-- Off topic... er, I mean back ON TOPIC --

I just noticed that the OP of this thread posted a question and asked for some assistance regarding a sound issue on his system. He's already received a helpful reply. I'm glad to see this and hope that the OP has reconsidered his request made here.

Regards all...

~Eric

EDIT: Please disregard. @ondoho was kind enough to point out that I erred regarding this.

You very much didn't. What I asked for are *specific* examples, with as much *context and information* as possible. This should be sent to me directly, so I can research and evaluate (and take any action needed).

--jeremy

No, that was 5 years ago. For some reason 273 decided to unearth it.

No, I did send you a PM, that's what I was refering to.
Not sure if it has enough context etc., but it refers to issues you should already be aware of afaics.

-- Posted: 31st Dec 2014, 10:30 --


I'll be damned. Well, [removed].


Nevermind.

I was talking about the official warning issued via the infractions system by the mod I was responding to before. I never said you've never reversed any warnings/infractions - be that warnings/infractions issued to myself or others.

And you did in fact refuse to withdraw the last warning I got from the same mod I was responding to earlier on in this thread - that's the warning I was referring to. I was (as I said before) also speaking in general, not only in relation to myself. The example of freemedia2018's case cited by cynwulf is a good example of that. And I must agree that I fail to see the so-called "incitement of a flame war" in their post that their warning was issued for - it goes back to the point of people being profiled on past history and personal feelings toward the member concerned. And it does seem to me that some just aren't properly considering the meaning and intention of post's here, and are therefore rushing to judgement about particular member's, and/or clearly have some very funny definitions about certain words.

This thread is about members conduct here, you're own site rules say provided it's relevant to the thread topic it can be discussed. So fail to see how what I've said is off-topic.

Moreover, it seems the "transparency" of your "appeals process" maybe lacking, and I can understand why some seem to feel that way. If people don't see "justice being done" as it were, then that doesn't inspire much confidence in it. So I can understand why some seem to feel that way.

But I'll shut up now, since that's how you feel about my posts.

Are you seriously trying to say that users should not be "profiled based on their past history"?

They absolutely should.

If your recent past behavior has caught up with you to the point where its hanging over all your interactions here, then one option is to make a new account.

Might I humbly suggest that a comment that was clearly written to fit an extremely tight character limit might not be intended as the whole story.

That's perhaps how it may be for you. I don't believe for one moment that I represent all LQ members, or indeed anywhere near the general consensus here - but I also happen to believe that statement applies very much to yourself as well. You represent no one but yourself, as do I. You may well agree with and support certain, if not all, decisions by the staff here and you may have had "discussions with moderators", but unless you actually do have the kind of access you eluded to having, but have yet to clarify whether you have or not, I don't see how you can understand the internal policies and processes.

jsb also assumes, perhaps wrongly, that some members have a "target" painted on them, you seem to confirm that is precisely what happens and not only that, but once again, that's what should happen in such cases. Singling out and focusing on particular members, if that's what's going on, it is not only unjust but downright unethical. It is by definition the very opposite of moderation. And if a staff member were to let a particular "case" get personal and were to "profile" certain members, similarly so. It's one of those things where it's great when it's not you and of course, on a forum administered in a way you happen to wholeheartedly agree with.

You've also not clarified your off the cuff comments regarding your support of freemedia's ban.

When the member has their "posting privileges" removed they lose the right to state their case, clarify their position - even apologise for their recent actions - all of that is gone - yet they are somehow expected to email the administration, one to one, and explain their case?

If I felt I had been unfairly booted out, that I had done no wrong and if the "appeals process" is not actually stated within the rules or documented anywhere, not even in the infraction message which was posted, then why would I resort to a process I knew nothing of to start with?

As the infractions system is private, as it's between the members of the staff and the member receiving the infraction we don't absolutely know their past record. Yet apparently it's ok for a select appointed few, to access that record and to maintain a profile and to monitor that member for any misdemeanours - while others will invariably fly under the radar. It's great when it works for you. I see all manner of obnoxious behaviour on this site - carefully worded obnoxious behaviour which runs unchecked.

freemedia was unsubtle and unlucky. I feel that if he were your typical maestro of weasel words and innuendo, he'd have thrived...

At present, it seems that you speak for the staff.

2 members found this post helpful.

No. They're expected to email the administration and announce their desire to change.

No. What the member posted in post #5 will resort in an immediate ban 100% of the time, regardless of whether it was a first time poster, a senior member, or a mod. The message in all cases would be exactly what the message was there: "If you'd like your posting privileges reinstated, please contact me."

--jeremy

In all honesty dugan, I wasn't planning on posting to this thread any further and hopefully this will be my last post to this thread...

I believe with all due respect I explained that earlier on in this same thread. And I think cynwulf puts the answer to that quite well:

I'll also add that; there's a reason why if the police prosecute someone, that person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. They also need to provide actual evidence that the person actually HAS committed the crime they're accusing that person of. They cannot just sit there and say "well this person has a history of committing crimes, so therefore they're guilty until they prove themselves innocent" - it doesn't work that way. The onus is on the police to provide evidence to support their case against that person - not the other way around. I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply here. The infractions system should only be used when there is a clear violation of the rules, and clear reasons should be given to justify the warning/infraction.

It also goes back to the point that, it's not just about past history, it's also about looking at the context in which said comments were made, as in; the whole picture, not just past history and that's it. So I do agree with cynwulf above - although I do maintain the "target" comment all the same.

I can understand why Jeremy banned freemedia2018 for their post after the warning was issued to them, but I do also agree that whole saga could have been avoided in the first place had that same warning not been issued - so there's still two sides to the story.

I do also agree that it seems the infractions system seems to have become a "first resort" for at least some mod's, in relation to members that already have warnings/infractions issued to them via the infractions system. So I agree in that climate, it's all too easy to overreact and give out warnings/infractions far too easily. It also seems to me that it's being used to "make examples" of members, that in the eyes of at least some mod's, have become "troublemakers".

In the end, I maintain what I've said before - I wouldn't have said it in the first place if I didn't believe it had any merit.

I'm not sure that something like (and I'm not saying they were, but as an example) "off-topic posting" as the stated reason on their warning is much, if anymore characters than "inciting a flame war". So I seriously doubt the character limit has anything to do with why the reason that was given was given.

I never received warnings from the moderators... Let me have one, so I can actually understand what you are all upset about. Or I am/am I just totally incompatible with your stuff, here.

... wait. We don't have guns, over here. Maybe that is it... spitting words and flinging facts.
(Do I qualify?) (My definition of Off-Topic is 30 years old, too).

However, that is not detailed in any forum rules or guidelines that I've read here and it does constitute what many would consider an "appeals process". To have a process, you would need to have it in written form somewhere, I am having trouble finding it - and no one has yet seen fit to direct me to it. As with freemedia's past transgressions - I'm struggling to find them?

I'm also having difficulty with post #5 as quoted by jsb in post #7 equating to a permanent ban and something like e.g. posting links to pr0n or death threats against someone falling into the same category. A hissy fit and some silly insults in the heat of the moment, in reaction to a thread closure and infraction, are in the same category as those? In my view if the action by the staff had been proportional in the first instance, the reaction would not be so extreme and it would not have escalated.

But using innuendo and weasel words instead of more direct language, baiting other members, belittling, etc, not resulting in a ban or seemingly any action at all.

We have a long term member here who refers to "discussions with moderators" and more innuendo and still no clarification on that.

At this point I've said what I had to say and have nothing more to add.

First, jsb, police don't "prosecute", and second, most mod actions, if compared to police actions, are the equivalent of issuing a warning.

The more I look at this comic, the more I see its applicability:

https://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/1992/08/26

Third, if a user can be reasonably predicted to react badly to being given a mere warning (a scenario that both jsb and cynwulf have repeatedly brought up), then the correct action is obviously not to walk on eggshells and treat that user with kid gloves, but to remove that user from the community. And no, it's not "human nature" to respond to a warning with a "hissy fit" that cynwulf just described as "so extreme". Normal users would take the warning as intended and change their behavior accordingly. Or, if they don't want to change, they can self-select out.

Well, I have one more thing to say here before the lights go off. Unfortunately, what I say may start a whole new firestorm of comments... or, possibly not.

I've run online boards/forums - some small, some quite large - for nearly my entire time on the modern Internet (20 years). The issues that always seems to get bandied about by members (often the disaffected) are things like fairness, free speech, dictatorial mods/admins, and the like.

Here's the truth to the matter, though, from the viewpoint of an owner/admin/mod of general topic and/or technical boards: this place is NOT a democracy. It's NOT a representative republic. It is, in most cases, a privately-owned and operated entity which has its own rules (TOS) and guidelines which members must agree to at the time of their account creation. Participation in places such as this is voluntary. Boards and forums like LQ.org are more closely akin to (hopefully) benevolent dictatorships than anything else.

Members need to understand this and live with it... or don't. It's their choice, ultimately; remembering, of course, that choices have consequences.

Enjoy your day!

~Eric

3 members found this post helpful.