Our moderator rules

[kypec]

Send me your email address to get your free license and priority access to my support.Thank you for the offer, but I've already bought the license (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1429730#post1429730) few days ago. Perhaps I'll use the priority support someday:cool:

[Guest]

Oh, sorry! Would you accept a refund?

[HJRodrigo]

Humor..... three minutes for all

The Doom9 Family.....
(http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xdwk35_dylin-prestly-microsoft-net-vs-java_tech?additionalInfos=0)

That was pretty funny. At first I thought it was going to be a simple anti-microsoft parody, but it was pretty well done :)

[kieranrk]

I include it below in case it should suddenly disappear:

It won't disappear if you don't delete it like last time.

[Guest]

I never deleted anything. What looked to you like deletions were moves to thread moderation during consultation with another moderator.

[Doom9]

Indeed, with the exception of the hard deletion of one of his own posts immediately after making it (there were no replies at the time of deletion), everything can be reconstructed. 2.5 hours later, I have it. Now I need to correlate PMs and strikes (the latter is pretty much impossible because all rule16/17 strikes have been deleted).

However, I got back home at 9PM, been doing the reassembly thing until now, have to get up at 5:30 for our annual team outdoors day that lasts two day.. then on Sunday I need to work after getting back, I'm away on a business trip Monday, on an install Tuesday, on another install Thursday/Friday - so I cannot finish as soon as I would've hoped. And I feel I need to be around a lot when I post the timeline.

@Bi11: Will respon when time permits. Right now I need some shut eye or I risk falling asleep at the wheel when I drive to the mountains tomorrow morning.

[Guest]

Another loser noob chimes in to throw more oil on troubled waters. I apologize for this remark made out frustration.

[kieranrk]

I never deleted anything. What looked to you like deletions were moves to thread moderation during consultation with another moderator.

I'm talking about the time you deleted his signature because it was "commercial".

[Guest]

Not his entire signature, just the spam part, per rule 5, as have many others been deleted. Did he file an appeal about it? That happened a long time ago.

[stax76]

@neuron2

Sorry being a pest, from my experience in our little argument and what I saw elsewhere and even in this thread, you get upset quickly, things escalate quickly and you edit and delete posts or even give strikes. It's hard when people act dumb but as moderator you have to be above such things. Apparently there were many other arguments and now there are many people trying to challenge you. Our issue wasn't big, no strike given and I hope we can get along in the future.

[Guest]

Thank you for your suggestions, which appear intended constructively. I'll take your views into account and do my best not to be a disappointment to you.

[mandarinka]

Not his entire signature, just the spam part, per rule 5, as have many others been deleted. Did he file an appeal about it? That happened a long time ago.

Forgive another noob for not resisting to respond. I was in the IRC channel of x264 when that "spam removal" happened. You did it when you was angry at him during the time when your software was featured in ffmpeg's hall of shame.

While D_S was a developper of ffmpeg then, your software was put in the list by unrelated people. Even if he somehow was personaly at fault, you did use your moderator power to "solve" your personal problem with with a forum member - that is something moderators shouldn't do imho (do I have a proof? I don't see into you, but you did it exactly at the time of the conflict, despite the allegedly offending signature being public before).

I hate to (effectively) disrupt the public peace around here. I use information form forum.doom9.org a lot and thus I care about the well-being of the place.

[Guest]

Did he file an appeal about it?

I have no comment on the rest of your post, other than to note that I dispute your interpretation of events.

[Kuukunen]

I apologize for this remark made out frustration.
I suggest a 5 hour cooling-off period for neuron2's posts.

[Bi11]

Just to make my last post clear, it treats moderators as police rather than judges. Police do their best to enforce the law, but they are only human and so sometimes make mistakes. Still, they are not above the law.

@neuron2
My trolling post was intended as an example of a post that could be thrown in court. You apparently took the bait and let your subjective/opinionative side show instead of simply enforcing the rules (though I'm grateful you didn't, yet?)

Edit:
BTW, calling a member a "noob" is non-constructive/non-productive. There should be a rule against moderators who post such non-constructive opinions, IMCO.

[Justin101]

I think I will abide by the rules of the forum.

[Guest]

I think I will abide by the rules of the forum. Your other two posts are borderline spam. Don't forget rule 5.

[Doom9]

I've been out sick for most of the week (and just looking into this whole thing makes my pulse race and temperature go up again.. I'm still far away from being a 100% again).

@Bi11: Reading your long post on this page makes my head spin. Maybe that's because I've been out sick since Monday - but I think it also has something to do with it being so complex. I honestly can't see this working unless we start having full time staff.. and that's simply not possible in a volunteer forum.

With your system, I believe a few unscrupulous members with ill intentions could effectively launch a ddos attack on your system. Take spammers... once they get in an their account is active, the goal is to post as much crap in as little time as possible before moderators reacts and kicks them out (they have the ability to mass delete posts in such cases). Now, imagine a bunch of spammers who work together opening one of your court cases for every deleted post. Even though they might all be clear cut cases... due to the volunteer nature and the fact that not everybody is around every day, the whole system would be bogged down for days just dealing with cases that obviously have no standing.

Your paragraph "Prevention better than court" contains something important. Maybe I have not been stressing that enough, but a moderator's job involves moderating discussion. The strike system is there to back them up if members do not react when it is pointed out to them that they are not behaving within the allowed bounds. With 10 years of experience on my belt I can say with some conviction though that the "being nice first" approach doesn't work with everybody - and at that point, you must be strict and decisive. If you give somebody another chance and they spit in your face, then that is it. Earlier in the history of this board, moderation action was more often done in public... and the effect of that a noticeable number of people who were called out on their breaking the rules took "being taken to court in public" not too well. Screaming and insults were often the result (which then in term lead to rule 4 strikes that sealed those members' fate - at least for the next 30 days). So, I instructed my mods to avoid those nasty thread developments and instead warn people privately, and if that had no effect, strike them privately, without mentioning in the public thread that a strike had been issued.
And the effect of that was that we had less uglyness in threads.
I'm not sure if you've considered this.. a fight breaks out in a thread. When you've dealt with it.. do you leave it standing? I say no... we ask people to look at the forum to see how things work before posting. So, if they see a lot of fight threads, they might get the wrong impression that it's okay to fight. So, the easiest way not to set that example is cleaning up threads. Yes that means, you remove information, and somebody who has seen some of the now edited out posts might wonder what has happened... but overall, isn't it better for the greater good if you don't have a bunch of locked threads standing around all over the place?

As I've said.. it's been 10 years now, as an admin. A lot has changed since, people have come and gone, I have changed. We didn't use to have rules. The rules pretty much came up out of necessity of dealing with certain unwanted things. When you all signed up (even I), you were confronted with the standard vbb boilerplate article:
The owners of Doom9's Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.
We didn't write that... it's built-into vbb. Other board softwares use pretty much the same terms when you sign up. Now that's the ultimate free reign to to whatever you want. Instead of using that everything-goes pass, I wanted something more constrained that people can be held accountable to, hence the rules. I might not be able to get into details without doing a lot of searching, but for every rule, there are specific things that we tried to prevent from happening.

E.g. the unliked rule 6. If you've been around since the beginning you might remember the dvdsoft forum - my first hangout. The site it belongs to was shut down multiple times because they had warez links... so having seen what happens if you don't pay attention, I swore it wouldn't happen to me. And.. 10 years after, it still hasn't.

Or rule15... there's a sticky in general discussion why we have it. I would prefer it if we didn't have that rule, but things were getting that much out of hand at a pace where the moderation team simply didn't stand any chance - I felt I had no choice but to clamp down on what you can discuss.

Make no mistake, I would love to be the administrator of a forum that needed no rule book and strikes. And I've seen it work if you have a very limited number of people. Unfortunately, as things progressed, I had to adapt to certain realities that I do not necessarily like. I'm not the guy who loves nothing more but sit on a stake-out and catch bad guys - I have much better things to do. I'd love to be able to relax the forum rules, but I fear the effect would be disastrous.

Rule 16: You don't like it. I agree, it's dangerous. But, we had people who were extremely good at skirting the established rules, always bending them just enough without really stepping over. So.. do we use our free-for-all pass that the vbb boilerplate article gives us and just get rid of somebody? Some people would call that abuse of power, I guarantee you. So, instead, I crafted a more constrained article that allows us to deal with those people - because now they have to face consequences if they continue to ignore moderator requests.

And rule 17: I created that the last time there was an extended rule discussion (that happens perhaps once every year or so.. and if it remains civilized and constructive it has always been allowed to progress - under close supervision of course). There's a bunch of active threads right now that could easily be closed citing rule 17 - yet that has not happened. So, do you really need to distrust us that much with it if you have multiple examples showing that we're not using that as a last resort? To get back at why the rule was crafted.. it was yet another "rule 6 and downloaded content" discussions (we've formally established of rule 6 interpretation in January 2003 by the way), and one poster wouldn't let about about the legal basis for that interpretation.

As it so happens, you never see me divulge pretty much any detail about my personal life, and certainly not about my whereabouts. I strictly separate my Doom9 persona from my real life - few people know who Doom9 is. When I go online for personal or professional reasons, I use completely different nicknames. I use different emails, and I try hard not to ever mention something that would lead people to link to the two identities. Especially given the fact that there are powerful organisations out there that have had me on their shitlist for ages, I ask that everybody respect my right to privacy and leave it at that. And that means I won't tell you which laws make me deal with downloaded content the way I chose to deal with it. And questions of that sort make me very uncomfortable. So, because I don't want to open the law books (and inevitably reveal where I'm from), I'm not going to give you my legal justification - and in order to close that can of worm once and for all... we have rule 17. The mere fact that you now get a link to the FAQ items that tell you how to challenge a strike when you do get strikes should tell you how much this is being enforced. Lodging a complaint can be seen as violating rule 17, yet nobody will ever get struck for that (or god forbid if an error happens.. you can be sure it will be corrected if it comes to my attention (unless the strikee makes the fatal mistake of publicly complaining about it.. for that I just have zero tolerance)).

While we're at that subject.. the reasons that make somebody lose the right to an appeal can be seen in this very thread. Suppose somebody got struck and he disagrees. So, instead of an appeal, he starts a thread complaining about the moderator (that has happened a number of times)... other members that have secretly held a grudge against the moderator dishing out the strike quickly join in, and it becomes an 'I hate moderator X' fest. The grudge may be due to a previous strike, an altrication that didn't go the member's way, the member disagreeing with a moderator decisions (regardless of whether they were justified or not), but it can be something simple as having a bad day and just taking the opportunity to vent.

Sounds familiar? It should because this is what has happened against neuron2 recently. And it has happened before to Koepi, a couple years ago. What most people do not see however is the backstory, and all the good the moderator in question has done over the years. Most moderator decisions are not controversial.. but people tend to remember the unpopular ones (such is human behavior.. I'm not saying we can change that). If somebody gets up at 5 every morning to clean up spam.. who cares. If the moderator in question is the one that most often asks the advise of his peers on issues that are not entirely clear cut before using his moderator powers, how could those members know? But because they don't see the full picture, their characterization of that mod who is getting flamed might likely be rather unfair.

So, if you insist on playing the court of public opinion, I will not hear your appeal. And, the above can also bee seen as another reason for rule 17.


In the end... the way you run a forum is a pretty interesting topic.. one that I could debate on for days. What you want when implementing something is a strong belief that something will work, won't be disruptive, and if possible, see a working example. The discussion is probably easiest between admins... because they all face similar issues. Many of those issues are not apparent when you're just a regular member - but an admin has to consider them anyway. When I went into this 10 years ago, I had no clue what would happen. A lot of ideas I went in with turned out to not work and I'm constantly adapting to the way the community develops... maybe not always as fast as some would like, but there are other priorities in my life, too. I believe though that unless you've been there and done it, it is difficult to be a fair judge. I doubt there are many admins that just love to rule their little kingdom and do with their subjects whatever the hell they please. The admins I have spoken too over the years, even those I had significant disagreements with (oh yeah that happens.. but when it does I don't raise a stink but I follow the established rules of the place to deal with disagreements.. so you will never see me raise a stink in public.. I will always adress the admin privately, and when I don't agree, I respect that it's his prerogative to run the show the way he deems fit), were generally more concerned with the well-being of their place rather than making sure they got the last word just for the sake of having the last word. In private life, I'm much more direct and short - and I often wish I could be here, too. But in some cases the issue of my privacy comes into the way, and in other times, I have to consider the forum as a whole, not just what I want. I don't think I'm the born diplomat... talking around the issues doesn't really work for me - but for the good of this place, here I do have to.

That last bit has me thinking though that maybe we ought to have a way to differentiate between the opinion of an individual that has the Doom9 Team badge, and when that individual performs actions on behalf of the team.

I suggest a 5 hour cooling-off period for neuron2's posts. I don't think we should single out anybody here. ... I personally do have my own cooling period (doing something else or if possible burn off the steam right away) if I see something that gets my blood cooking. I know from past experience that if you post while you see pulsing veins on your throat, the outcome is probably not what you wanted and you might regret it later on (when it might already be too late to correct the mistake). We're all human and we pretty much react the same way when provoked - so I think we'd be well served if every member, regardless of their status, followed that approach: 1) cool down, 2) Post. I'm sure we could avoid a lot of unpleasantries that way.

[setarip_old]

@Doom9

Hi!

Now that you've so eloquently brought us all up to date regarding the Forum rules, may I suggest that you lock this thread, so it doesn't become an arena for debate?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well said Doom9

[HJRodrigo]

Sorry to hear about your sickness. Forget about this mess, heal up, and when you feel better deal with it if you need to.

[Bi11]

@Doom9: I agree the court system is very complex and not realistically practical. However, if a forum wanted to go down the path of transparency and accountability when enforcing rules, then I suspect it would be similar to a court system.

W.r.t. spam posts and posts that obviously don't belong/contribute/constructive to this forum then those posts are simply deleted, no hearing needed. The members who made those post knew fully well they were intentionally breaking the rules for no constructive reason.

W.r.t "prevention better than court", the point is to move follow-up discussions relating to the inquiry/warning to a private thread, or possibly hiding that off-topic discussion from members other than the moderator and member in question, to allow the flow of the thread to remain on-topic. You don't see police officers stopping a car in the middle of the freeway to check for valid licence and insurance.

W.r.t. fights and grudges, all those related posts/threads would be thrown in a court case (which now acts as a graveyard). A super moderator could allow only some members to discuss/defend themselves in the case.
The point again is to pull that off-topic discussion out of the main forum so members browsing old threads would see a continuous flow of constructive on-topic posts without any administrative discussions in between. The court forum is outside the main forums, so members won't see those closed cases unless they go looking for them.

W.r.t. the rules of this forum (and whatever explanations you use to justify them) is not the problem.
The problem arises in enforcement (or lack thereof) of the rules when a member or moderator supposedly breaks a rule. You don't see police officers charging/arresting people, locking them in jail, then throwing away the key; people are entitled to a hearing/trial, which future cases can openly draw upon when resolving disputes.

Voluntarily moderating the forum is one of the points where the moderator/police analogy breaks down. Otherwise I could say police sometimes risk their lives every day in enforcing the law and apprehending dangerous criminals, but just one mistake and the court comes down hard on them.

Also, I am not appealing the court system; it is simply the end result of a thought experiment that asks "how can members and moderators co-exists and resolve disputes peacefully in light of disputes that arise from time-to-time?"

In the end... I see no realistic way for an administrator with total control over a forum and its community to ever willingly allow a system of transparency and accountability to functionally exists that questions the authority of the administrator and his elite.

Hope you get well soon.
This thread should be put to rest.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Perhaps part of the problem is. Although the Doom9 forum has a lot of moderators. Not many of them are pro-actively moderating: -
Moderator Name Last Post
ammck55 3rd February 2009
Arky 6th September 2010
atreides93 17th April 2009
auenf 4th December 2009
avih 5th August 2010
bb 22nd August 2010
benwaggoner 19th September 2010
Blue_MiSfit 19th September 2010
Blutach 12th September 2010
Bond 30th March 2009
Cyberia 6th April 2006
D3s7 11th July 2007
DaveEL 22nd November 2009
easy2Bcheesy 14th September 2010
foxyshadis 9th September 2010
Hiro2k 19th April 2007
influenza 6th September 2007
jdobbs 6th September 2010
jel 15th April 2008
jggimi 3rd November 2009
karl_lillevold 11th April 2008
killingspree 23rd June 2006
Koepi 11th March 2009
len0x 6th June 2009
LIGHTNING UK! 2nd September 2010
LoRd_MuldeR 19th September 2010
monono 17th September 2010
mpucoder 16th September 2010
mrbass 22nd July 2010
Neo Neko 2nd March 2006
neuron2 19th September 2010
Nic 8th September 2010
Nick 14th August 2010
Richard Berg 24th March 2008
Scipio 21st July 2008
sh0dan 21st July 2010
Teegedeck 25th November 2007
TheWEF 26th October 2003
Trahald 19th September 2010
ukendt 10th June 2010
Wilbert 17th September 2010
wmansir 1st November 2009
Zeul 4th October 2007Our moderators need help...

[laserfan]

I think inactive mods should absolutely be replaced, though SMD I'm not sure how you came-by your list give jdobbs is shown as last posting in 2007!!! How many other errors are in there...

[Kurtnoise]

I vote for Tebasuna51 as Audio Encoding mod instead of Blue_Misfit & Lord_Mulder...:rolleyes:

[saint-francis]

Wow. I can't believe I missed this thread until now. Probably for the better though.
Social interaction on the internet is very interesting in that people have the tendency to become quite hostile over what is considered to be, in a face to face interaction, simple inconsideration or just a gruff attitude. In the little I read of this thread I have seen many statements which would result in a physical altercation if they were made in a bar for example. I hope that any one who says rude things to me here on the Doom9 forum would also be willing to come to me personally and make the same statement.
Generally I avoid getting involved in this kind of situation but I had two questions to ask:
Is the moderation team also subject to Rule #4?
Is the enforcement of Rule #4 generally in high priority at this point in time?

[Doom9]

Is the moderation team also subject to Rule #4?Yes, the rules apply to every member and a moderator is a member, too. However, while technically possible, I do no strike moderators - instead I ask them to cut the bad language. If that doesn't help, I have to take more dramatic actions.
Is the enforcement of Rule #4 generally in high priority at this point in time? Yes. When there's bad words between members, it has the potential to erupt into a bar fight so that needs to be contained immediately. As far as verbatim profanity goes... personally I do not consider this to be a problem. However, that's one of the reasons where my private opinion takes a backseat to what I think is better for the community. There are people from all ages and social backgrounds... when in the presence of kids, adults should moderate their language. And, in certain countries, the random s*** or f*** weighs a lot more than it does where I'm from.

I think inactive mods should absolutely be replaceIt's actually part of the moderator rules. I only check activity a few times a year though.. last time it was early this year so I guess it's that time again.

[SeeMoreDigital]

I vote for Tebasuna51 as Audio Encoding mod instead of Blue_Misfit & Lord_Mulder...:rolleyes:Personally, they are all good choices Kurt. As is your good-self ;)

[dragongodz]

i have to make a little comment.

The Established member rule is "probably not feasible" because this forum's rules (17,3,11 to be specific) stifle constructive free speech.

even free speech does have rules/limitations in most countries, for example in regards to incitement or hate speech. large forums do not work where anyone can say whatever they want. they eventually become a mess.

also the established member idea doesnt work either. for the simple fact that being an established member doesnt mean you know what you are talking about or are incapable of being wrong on something. i know several established members on here that are respected by many that i know spout absolute nonsense at times.

---

the simple fact is that forums such as this have rules and procedures for dealing with contesting accused violations. people either need to accept that or go else where.

of course sometimes procedures can fail sometimes and adjustments need to be made to rules. people need to approach that though in a constructive way by broaching the issue with the higher powers. if you think a MOD has breached a rule or a new rule should exist etc etc etc then PM a MOD about it. if not satisfied with the response go further up the chain.

[Dark Shikari]

i have to make a little comment.



even free speech does have rules/limitations in most countries, for example in regards to incitement or hate speech. large forums do not work where anyone can say whatever they want. they eventually become a mess.

also the established member idea doesnt work either. for the simple fact that being an established member doesnt mean you know what you are talking about or are incapable of being wrong on something. i know several established members on here that are respected by many that i know spout absolute nonsense at times.I think the primary purpose of an "established member" rule is so that moderators can deal more quickly with brand-new members blatantly violating rules (e.g. piracy) without allowing moderators to deal as quickly and unilaterally with anyone else.

[Bi11]

Voluntarily moderating the forum is one of the points where the moderator/police analogy breaks down. Otherwise I could say police sometimes risk their lives every day in enforcing the law and apprehending dangerous criminals, but just one mistake and the court comes down hard on them.
Thinking about it, the same applies to established members as well. They contribute constructively to the community, but if they dare question the authority of a moderator then they get treated like criminals (well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the link should be clear).

[Kurtnoise]

Personally, they are all good choices Kurt. As is your good-self ;)
Frankly not...

[Doom9]

I think the primary purpose of an "established member" rule is so that moderators can deal more quickly with brand-new members blatantly violating rules (e.g. piracy) without allowing moderators to deal as quickly and unilaterally with anyone else. The history of a member is already being considered.... we're more lenient with brand new members, especially on the tricky rules (like title, what's best and the likes).
Though, the number of post and when an account has created should not give you a free pass to violate the rules.
Even though we don't have an official VIP class (yet), there are individuals that I believe have made significant contributions - so they'll get some sort of unofficial VIP treatment. E.g. they are more likely to get strikes reversed. But, I believe if you're amongst those who get special treatment, you should reciprocate by being a model member.

And speaking of which, more than a week ago I added rule 15, which I consider to be probably the most important one - and it's one very dear to me heart. You wear the badge, you're a role model and should act accordingly. I consider that to be common sense. As they say, with power comes responsability.

[Bi11]

Mod-rule 15 misses the point.
(Edit: Actually, that rule hits the point with accurate precision, but in the exact opposite direction, by explicitly forcing the behavior of an authoritative role.)

In case my last post wasn't clear enough... "authority" means opinion stated in an authoritative manner such that "no one must question it."
(Edit: "authority" can also mean implicit pessimistic accusations, such as this post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1446471#post1446471).)

What happens when a moderator (or VIP, etc.) makes such an "authoritative" statement?
Should members leave the forum (to avoid breaking certain forum rules else they'll be treated like criminals) and let the FUD spread?

[setarip_old]

@Doom9

Hi!

With regard to (referred to by Bi11") Posts #5 and #6 at:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1446471#post1446471

I believe they present a good example of member and moderator cooperation, with a member carefully abiding by Rule #6 regarding an unclear posting by the OP: 6) No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature (e.g. anything you don't own and/or have downloaded), asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated. - and a proper handling by the moderator (requesting clarifying information, which could have been a simple, "Yes, I'm referring to homemade family movies").

By doing this, should the original post be deemed in violation of Rule #6, members (as has happened on occasion in the past) cannot possibly be struck for "offering or helping to process such content in any way."

[Mug Funky]

actually, in my opinion that's what the report button is for.

i don't wish to be a vigilante - i'll help where i can, but i fail to see why members without moderator status should badger people who are asking questions. if i have a suspicion, i'll report the post and a moderator can deal with it.

putting myself in the OP's shoes, i'd be extremely annoyed if i'd waited the 5 day period, posted a question and then just been treated by a fellow member of equal status (post count != status) as if i were doing something wrong.

[setarip_old]

@Mug Funky

Hi!

I'm guessing you're referring to Post #2 to the thread at:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1446471#post1446471

that says:You shouldn't be giving your "back-ups" to other people!

[stax76]

I second Mug Funky's post.

[Bi11]

Since this thread seems to be going down the drain, I might as well respond to the reply Doom9 will probably make, before this thread gets locked-down.

@Doom9
You believe questioning authority is a privilege.
I am suggesting the exact opposite, i.e. those in authority should be bombarded with questions that challenge their "authoritative" statements and their authoritative status.

Most likely, "authoritative" statements made by specialist/authoritative figures on the matter would generally be accepted as being true or based on facts/references.
However, "authoritative" statements made by non-authoritative figures on the matter would/should be questioned constructively to avoid the spreading of FUD.

Explicitly forcing the expected behavior of an authoritative role is a good strategy, but only if questioning of those "authoritative" statements are allowed to be more amicable.

[GodofaGap]

[Color=Blue]@Doom9

Hi!

With regard to (referred to by Bi11") Posts #5 and #6 at:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1446471#post1446471

I believe they present a good example of member and moderator cooperation, with a member carefully abiding by Rule #6 regarding an unclear posting by the OP: - and a proper handling by the moderator (requesting clarifying information, which could have been a simple, "Yes, I'm referring to homemade family movies").
No this was pretty horrible. For that you use the report post button, which in this case wouldn't have been necessary anyway. It is not one member's job to question another member's motives. The only thing you have achieved here is scaring away a new member.

I, personally, can't find anything suspicious in the term "personal back-up DVD". I just assume its a DVD with personal content (hence the reason for wanting to protect it) or a mixed up translation from a non-native English speaker. In any case, I don't think anyone who has downloaded a movie and burned it on a DVD is going to bother about protecting the DVD when he lends it out to a friend.

Since rule 6 doesn't explicitly demand that a member discloses the content of the material he is working on, there is no reason why you as non-moderator must constantly ask for it. So please stop doing it. You are not making the forum a better place this way.

[Doom9]

setarip_old does not have a team badge.. his word has no special meaning. And he's been instructed publicly and privately by other mods and myself to leave the moderating up to those with the badge and use the report button.

I can't say I understand why you'd strip copy protection to add a new one then though. That makes zero sense to me but that's just me.

You believe questioning authority is a privilege.
I am suggesting the exact opposite, i.e. those in authority should be bombarded with questions that challenge their "authoritative" statements and their authoritative status.I guess we agree to disagree. I'm in a difficult position here.. pretty much everybody I talk to has no experience being in my position (long time admin of a sizeable board whose membership spans the globe). Tell you what... that position isn't exactly desireable most of the time. You do things right, and everybody thinks that's how it should be. Anything goes wrong and you automatically become the bad guy. It is very difficult to get certain points across when the guy you're arguing with sees things from their perspective, and you need to consider what a combination of gut feeling, experience and standards of social interactions in your culture tell you and to make sure the large majority of those 170'000 members is being kept happy. I do not fault anybody for considering their perspective - it's normal. But at times I wished that those who critizise had a little experience where they'd have to put their own opinion on the back burner and had to give more weight to things that they do not necessarily agree with.

Say you have an issue with a moderator. You will naturally consider your opinion as the one that counts. The moderator, however, might not necessarily have that luxury. His opinion on how things should be handled can be overridden - there are the moderator rules, and an admin with his own opinion for starters. Then there might be experience from previous similar issues that might jade your outlook on things. And it's not exactly easy to argue with that baggage.

Personally I've found it much easier to talk rules and enforcement to people who've been in my shoes - we might not agree (I've had my own very forceful arguments with admins on other boards myself), but in the end, there's a basic understanding on certain things. That understanding isn't necessarily there when talking to people who lack that background.

It's like when you've lived in your own country for your entire life. Go out there into the world once, experience how things work in a different country, and it will give you a different perspective, guaranteed (I lived a year abroad and it certainly applied to me). Coming back however, you'll find it extremely difficult to try to explain to those that remained behind why certain things that are accepted as the norm in your own country might not necessarily be the best way of handling things. You can't really fault them for not seeing it because they just have their perspective. But it leaves you in an uncomfortable position.

(Edit: Actually, that rule hits the point with accurate precision, but in the exact opposite direction, by explicitly forcing the behavior of an authoritative role.)What are moderators then? They do have a position of authority - that's a given. So, they should act accordingly. And, you are incorrect to suggest that members cannot argue their point with a moderator. They most certainly can. We do have a bunch of threads active right now where there are tons of rule 16 and rule 17 violations. Yet, you don't see strikes flying. And, you do not see just how many times strikes are rescinded because the mod who handed it out and the member get to talk reasonable together in PMs, and they manage to sort out their differences amicably and then the mod asks me to rescind the strike. I will obviously always honor such a request.

I think it would be a mistake to throw caution to the wind and start making wide reaching changes without proper reflection just because of one incident. Most of the time, the established mechanisms we have do work just fine. And when something that doesn't work fine is brought to my attention, measures are taken. E.g. you should now be informed if content is removed and given an explanation why that step was taken. With that knowledge, you can then decide on the next step. Is the explanation satisfactory? If not, you can try to argue your point. Make sure you are being civil though. You know what happens if you pick a fight with a cop, or a judge. Assaulting a police officer will get you arrested. Getting into a judges face will get you in contempt and fined or you spend the night in jail. Get into the face of your commanding officer in the army and you spend the night in the brig. Call your boss at work an asshole and you might be out of a job. Getting into the face of whatever authority, there are always consequences, and you should be mindful of that. Most people seem to understand that - but some unfortunately think that just because they're online, they can throw caution to the wind. As it so happens, those are the ones that often will find themselves stuck or even suspended.

Also, there are legal reasons why I do need to have the last word. There are laws that govern what can happen on a board anybody runs... those are local laws. If they are not being followed, owners and or operators risk legal consequences. It cannot be that just because a few "established members" that live halfway across the world and have no idea about the applicable laws, get to decide something that will land me or Swede in prison. I'm concinved you will not find a single admin anywhere on this planet that's willing to risk that. Well, maybe some don't care, but those that do care will insist that they have the ultimate, unchallenged, authority.

For instance, we have a German sister board. In Germany, there are laws that put you into serious risk if you only link to the homepage of Slysoft (because they make AnyDVD (HD)). Personally, I think that's bull. However, even though the board carries my name, I do have to defer to the local admin on that matter. In fact, there even was some legal action at one time. It would be highly irresponsible for anyone to ask that they take the appropriate measures to make sure this does not happen again.

[Bi11]

Moderators have the position of authority to enforce the rules - that's a given.
The problem arises when those given the power of authority (currently moderators, but soon VIPs, etc.) make "authoritative" statements (or incite pessimistic accusations), which they are not qualified to make (but aren't against the rules), which can lead to the spread of FUD, which can lead to fights, strikes and bans.

I guess we agree to disagree.

[Mug Funky]

fwiw, a forum is not a democracy...

this is doom9, not wikileaks.

[Sharktooth]

exactly, this is DOOM9's FORUM... as i already said infinite times...

[Henrikx]

A moderator with the status ombudsman, is perhaps the solution..

"The post of ombudsman is an address for general complaints on the part of Users who disagree with decisions that have been made or feel that they have been treated unfairly."

[kieranrk]

setarip_old does not have a team badge.. his word has no special meaning. And he's been instructed publicly and privately by other mods and myself to leave the moderating up to those with the badge and use the report button.


But he won't stop doing that because he gets some bizzare form of self-satisfaction when he accosts someone for potentially having copyrighted materials.

[Sharktooth]

do i miss something or everyone is just free to ask if it does not brake the rules?

[Astrophizz]

Well mods have instructed him not to do it since he can simply file a report and doesn't need to publicly accuse the person...

[Sharktooth]

it seems i've missed that. however, if that's what's happening just report his (incriminated) posts to a mod or using the report button.

[Bi11]

Just a thought...
If a non-moderator assumes the authoritative position of a moderator (i.e. pretends to be that role model by making "authoritative" statements, or tries to do the work, etc.) then that post can be reported to a moderator. Doing so should stop the spread of FUD caused by the non-moderator's incorrect statements. In this case, the moderator is the one qualified to make and judge such authoritative statements (i.e. related to rule enforcement) by virtue of having moderator status.
Generalizing...
If a non-authority assumes the authoritative position of an authority (i.e. pretends to be that role model by making "authoritative" statements, or tries to do the work, etc.) then that post can be reported to a ?moderator? ?authority?. Doing so should stop the spread of FUD caused by the non-authority's incorrect statements. In this case, the authority is the one qualified to make and judge such authoritative statements (i.e. domain-specific subject matter) by virtue of having authoritative status.
If such a post is reported then how can a moderator authoritatively judge those "authoritative" statements if the moderator isn't qualified (domain-specific knowledge, etc.) to do so?
Perhaps that's the issue being alluded to by Kurtnoise...