole point. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
As for the off topic point in post 51 you mention.
The fact that one side, the mods, have a private forum and tools unfairly stacks against the users. It is therefore healthy to users to complain.
If the users were able to vote for the mods at regular intervals you might have a point though. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting Groepaz i'd totally support the idea if we had an actual problem of moderators closing threads and deleting posts all the time. Well, one could argue that the two recently closed threads were enough to start the fire. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
Quoting The Communistand "we give a fuck" means "we care about" ? Actually, thats exactly what it means.
If you give a fuck, you care. If you don't give a fuck, you don't.
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote: Quoting The Communistand "we give a fuck" means "we care about" ? Actually, thats exactly what it means.
If you give a fuck, you care. If you don't give a fuck, you don't.
I've seen that one cause confusion before. It's just not used in England, and it seems some other countries ;) It's like the (I believe) American one, I "could" give a fuck about which is the same as I "don't"..
Now the lot of you, care off!! :P
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Earlier on in the thread I detailed a technical way in which this can be implemented. If the board coder(s) are too busy just send me the source code and I can do the job in less than a day. It is very trivial to implement. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting Groepazwether sometime some thread started a fire doesnt mean anything, even if a moderator was involved. it is *by far* not the rule. it happens very rarely. ie, no problem. nothing to see. move on.
Looking back of the threads in this forum it isn't so rare to have related problems.
Quote:to have good moderation, everyone must be able to act quickly.
Incorrect because as shown it was your actions that caused the problem.
Quote:and in that time a thread would be completely destroyed.
You destroyed the thread by first posting off topic comments, then locking and then removing on topic relevant posts useful to others.
That little fact alone is enough to refute your claims.
Quote:and we are also yet again back to the point where only matters what those who run the site think.
Not only because...
Quote:wether YOU think it is practical to work like this however is irrelevant.
... what I think is relevant since I have produced strong arguments. The opposing arguments have been tackled and refuted. Everyone can see that because this is a public forum.
Quote:and no, perff doesnt need help to implement this nonsense. =P another very useful (and up to now, missing here) moderation feature might surface though. =P
It isn't nonsense. As others have pointed out what I've proposed looks sensible.
The offer of coding help still stands and I don't think you have the authority to refuse it on Perff's behalf.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:Looking back of the threads in this forum it isn't so rare to have related problems.
it happens a few times a year. compared with other forums this is nothing.
Quote:Incorrect because as shown it was your actions that caused the problem.
as said countless times before, mistakes happen.
Quote:... what I think is relevant since I have produced strong arguments.
what you think is irrelevant because you are not going to do the work. those who run the site decide how they want to work.
Quote:It isn't nonsense. As others have pointed out what I've proposed looks sensible.
i can find someone pointing out whatever i'd like to look sensible on the internet.
Quote:The offer of coding help still stands and I don't think you have the authority to refuse it on Perff's behalf.
i dont need to. if he wanted to implement it, he'd just do it. no help needed, really. |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Martin, if you would have the stronger arguemnts and we wouldn't react. What would happen ? Do you wanne get us into court ?
Who decides btw. who the stronger arguments has ? You think this about your own. Is this objective ?
Furthermore in your last message you break everything down onto this single thread. Gpz talked about it in general.
And to bring it back whether this site is private or not. There are two big branches in the law, public law and common law. And as "Public law is a theory of law governing the relationship between individuals (citizens, companies) and the state." doesn't match on csdb everything is regulated under the common law* branch, which means that this site is private and the maintainer can do whatever he wants to.
* there are still differences in common law between the french and the Anglo-Saxon rooted one.
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
As shown this site is not private, so you cannot keep on claiming that.
Going off topic with sarcasm instead of tackling the actual arguments presented is not helpful.
Do you have any substantive argument against the proposal?
Can you, for example, definitively point to any single "user ban" that would not have happened if you had been subject to the restrictions of this proposal?
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:As shown this site is not private, so you cannot keep on claiming that.
LOL. did you read the last post even?
time to close the thread, it isnt going anywhere.
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting GroepazLOL. did you read the last post even?
I did read the post. It repeated the same or similar already weak and refuted points as before. Just repeating old refuted arguments does not suddenly make them valid again. I refer the poster to the earlier responses I made the first time around which the poster did not then refute.
It is also off topic.
Now back on topic:
Can you, for example, definitively point to any single "user ban" that would not have happened if you had been subject to the restrictions of this proposal?
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:I did read the post. It repeated the same or similar already weak and refuted points as before. Just repeating old refuted arguments does not suddenly make them valid again. I refer the poster to the earlier responses I made the first time around which the poster did not then refute.
besides the fact that communist actually mentioned a valid reference to how something beeing public or not is defined - unlike you.
and it still boils down to that very fact, which makes most of this thread pretty pointless. going in circles, back to post #2 |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 722 |
Quoting GroepazQuote:I did read the post. It repeated the same or similar already weak and refuted points as before. Just repeating old refuted arguments does not suddenly make them valid again. I refer the poster to the earlier responses I made the first time around which the poster did not then refute.
besides the fact that communist actually mentioned a valid reference to how something beeing public or not is defined - unlike you.
and it still boils down to that very fact, which makes most of this thread pretty pointless. going in circles, back to post #2
The reference was not valid because a similar point was already refuted earlier in the thread. It is also off topic. Your reply is also off topic. According to your own criteria you should remove your posts.
I also note you are dodging the on topic question.
|
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Closing the thread. The system proposed by Martin is well explained.
I will start a thread about in mod forum.
Roman
|
