Our moderator rules

[Doom9]

Rules, rules rules, right? Well, even though I prefer to handle things internally (I believe it's more professional.. you don't see bosses screaming at their employees in the hallways or even outside of the company grounds and that has a reason), there's a standard for moderators to adhere to as well.

Your main tasks are:

A) Help out the people in the forum(s) that have been assigned and keep the discussion going in a friendly and welcoming manner.

B) Uphold the forum rules: http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm.

C) Authorize attachments & unsuspend users: Visit the moderation panel every day you visit the board.

D) Maintain a FAQ in your respective forum: There should be a sticky Q&A thread in every forum where it makes sense to have one (probably excluding advanced users and bugreport / development forums) and it is the task of the assigned forum moderator(s) to maintain and update that Q&A on a regular basis. Basically if something is asked multiple times, put it in the FAQ, and if somebody has a really bright idea put it there as well.

E) Visit the mod chat every time you visit the board.

F) You must visit the board and take care of pending issues in your forum at least 3 times a week. You are strongly encouraged to do this on a daily basis. If for some reason you cannot be present for a period of 2 weeks or longer, you must inform the rest of the moderator team via a message in the mod chat giving a brief overview why you can't be here. If you don't want to share your reason you can send a PM to me but I need to have at least some idea of what is going on. The maximum "off time" allowed is 3 months, after that you'll either have to be back in full force or you'll be asked to step down.

G) Private forums are to be kept private. The issues being discussed in non public forums (mod chat, etc.) must never be revealed to people who are not moderators/admins on this board.

H) Moderate discussion on this board.

Below are some guidelines on various issues:

1) Looking after the forum is mainly the forum moderator's task. Only if he is not around for a while should other privileged users step in (Super Moderators).

Locking and Unlocking:

2) Forum Rule 3: If a thread is off topic but would fit into the focus of another forum the moderator should move it to the appropriate place. If a thread is off topic and doesn't fit into the forum then the appropriate forum moderator should write a short note stating that the post if off-topic, then close the thread. As by rule 1) locking and moving is mainly the task of the responsable forum moderator and no other person should lock threads in form where they haven't been specifically assigned as moderator unless rule 3 or 4 apply.

3) Unmoderated Forums: This is where Super Moderators take the moderator position.

4) If a thread is about to blow up in our faces (flame threads, etc) people with special privileges (Admins, Super Moderators) can take immediate actions (edit posts (see 6), and lock threads (locked threads must include one last post indicating why such action was taken))

5) Unlocking threads: If it's a sticky thread that you've created it's okay to unlock it if you want to make changes. If it isn't such a thread you must not unlock a previously locked thread.

Editing Threads

6) Any and all edits should be preceded by making a copy of the offending thread to the thread moderation forum. Whether you copy the entire thread or just a post is up to you, but it should always be able to reconstruct the discussion (so if copying single posts, make sure you indicate where they fit in the publicly visible thread).

6a) Any edit of any post that will be left standing should be marked as such (e.g. "removed link to illegal software", or "removed insults", etc.).

6b) If entire posts are being deleted, make sure you soft-delete them, so they can still be seen by members of the moderator team.

Deleting threads

7) If there's a case of cross-posting, try to answer the thread in the forum where it best fits in and move the rest of the threads to thread moderation. In most cases you will not be able to edit out all the cross-posts, in this case let an active forum moderator with the correct privileges, an active super moderator or active admin know. Also inform the offending user that cross-posting is in violation of the forum rules when you write your answer.

Conflict of interest

8) Moderators must not have a vested interest when using their moderator powers. When a mod's actions are called into question, the mod cannot use his moderator powers to resolve the situation - instead, the issue has to be handed off to another moderator or administrator. The same applies to controversy regarding any and all products a moderator has ties to.

Forum rule 1 violations:

9) Remind people that they signed the rule that they would read up first then ask questions. Also encourage them to use the search function in the forum and tell them that they may not expect an answer if they don't bother to read up first. Also remind people of the Q&As that we have (or will have).

10) Don't pick a "lesser" rule when a strike for rules 4 or 6 (those count as a double strike) is warranted.

11) On rule 6: Err on the side of caution before accusing somebody of warez. I've had cases where an obvious release group file name turned out to be a fluke (so googling the exact file name helps.. and if you find no precise match, assume that somebody adopted release group naming for their own purposes).

12) Interpretation of rule13: This is rule is meant to discourage conversations in languages other than English. With conversations I mean entire post exchanges. Sometime, you can hardly avoid writing a line in another language, and if somebody writes a considerable part of a post or an entire post in another language, you should warn him first before handing out any strikes.

13) As per the conflict of interest section, moderators may not strike for issues they have a vested interest in.

14) Only enforce rules 9 & 11 for repeat offenders. Politely encourage members that it is in their best interest to follow these rules instead often works better.

15) Keep in mind that with the team badge, you represent the forum, not your individual opinion. As such, you should set an example for our members to follow.


There's also a lengthy bit about how the strike system works that seems pretty irrelevant because only moderators will ever get to see the functionality. But here are some relevant bits

Note that if you're editing posts, deleting or moving posts, the link in the PM the user gets will go nowhere - so it is imperative that you use the message box field to inform the user why he/she was struck.

and
Rules 4 & 6 count as two strikes, violations of any other rules count as a single strike. Therefore, try warning people off first before handing out double strikes. Such a warning should serve as an encouragement for better behavior, not as a reprimand. I know it's much harder to ask somebody nicely to not do something again in the future than to slam him with the rulebook but the former has proven to be much more effective in the past. A strike for violation of rule 4 or 6 means the user in question is 2/3 suspended.. always keep that in mind. When in doubt.. rather ask another moderator or in this forum. The amount of suspensions should be very small at all times.. we don't have too many people really misbehaving badly.

Another thing.. before you strike take a minute to look at the user's profile and check previous strikes... if your strike would lead to a suspension it should be clear that the user generally deserves the suspension.. getting striked 3 times for not using an appropriate title for instance.. that shouldn't lead to a suspension but to a serious talk with a moderator telling him that his inconsiderate behavior might make it impossible for him to post in the feature and that a very small effort would help prevent that.

As you can see, the whole thing is written with super moderators in mind. Because we haven't had those for a long time an in order to handle attachments, moderator powers were extended to be available over all forums. That was never meant to be permanent.. hopefully, the right people will step up eventually.

Please note that those rules have been revised, extended and condensed (it was a lot less formal before, rules 9 and 13 were never written down explicitly but only mentioned casually in some rather old private discussions amongst team members). From this point on, you can expect moderators to adhere to those rules. If you feel somebody has not done so, please inform me immediately. Since I'm only human, do have a job and a personal life, I cannot guarantee a quick response, but I promise I will look into it. Because I do not believe getting into shouting matches, and since as with the forum rules, the final interpretation is up to me, I ask you to please remain civil even if you feel somebody has been wronged.
Also, I do not believe a good leader does his dirty laundry in public - you don't see public floggings in the workplace either. So don't expect a moderator hall of shame. Managers, to a certain extent, should have the spine to stand up for their people. Mistakes can happen - how you handle it when they're being pointed out to you is much more important in my book. I do not believe any forum can attract moderator volunteers if the admin stabs his own people in the back the first time they make a mistake.

[Guest]

Stickie?

[GodofaGap]

Also, I do not believe a good leader does his dirty laundry in public - you don't see public floggings in the workplace either.
When you call it like that no. When you call it "reminding a person of his responsibility" it happens pretty much all the time in the open. This is important so people don't get the idea that others get special treatment. I don't know in what kind of working environment you are active, though. I know moderators are volunteers, but this doesn't mean they don't bear any responsibility for their actions to the community.

If you want this transparency thing to have any meaning, and a larger group of people seem to have a problem with a moderator you will have to put out a public statement either in support or against the moderator. This doesn't mean you have to praise him into heaven or burn him down to the ground, it means you have to say the group of people is not justified in their feelings or acknowledge mistakes were made (and not in the sense of "everyone makes mistakes").

I'm afraid that with reiteration of the forum rules and opening up the moderator rules the mentioned group of people will not feel recognized in their grievance here, and it will not resolve the existing situation.

[Doom9]

When you call it "reminding a person of his responsibility" it happens pretty much all the time in the open.Does it really? Other than in "The Apprentice"? I'm familiar with the "get into my office".. which is a pretty clear indication someone has screwed up.. but I have yet to see for instance an unfriendly sales person or service person being told to adjust their attitude in front of me. I believe that should happen during the next break (or if it gets really bad you swap the person at the register immediately.. but you tell the replacement to replace the other). Sometimes customers might pick up on those reminders, but I doubt it is the idea that they do.

but this doesn't mean they don't bear any responsibility for their actions to the community.Who says they don't? They are held accountable - but they can't really account to you.. you don't have the power to demand that they change. I, however, do.

[Sharktooth]

that was exactly what i meant on my reply on doom10. that is an admin issue. doom9 owns this forum and he decides how things are going to be... not users.

[Hagbard23]

that was exactly what i meant on my reply on doom10. that is an admin issue. doom9 owns this forum and he decides how things are going to be... not users.

That is surely wrong Sharktooth.

The Admin owns something, which is built by the Community - so there is no Decision which affects community, and which has to be done by the Admin alone.

What is wrong with you all? We live in a Democracy, people fought years and years for the rights we have in the real world. Why are you going back to dictatorship? In nearly every democratic system, the people who are part of it are allowed to discuss and mention problems as they want to - as long as they don't stand in conflict with the general laws.

It is a central right, we are discussing here, and i do not believe, that keeping problems secret will do anything to them.

Why should i report problems to the Administrative, when i have a problem with this certain administrative??? That is not logical. Why should the Administrative be the only adress for problems? I do not understand your way of thinking? What is your fear? If the subject of criticism has done nothing wrong, he has no cause of keeping things secret, or am i wrong? And IF the criticism is on the right lane, we all should know about this - because not all users have problems with a certain person at the same time, and it would be interesting to those users, what's the matter with -for example- Neuron2.

I don't get it - am i stupid or what? What exactly is your problem?

[Guest]

@Hagabard23

I think you may have misunderstood Sharktooth. I think he's just saying that the Doom9 forum belongs to Doom9 and Doom9 has the right to decide and implement his personnel policies as he sees fit. That's how all businesses work.

[Hagbard23]

But we aren't a business here, right? We are a community. I know, that you like business, but that does not make the Forum into one. A Forum is a free place, where people come together to discuss several things, right? It is no business as Neutron2.Net, it is -first of all- Free.

Maybe you are right, that Doom9 has the right to choose wether a person would be a good moderator, or not. But as every Human Being he can do mistakes - just as your person does.

And in a free forum, just as explained, those mistakes (if they affect community based problems) SHOULD be discussed with the members of this Forum and NOT with the -self called- owners of this community.

[tremens]

At a minimum, i think some PTO is in order. ;)

[GodofaGap]

Does it really? Other than in "The Apprentice"? I'm familiar with the "get into my office".. which is a pretty clear indication someone has screwed up.. but I have yet to see for instance an unfriendly sales person or service person being told to adjust their attitude in front of me.
I've seen unfriendly service personnel be corrected right in front of me behind the counter when I asked for their boss. Perhaps this is a cultural difference, but this really does happen and it definitely gives a feeling you are taken seriously as a customer.

Who says they don't? They are held accountable - but they can't really account to you.. you don't have the power to demand that they change.
You misunderstood me, I'm not asking that moderators account to me. I'm saying that a part of the community finds that a moderator has screwed up, and they don't think it is enough anymore to handle this behind closed doors. You can think what you like about this, but if you don't come with an open statement this whole transparency exercise will be in vain.

that was exactly what i meant on my reply on doom10. that is an admin issue. doom9 owns this forum and he decides how things are going to be... not users.
Sure he can do what he wants, but that is so besides the point I don't even know why you bring it up. If this is the premise for discussion then lets just lock all these threads right away. I thought they were created to have an open discussion with the community about them. If not, I'm sorry I wasted my time.

[stax76]

but if you don't come with an open statement this whole transparency exercise will be in vain

Post #1 is the open statement, one with that IMO everybody can be satisfied with.

[GodofaGap]

Then close the topic.

[Sharktooth]

@Hagabard23

I think you may have misunderstood Sharktooth. I think he's just saying that the Doom9 forum belongs to Doom9 and Doom9 has the right to decide and implement his personnel policies as he sees fit. That's how all businesses work.
yep, i was in a hurry and couldnt elaborate more.

[Ghitulescu]

But we aren't a business here, right? We are a community. I know, that you like business, but that does not make the Forum into one. A Forum is a free place, where people come together to discuss several things, right? It is no business as Neutron2.Net, it is -first of all- Free.

No, doom9's forum is not a community, it's a forum that belongs to doom9. He pays for the hosting and for the traffic and some other issues you have probably no idea, thus it's free for you. Should everyone take part to these issues (member fee ;) - I wonder how much would shrink this community should a member fee be instituted;)) well that's a community. So far I understood this post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=52597), we are only guests here. We may discuss the rules (before Rule 17 ;)) but not impose them.

[Hagbard23]

Okay, then it is not a forum, by old definition, but only a website in which others can interact. Some kind of Social Network ;)...
Nevertheless: Of course you are right with your thoughts.

But Anyway i hold it - with or without these thoughts -, i don't think it is a good idea to go this way -

i will go with it, but i'm not gonna like it.

[Guest]

It is no business as Neutron2.Net, it is -first of all- Free. If you actually go to neuron2.net and look around you will see that 95% of my stuff is open sourced, and that I offer free hosting to other open source developers, as well as free mirroring for significant websites experiencing hosting difficulties. Go search for the original Avisynth website (BenRG's); you will find the mirror I have provided to you free ever since BenRG moved on.

Regarding my licensed tools, a single donation gets all of them. So since there are currently three significant ones, you pay $5 per significant tool. I am not the only prominent developer that makes non-free tools. You may consider jdobbs and mpucoder for example. We have hosting and other expenses. These small donations provide spending money for that. I can assure you, I am nowhere near getting rich from my tools.

Furthermore, even for my tool DGDecNV, I have published my entire development dialog with Nvidia, as well as sample applications (source code) that show how to use the GPU for decoding.

Finally, I'm sure that you have noticed that some other developers, that ironically claim lilly-white status, are quite happy to state that their commercial activities take priority. See here for an example ("All contracts buy you priority access to me over email, IRC, and instant messenger."):

http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/consulting.html

I include it below in case it should suddenly disappear:

As a developer of x264 and ffmpeg, I take consulting and coding contracts. They generally fall under the following categories:

General x264/ffmpeg consulting: You pay me to answer questions and provide detailed information and support on x264 and ffmpeg. This is the simplest, cheapest type of contract and gets you priority access to me. This can also serve as a support contract of sorts.

Project-based x264/ffmpeg consulting: Perhaps you need an encoding chain built for some specific purpose--a Flash video site or encoding for mobile devices. I have a great deal of experience in this category, having helped set up encoding chains for Facebook, Criterion Collection, and others. Other types of projects can also be considered. Do note that I generally do not do coding in such cases; while I am not ignorant in the ways of bash scripting, it is generally a much more efficient use of my time and your time to have me provide you the information you need to write your own back-end scripts. Furthermore, I will never write PHP for any purpose.

Coding: Do you need a feature added to x264 or a bug fixed? Then this is the type of contract you're looking for. Previous clients in this category include Avail Media and Vudu. Note that I of course reserve the right to reject any contract proposal that I believe does not make sense or which I do not have time to implement (especially true of features which would be incredibly complicated to implement, such as SVC). I also will generally only work on features that I believe are worthwhile enough to actually commit to x264; custom features that are not intended to be committed will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Also note that I require--at a minimum--co-ownership of all changes that I commit to x264; I will not accept any contract that does not grant me that minimum amount of ownership of my own code.

Coding on things not x264: Do you have a video compression-related program, especially H.264-related, that you want me to improve? I can do this as well; previous clients in this category include CoreCodec. Note that specific restrictions apply here: your NDA cannot in any way affect any of my other work including that on x264. Additionally, I reserve the right to refuse to directly port algorithms or code from x264 if applicable. Finally, I will not promise to complete any task until I have acquired enough information to judge feasibility and work involved. Obviously, if I decide something is not feasible after seeing the existing codebase, you will not be billed.

My rates are $100/hr for consulting and $125/hr for coding contracts. Per-project rates are negotiable. For large payments (> $1000), check is preferred; Paypal works for smaller payments. All contracts buy you priority access to me over email, IRC, and instant messenger. Phone is also available if necessary.

Contact darkshikari [at] gmail [dot] com if you are interested in a contract. If you need more information, a simple CV can be found here.

I hope it will not be considered spam. :)

[Sharktooth]

Okay, then it is not a forum, by old definition, but only a website in which others can interact. Some kind of Social Network ;)...
Nevertheless: Of course you are right with your thoughts.

But Anyway i hold it - with or without these thoughts -, i don't think it is a good idea to go this way -

i will go with it, but i'm not gonna like it.
it has been always like that. what makes you think it could change?
it always was a forum and there were certain rules which you abide to agree during you registration. it's not so difficult to understand.
it's a private place made available to the public to discuss certain things.

[tremens]

If you actually go to neuron2.net and look around you will see that 95% of my stuff is open sourced, and that I offer free hosting to other open source developers, as well as free mirroring for significant websites experiencing hosting difficulties. Go search for the original Avisynth website (BenRG's); you will find the mirror I have provided to you free ever since BenRG moved on.

Regarding my licensed tools, a single donation gets all of them. So since there are currently three significant ones, you pay $5 per significant tool. I am not the only prominent developer that makes non-free tools. You may consider jdobbs and mpucoder for example. We have hosting and other expenses. These small donations provide spending money for that. I can assure you, I am nowhere near getting rich from my tools.

Furthermore, even for my tool DGDecNV, I have published my entire development dialog with Nvidia, as well as sample applications (source code) that show how to use the GPU for decoding.

Finally, I'm sure that you have noticed that some other developers, that ironically claim lilly-white status, are quite happy to state that their commercial activities take priority. See here for an example ("All contracts buy you priority access to me over email, IRC, and instant messenger."):

http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/consulting.html

I include it below in case it should suddenly disappear:



I hope it will not be considered spam. :)

just further proof that the concept of free software is beyond your comprehension

[stax76]

@neuron2

I was hoping you and DS are willing to leave this argument behind, going separate ways is all what's needed and I don't mean separate boards but rather separate threads.

[Doom9]

I'm saying that a part of the community finds that a moderator has screwed up, and they don't think it is enough anymore to handle this behind closed doors. Why is it not enough? I hate peer pressure and screaming matches. If you have a reasonable gripe, as I've said before, I will listen. And, now that you know the standard moderators are held to, you can basically report a moderator rule violation. If the report turns out to be correct, something will be done about it. For instance, if a strike was given, that strike will be rescinded and the moderator will be given instructed how to handle similar situations better in the future.
For the most egregious offenses, or serial offenders, the result will be that they will lose their moderator status.

But we're not going to have a vote on who will be hired and who will be fired. That part, just as on the tube, is up to the boss.

just further proof that the concept of free software is beyond your comprehension please elaborate

[GodofaGap]

Why is it not enough?
Because it doesn't bring transparency, which is needed for interpretation of rules and better expectation of future moderation.

Again, you can choose to ignore this but then all of this pointless.

[Guest]

I was hoping you and DS are willing to leave this argument behind I've been willing to for some time, but vile attacks are still being made on me at Doom10 (controlled by DS), so I will defend myself as long as it continues.

going separate ways is all what's needed and I don't mean separate boards but rather separate threads. I don't follow your point. I will continue defending myself in this thread until the attacks on me cease.

[Doom9]

Because it doesn't bring transparency, which is needed for interpretation of rules and better expectation of future moderation.And what moderator or administrative experience lead you to that conclusion? It's easy to say you can do better.. but you should be provided to back that up with actual experience. Just because you think something should be done differently doesn't necessarily mean it a) work out at all, and b) end up being an improvement.

[tremens]

my interpretation of his post was a failure to recognize the idea of “'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'". there's nothing wrong with making money from gpl or lgpl software. look at google. :) correct me if i'm wrong.

btw, can you give me your interpretation of rule 8? like an example of how it could be broken?

[GodofaGap]

And what moderator or administrative experience lead you to that conclusion?
I've been moderator on two different forums, and if you really need to ask why it could be better if members of this forum get a better understanding of how the rules work through transparency around decision making that results from these rules, this conversation just hit a dead end.

[Doom9]

btw, can you give me your interpretation of rule 8? like an example of how it could be broken? I assume you mean moderator rule 8. Suppose I were a mod and still active in megui development. Somebody comes along and calls megui a crappy software written by braindead idiots. So, now both myself and my work is under attack. Now, I'm still permitted to ask why it's crappy... but if feel the normal "I need to defend my honor" feeling most human beings get when confrontent with the braindead idiots statement, then that's the point where I need to let cooler heads prevail.

I've been moderator on two different forumsAnd those forums would be and did you have the same username on those?

[tremens]

ok, what about this:

lets change the roles a little.

imagine stax was a mod/dev and you were just a dev. stax says within his own thread that megui is crappy software written by braindead idiots and when you go defend yourself, he immediately deletes your posts.

it's really only slightly different.

[Guest]

imagine stax was a mod/dev and you were just a dev. stax says within his own thread that megui is crappy software written by braindead idiots and when you go defend yourself, he immediately deletes your posts.

it's really only slightly different. No, it is very different. I instructed him in my capacity as a moderator to put his post in a new thread. He refused and repeatedly posted in my support thread, even after being warned in a PM.

[tremens]

i'm talking about a hypothetical situation here. stax didn't really say that about megui. :)

[Guest]

Yes, and I didn't really delete anybody's posts to shut them up.

[Bi11]

Doom9, I am trying to understand the workplace analogy you keep iterating, despite giving no justification for its relevancy.
What makes you think business policy is appropriate for a community-driven forum?

Using your workplace analogy, the Administrator is the boss, moderators are employees, and forum users are clients.
If a client is unsatisfied with the way they were treated by an employee then they can discuss the matter with the boss. There are 2 possible outcomes from the client’s perspective: satisfied, unsatisfied.

If the client is satisfied (or eventually satisfied) with the measures taken then there isn’t much else to discuss, so that’s the end of the “satisfaction procedure” with the halting state being ‘satisfied’.

However, how exactly does the “satisfaction procedure” eventually halt in a state of ‘unsatisfied’, or has the halting problem been realized?

As a thought experiment (note I am not proposing this as true), in the case of grievances between a user and a moderator, I can think of a simplified court system analogy, say ‘State vs user’.

The judge presiding over the matter is a human being and has a life that also exists outside the court system. As such, the judge (who is fair most of the time) has certain predispositions about certain matters that appear before him. The judge does of course not acknowledge these predispositions.

The user is aware of the judge’s predisposition and knows it will affect the final outcome of the case. The user can draw on past cases where the judge was biased; though such bias was never acknowledged by the courts, (presumably because the judge is very valuable and taking action against the judge would have some negative impacts on the courts not worth risking).

The outcome of the case is as expected. The user goes against the odds and calls the judge’s fairness into question by opening a case against the judge. So now, it’s ‘user vs judge’.

The head judge (Chief Justice, Court of Appeal, Administrator, whatever, you get the idea) presides over the case. Despite the biased judge and the head judge being more than good friends (the head judge relies heavily on the biased judge’s dedication to the courts), the user continues with the case.

However, some of the rules governing the powers of a judge are intentionally overly general in order to allow for flexibility of powers in good faith (e.g. moderator rule 4 – “blow up in our faces”, moderator rule 11 – “side of caution” which contradicts taking proactive measures to "fish-out" downloaders of pirated content (which imo seems futile since the uploaders are the real 'criminals'). This means the head judge necessarily interprets those rules on a case-by-case basis, because they are too vague to be interpreted objectively.

Thus, the head judge is free to bend or even break those rules for a judge without the user having any recourse but to accept the ruling and associated consequences.

Notice I have simply presented a problematic scenario without suggesting how you should run your forum.
You speak about being civil as if this forum is a civilized society. If so, then the courts analogy may be more appropriate than the workplace analogy.

IMHO, there is a fundamental difference between the workplace analogy and the courts analogy. Business clients are considered independent entities with no knowledge of each other. A court system serves justice to users of a community; those users necessarily interact with each other as part of being members of the community.

Community members look out for each other, clients do not! Your workplace analogy completely ignores the organic nature and dynamic relationships that unfold as the community evolves.

P.S. I am not trying to take sides; I am simply questioning your application of workplace policies to a community-driven forum.

[HJRodrigo]

Interesting set of rules. Were the rules formally written before or only now due to the mess that that occurred?

To be clear the mess that I am referring to seems to be that DS reported N2 for some violation of license with his software. N2 feels betrayed that DS didn't tell him first. N2 takes out his frustration in the forum at other software. N2 bans DS from the forums for chastising him publicly about spreading false information. DS is now mad that N2 has banned him without good reason. You did not state whether N2's actions were appropriate or not and now DS is mad at you for poor managerial skills.

The business model that you alluded to earlier was not used in this situation, as most people that studied business can tell you. Keeping the customer happy is paramount. If an employee offends a customer due to inappropriate behavior, the boss should reinforce that to the costumer that the employee’s actions were inappropriate and assure them that they will take appropriate actions to ensure it will not happen again. The specifics of the actions can remain hidden between the boss and employee, but the customer should feel their complaint was validated and not ignored. I take it DS just wanted confirmation from you that N2’s actions were not appropriate in this scenario and should not happen again. You are correct that a boss should not yell at his employee in front of the customer or even enact disciplinary measures in front of the customer. It is disrespectful to the employee and can backfire by making the customer feel awkward or responsible and quite simply it is just plain unprofessional. The boss’ role in the end is not to protect the employee, but the business. Keeping the customer feeling safe about doing more business with them in the future is his true goal.

In some sense it is unfair to the employee as the customer can be somewhat uncivil and the employee just has to suck it up. That is why most businesses try to hire employees not easily offended if their job involves regular contact with customers. It seems N2 was a little too reactionary/thin skinned in this situation and caused a mountain out of a molehill.

N2 has good work ethic and seems to be very reliable, but he needs to work on his thin skin. DS is a customer and not much can be done to change them. If you do plan to get more moderators in the future, try following the business model of picking people based on personality with costumers.

[Guest]

@HJRodrigo

Your account is a total misrepresentation of the facts and you do nobody any good by posting it and thereby creating new controversies that don't exist.

[PhrostByte]

I don't think it fits to treat this community as a business. Moderators should be volunteering for the community that they are part of, and be respected and held accountable by that community. Businesses cover up wrongdoing by employees because, for better or worse, they don't want clients/shareholders to perceive them as having problems. There should be no need for cover ups here.

I wonder if Doom9 could make a couple of the more active people into moderators. If there are more moderators, it would be easier to avoid conflicts of interest, and hopefully allow the moderators to talk frankly among themselves to keep each-other in line.

[Hagbard23]

Your account is a total misrepresetation of the facts and you do nobody any good by posting it and thereby creating new controversies that don't exist.
Says who?

That exactly is the point:
You misuse your mod status to make your ->opinion<- a objective truth, which is not always right. And that leads to a habit which is causing problems.

That's what i meant with: "Arrogance" - i bet you have read only a few words of the whole post of HJRodrigo.

I Totally agree with B11,tremens and godofagap.

BTW: The Business of Dark Shikari is a lot more friendly to the scene, than your way - at least this is my opinion.I can find nothing offending in his offer. Burn me for that.

Anyway, before i got deleted i shut up - nothing to win here for democratic senses.

[Doom9]

imagine stax was a mod/dev and you were just a dev. stax says within his own thread that megui is crappy software written by braindead idiots and when you go defend yourself, he immediately deletes your posts. Well, assuming that we still operate under the same set of rules as in my example, I do have two options
1) I ask stax why he's calling me a braindead idiot because I feel that that is in violation of the forum rules. I also ask why my response was deleted. If I'm not happy with the response, or god firbid if I should get a strike for me asking, then
2) I would contact the administrator and ask the same questions (plus if I got a strike ask if it was appropriate).

If the outcome of the above was not satisfactory, then it depends. If other than that one statement I never had any issues, I'd probably let it go because the forum is still important for what I do and pretty much all my users are here. If I were being constantly harassed, then I'd have think hard whether it is worth the hassle. But, even if I dediced it wasn't and I had the power to take megui someplace else and the users would come with me, I would state my reasons for leaving politely, and then leave it at that. A couple of years ago, I would not have taken it so well but I believe that it's just not worth the effort to hold a grudge. Also, (now we're going hypothetical..) if my professional work would involve coding and I was using megui as part of my resume, I would be concerned that my online conduct with regards to megui would be considered by prospective clients and / or employees - so, retaliating in kind would probably not be in my best interest.

I wonder if Doom9 could make a couple of the more active people into moderators.Oh absolutely.. if their previous conduct on these board shows that they are up to the task. I already have two names under consideration.

I'm afraid that's all I can respond to for today.. it's way past my bedtime again.

[Nic]

Hmmm, I think back and forth bickering and "what if" questions between mods and users (especially those with post counts lower than 100) is probably going to be pretty unproductive.

Not that a low post count means an opinion is worthless, but just that it's probably hard for such a user to understand how these rules have evolved and the issues we have had in the past when they are not strictly enforced.

I think Doom9 has been more than clear and, afterall, it is his forum, not ours. Can we not draw a line under this now? Close this thread and move on?

I would suggest to those that really do disagree with the approach and rules as outlined here by Doom9 to either try and get along with them as best as they can, or perhaps even, sadly, move on. As, I'm sure this is getting tiresome for all involved.

-Nic

[Bi11]

If other than that one statement I never had any issues, I'd probably let it go because the forum is still important for what I do and pretty much all my users are here.
So you make a decision based only on your own needs; you think only about yourself. What if a megui user/evangelist defends megui in stax's thread and got banned, would you turn a blind eye?

IMHO, there is a fundamental difference between the workplace analogy and the courts analogy. Business clients are considered independent entities with no knowledge of each other. A court system serves justice to users of a community; those users necessarily interact with each other as part of being members of the community.

Community members look out for each other, clients do not! Your workplace analogy completely ignores the organic nature and dynamic relationships that unfold as the community evolves.
Corollary: Employees are the driving force of a business; they do all the productive work. Community members, not moderators, are the driving force of a community-driven forum; they do all the productive work.

[Sharktooth]

you forget one thing. doom9 forums are not a community. the forum has an owner (doom9), the webspace has an owner as well.
doom9 forums are a private space made available for the public. that means you can browse the forums and learn from ppl.
on the other hand if you want to post something you have to abide the rules of this forum.
there is no democracy here since this is NOT a community. obviously everyone has the right to choose if they can accept the rules of this forum or not as well as everyone has the right to leave or stay.
keep in mind this is a private place where you have no rights to make the rules. the rules are made by the admin.
that said, the admin has the "power" of deciding on every user on this forum (i mean warn, suspend, ban, etc.), moderators included. if, for example, he wants to shut it down you can do nothing about that... coz it's HIS forum.
so, all this mumbo jumbo is pointless. the reality is this forum exists and has rules, if you can accept them then you're welcome, if you cant, there are plenty of other spaces with different rules, doom10 in first place.

[SallyDog]

Jeez, how has this thread evolved into the animal that it's become. Just close the beast. Doom9 is Doom9's to do with as he pleases, and I for one think he's doing (and done) a pretty damn fine job.

[Bi11]

doom9 forums are not a community.
http://forum.doom9.org/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_usage#faq_waitingperiod
I don't have anything against you Sharktooth, but please let Doom9 speak for himself.

[Sharktooth]

well, doom9 also said that: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=52597
the "community" term is not appropriately used in the text of that FAQ.
or better, the doom9 forums HOSTS a community of ppl but it's not community driven.
btw, im not against anyone im just trying to explain why ppl has no right to make decisions (forum related decisions) here.

[Bi11]

Your're not making much sense. The thread you linked to says the opposite of what you're saying. "Community" is used there to mean "community-driven", i.e. it's mostly community members who contribute to the body of knowledge on this forum.

[Sharktooth]

yes that's true, maybe i did not explain myself enough. what im trying to say is this forum is not owned by the community so the community can not make the rules and can not make decisions.
at best the community can make suggestions.

[PhrostByte]

@Sharktooth doom9.org it is not owned by the community, but that does not make it wrong to question and discuss its owner's rules and the people who enforce in his name. Being given something for free is not a reason to hold your tongue.

[Sharktooth]

i didnt say that. i just said we cant make the rules. we can discuss about them with the admin but we cant expect doom9 to accept all our (read: users) requests. afterall this site (forum, web, etc) is his site...

[HJRodrigo]

@HJRodrigo
Your account is a total misrepresentation of the facts and you do nobody any good by posting it and thereby creating new controversies that don't exist.

Please elaborate. None of the info I have provided is new, hence how can there be new controversies? I just read what everyone was writing and tried to put it in chronological order. The problem is you have deleted so much it is hard to put things back together to get a clear picture, all we can see are bits and peices. According to the IRC logs, PMs, and archived comments I have read, I have the progression of events correct. I will agree that my interpretation maybe wrong, since I am just saying what I was told afterall.

If I am wrong or inaccurate anywhere please tell me how so, rather than just flat out saying my account is a "total misrepresentation". I like knowing the truth and being accurate.

First I was curious as to the origins of your issues with ffmpeg and DS and I was pointed to this link (https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/issue1451) and was told you were uspset with FFMPEG and DS because of this and was told it was due to this you incorrectly made claims about FFMPEG violating MPEGLA licensing without checking your facts first.
Dark_Shikari found a possible license violation by DGAVCDec (http://neuron2.net/dgavcdec/dgavcdec.html).

And the following excerpts directly from several of your posts seem to clearly demonstrate you are upset, so I believed what people are saying as they have supporting posts to point me to.
...nobody bothered to email me about it before putting me in a Hall of Shame? This has caused me distress as I have always been a champion of OSS... I just want this entry removed as it is affecting my reputation as an OSS developer... In the meantime, do I have to continue to be help up to shame and ridicule? This is ridiculous... Why can't this whole silly busy go away. I did nothing wrong and you are runing my reputation... I don't need to do it. I do the work for free and offer it to the community. I have tried to adhere to the licensing and a misunderstanding occurred due to a mistake in another software distribution. Now you're going to punish everyone because you don't like me?!... I'm not selling this thing. From day one, I offered the source code, credited Michael, and tried to do the right thing. And now I find myself in a nightmare situation because someone wouldn't extend me the courtesy of emailing or PMing me to alert me that ffdshow had compiled for GPL but not changed the license file... I don't deserve all this and I have to wonder whether someone has an agenda.

I have no idea if you fairly banned DS or not, as all related posts that you could have pointed to have been deleted by you. But your actions seem highly suspect, as DS was the person who originally pointed out the issue with your software. I always thought that you were a good guy and I STILL do. So If my understanding is wrong, simply explain your side in an informative/detailed way and I will correct my understanding of the situation.

[Guest]

I have no idea... Exactly my point.

[HJRodrigo]

Exactly my point.

I agree, I really don't have any idea ;)

[lych_necross]

Jeez, how has this thread evolved into the animal that it's become. Just close the beast. Doom9 is Doom9's to do with as he pleases, and I for one think he's doing (and done) a pretty damn fine job.
Seconded!! Until the users start paying for the privilege of accessing this forum, Doom9 runs the show. End of discussion. Quit arguing over semantics. Jesus, tHe WoRd CoMmUnItY iS uSeD iNcOrReCtLy!?! LET IT GO!!!!

[Kuukunen]

I have no idea [if you fairly banned DS or not]Exactly my point.
And that's just the thing.
It's impossible to have a good idea of these things after they happen because most of the evidence has been removed. (Just as planned?) And since it was you who removed it, one can only assume the evidence was harmful to you.

[Guest]

I answer to Doom9, not you. He has what he needs to reach any needed conclusion.

[Sharktooth]

And that's just the thing.
It's impossible to have a good idea of these things after they happen because most of the evidence has been removed. (Just as planned?) And since it was you who removed it, one can only assume the evidence was harmful to you.
nothing has been "hard deleted". doom9 has all "deleted" posts/thread available to him.

[Kuukunen]

nothing has been "hard deleted". doom9 has all "deleted" posts/thread available to him.
Meanwhile in another thread:
Unfortunately, the record keeping was done improperly... I only have posts that were removed (because I need to be able to follow what has transpired in the proper order, I have therefore rewritten the moderator rules so that they ask for exact record keeping

[Sharktooth]

he means he has all deleted posts but in the wrong order (meaning he doesnt know when the post x or y were deleted and in what situation). so he have to rebuild the order to understand what was going on. however, as i understood, no posts were deleted permanently.

[Guest]

That doesn't mean deleted. It means the order is hard to follow because they are not in their original location. They are now in Thread Moderation.

[Hagbard23]

Then please release your work (the "original" order of all deleted posts) to all of us to clarify the facts one for all time.

Mean: Show the deleted posts again so that all of us can take part in investigation what the thruth was...

... Or are you afraid of that?

Doom9 & Mods: Do you really think there is some kind of "control" at all, when you are not able to answer questions, because the things are out of "original order"? That sounds pretty sarcastic to me...you delete posts, and when the question appears if that was right or not, you "sorry" yourself with the fact, that you do not see clear through the "chaos" in your business?

If even the administrative has no idea of how the things really were, then the question comes to me: "Why are you doing so much effort on keeping information-control? And what is the actual effect of these efforts?"

Sorry - i don't wanna do harm on somebody - sorry if my words sound hard in someway.

[Sharktooth]

hagbard it's not physically possible. posts where moved from the original thread to the thread moderation. hence the record keeping was lost...

[Kuukunen]

he means he has all deleted posts but in the wrong order (meaning he doesnt know when the post x or y were deleted and in what situation). so he have to rebuild the order to understand what was going on. however, as i understood, no posts were deleted permanently.
Point was, in either case, it's not very "available" if it required rule changes to make it possible/feasible/easy to sort out what happened.

On the other hand, to non-mods it doesn't matter if it was hard or soft deletion. They can't see them anyway and pretty much have to form their opinions based on rumors and impressions.

[Astrophizz]

Well I saw most of the posts. I had to refresh fast though as they were being posted and deleted rather quickly. Basically neuron2 went OT in his own thread, said that nobody else could reply to the false OT statement within that thread, and punished anyone who did. Then several other people started new threads about the subject and he deleted those threads. As I recall not all of the new threads had insults. Komisar's thread OP was almost identical to some earlier (deleted) thread OPs.

[Doom9]

@Bi11: I like your court analogy... it probably makes more sense.
However, some of the rules governing the powers of a judge are intentionally overly general in order to allow for flexibility of powers in good faith (e.g. moderator rule 4 – “blow up in our faces”, moderator rule 11 – “side of caution” which contradicts taking proactive measures to "fish-out" downloaders of pirated content (which imo seems futile since the uploaders are the real 'criminals'). This means the head judge necessarily interprets those rules on a case-by-case basis, because they are too vague to be interpreted objectively.

Thus, the head judge is free to bend or even break those rules for a judge without the user having any recourse but to accept the ruling and associated consequences.You're right on the money with that. However, isn't that exactly how things run in the real world? Judges are usually appointed, not elected - same with our moderators. There is no recourse against a decision by the highest court - same here with administrative decisions. You will also not get the highest court to reverse a ruling just because you stage a protest in front of the court.
And, many laws are very much subject to interpretation. Especially new laws are often tested in court, and courts will come down on different sides of the issue. Until a matter gets decided by the highest court instance, you don't really know how the law is to be interpreted.

Dark Shikari and neuron2 make friends and all is well again with the world. Then one cloudy day...

n2: x264 is bs. (or some other opinion not based on facts)
ds: you're talking bs.

Now what?I don't think that will realistically happen. If it does, ds should lodge a complaint with me and I'd ask neuron2 to apologize and I fully expect he would. If not he'd be fired. Moderators can't go around starting fights.. they're supposed to moderate and mediate conflicts, not start them.

"Established members of the forum should be given the benefit of the doubt whenever conflicting statements are made between a moderator and one or more Established members. Thus, the onus is on moderators to prove their statements correct in face of continued protests by Established members, until almost all Established members involved in the debate are satisfied with the proof.
Non-established members are required to prove their statements correct if they continue to protest against the moderator's statements, until moderators, or at least Established members, are satisfied with the proof."
Interesting idea. I do however wonder if that's really feasible (for one, people live in different timezones, and not everybody can be expected to be visit within a given amount of time.) . Do you know of any forum that does things like that?

Overall, I yet have to see a forum that is run as a democracy- I'm not saying there are none, but I'd like to see a sizeable working forum where all associated costs are split in between the members (like taxes), and where moderators and admins are elected by popular vote. And even in a real world democracy - do you really get a say into most of the issues? Did you get to vote on whether your country ratify the WIPO treaties (source of DMCA style legislation)? Did you get a say on changes to copyright law over the last 20 years (including extensions of protection periods and the DMCA in all its flavors), did anybody get to vote no whether software patents are a good idea? Will we get to vote on the ACTA? Even the Swiss didn't get to vote in their DMCA flavor - and they have a direct democracy. In a parliamentary democracy, you only get to not vote for a politician in the next election.. and you got no say in what laws that politicians passes in the meantime.

Were the rules formally written before or only now due to the mess that that occurred? as per the first post, they did exist, but in shorter form. Much of it was informally discussed (mods generally bring up issues for review and we discuss handling of the situation internally.. I then decide how those things should be handled in the future).

So you make a decision based only on your own needs; you think only about yourself. What if a megui user/evangelist defends megui in stax's thread and got banned, would you turn a blind eye?Couldn't the guy who got striked / suspended (note that outright bands will only happen for obvious spammers, duplicate registrations and people who get suspended for the second time) defend himself? Nowadays, with each strike warning, you get the following piece of information with it
If you have any questions regarding strikes in general, this specific strike, or have an objection, please refer to our FAQ items on strikes (faq.php?faq=strikes#contest_strike)

Note that this warning has been dispatched from an anonymous account - you must follow the mechanisms outline in the FAQ to contest a strike. . So, nobody can claim they didn't know they had the right to an appeal, and how to make such an appeal. Likewise, nobody can claim he/she didn't ruin their chance to appeal.
If I'm a friend with our imaginary guy, I might ask him to start the appeals process and about the outcome. But if I disagree with the outcome, there is not much I can do. Since the admin is the final instance, if he has made his ruling, it's final. Public protest will not help - but it will only get me in trouble (rule 17).

Being given something for free is not a reason to hold your tongue. Shouldn't it be common courtesy though that you respect that free doesn't owe you anything? I mean.. that's exactly how it works with all this free (open source or not) software. You accuse the makers of screwing up, you bitch about them not helping you, and you'll be at the losing end of a potentially very ugly fight. Try your luck on many mailing lists for open source software - and suddenly you'll feell that n00bs are treated extremely welcome in this place.

Doom9 & Mods: Do you really think there is some kind of "control" at all, when you are not able to answer questionsI don't understand what is so hard to understand about me rescinding strikes. What does it mean if I don't let a strike stand? let me give you a hint.. I'm ruling agains the moderator. The member will be given an apology, and since he was the one that was wronged, that should be it. You do not deserve an apology if nothing was done against you, and if you need to take offense with everything, that's your problem. To get back to the MeGUI issue - if I'm just a regular member, is there really a need for me to take offense? I might disagree strongly, but there's no reason for me to feel personally attacked - so if the ruling is that the strike was inappropriate, I'm not owed an apology, be it private or public.
As I said before, and that's a core charater value where I'm from, I'm not going out stab my moderators in the back for the slightest mishap. I refuse to make a public statement calling moderator action wrong every time I rescind a strike. It is still my forum, and I will not betray my core beliefs. You can disagree with that all you want - but it is my prerogative, and I think it is highly inappropriate that you go to a foreign land and demand that people throw away pat of their culture and instead start doing it your way. I consider it common courtesy that you respect the way things are done if you are at somebody else's place, regardless of whether you'd do it the same or not.

[Astrophizz]

Doom9, how would the appeals process work well when it might be two weeks or longer before you return? I know you have a life and take vacations, etc. I'm not criticizing you for taking breaks, just saying it complicates matters.

[Doom9]

Doom9, how would the appeals process work well when it might be two weeks or longer before you return? I know you have a life and take vacations, etc. I'm not criticizing you for taking breaks, just saying it complicates matters. Good point... underscores the need for super moderators who could serve as an intermediate instance in case I'm not available for an extended period of time. In the meantime, unless I can convince Swede to act on my behalf when I'm not around, I don't have a solution at this point.

[Sharktooth]

i have... "promote" some users to moderators (ask the mods for possible canditates or make a thread).
after that make an internal votation and promote a couple of mods to supermods.

[HJRodrigo]

as per the first post, they did exist, but in shorter form. Much of it was informally discussed (mods generally bring up issues for review and we discuss handling of the situation internally.. I then decide how those things should be handled in the future).


Thanks for the reply, but I already knew rules existed. Sorry, I was not being very specific. I meant rules that would have prevented this from happening. I was curious if they already existed in written form and if they did then DS's contention that N2 broke a moderator rule was true. I don't know if DS was refering to a previously existing rule or a rule recently created due to this situation.

[Doom9]

I was curious if they already existed in written form and if they did then DS's contention that N2 broke a moderator rule was true. I don't know if DS was refering to a previously existing rule or a rule recently created due to this situation. The rule in question, number 8, was not formally part of the moderator rules. Something along the lines "if you get under personal attack, hand the thread off to another moderator" had been brought in a private discussion in the moderator forum. Those informal rulings in discussions on how to handle a thread should be followed (every moderator has to visit the moderator forum after all.. that part has always been in the mod rules), but it's easier if everything is put at one place.
It's a bit convoluted, I know.

[HJRodrigo]

The rule in question, number 8, was not formally part of the moderator rules. Something along the lines "if you get under personal attack, hand the thread off to another moderator" had been brought in a private discussion in the moderator forum. Those informal rulings in discussions on how to handle a thread should be followed (every moderator has to visit the moderator forum after all.. that part has always been in the mod rules), but it's easier if everything is put at one place.
It's a bit convoluted, I know.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Guest]

The rule in question, number 8, was not formally part of the moderator rules. Something along the lines "if you get under personal attack, hand the thread off to another moderator" had been brought in a private discussion in the moderator forum.. I'd like to remind you all that I called in 3 other mods in compliance with the guidelines in force at the time. Doom9 was one of them.

[Astrophizz]

Then it's a good thing there will probably be more mods soon. As I remember no other mods showed up (unless they were doing things but not posting).

[Sharktooth]

indeed. if neuron2 tried to contact 3 different mods and had no answer then he has much less responsibility in what happened.

[woah!]

i only have 1 thing to say really, this forum without neuron2 as a mod the last little while, would be a spam infested slag feast.... i dont know the guy at all, but the good stuff he does here, sure as hell outweighs some ego's around here...

[Doom9]

Mean: Show the deleted posts again so that all of us can take part in investigation what the thruth was...I believe I've found a way to piece it all together. It will take some time though (say a day) as the forum software has gotten more powerful over the years when edits are concerned, but unfortunately, the new functionality is a lot less transparent when it comes to restoring things.

[Guest]

hagbard it's not physically possible. posts where moved from the original thread to the thread moderation. hence the record keeping was lost... No that's not true. All the timing information is present. But like a small puzzle it has to be reassembled. Fortunately it's a very simple puzzle; even Doom10 members could figure it out.

[Astrophizz]

Nice nice little goading insult there ;)

[Guest]

I'm glad you noticed. Consider it a little pushback for the relentless tag-team attacks on me here from you guys, not to mention the vile attacks on me and Doom9 over at your place.

A little dry wit spices up the day, don't you think?

[Astrophizz]

I have an account there (under the same name) but I can't say I'm more active there than here so I won't claim to be an established member of their central crew. I did make a statement there that you might disagree with on some level but I didn't insult you. I think people said things there in retaliation for not being able to discuss the subject here until recently - that is until this thread that seems to be excluded from rule 17.

I saw most of the post "puzzle pieces" though while they were still in their assembled state and I share some sympathies with some people. Recent actions have eased my concerns a bit though and I'm looking forward to an expanded mod team.

[Guest]

@Astrophizz

You sound like a fine chap. Send me an email and I'll give you a free license to my licensed tools. :)

Your good will buys you priority access to me over IRC, email, and the forum.

[Bi11]

Doom9,
Thanks for the willingness to discuss these matters with members. I know there are administrators on other boards who completely ignore members, yet some of those boards still somehow manage to thrive.

I wrote a long response but in the end I realized I was just pulling straws. You can find my ramblings here: http://paste2.org/p/982560

Hopefully your new rules and changes will foster healthy respectful relationships between moderators and members of this community-driven forum.

[kypec]

@Astrophizz

You sound like a fine chap. Send me an email and I'll give you a free license to my licensed tools. :)

Your good will buys you priority access to me over IRC, email, and the forum.Now, this sounds to me like bribery in public! Are you recruiting your counter-DS army or what?:p

[Astrophizz]

Haha, well as a bit of a noob I hold neuron2 and DS in fairly high regard for the software they work on. I'm not in any army - mainly because I'd rather not fight. There are better things to do on the internet :p

[Henrikx]

Humor..... three minutes for all

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

[kypec]

@Henrikx: though I'm forced to develop web apps in .NET in my work I must admit that the spot is just BRILLIANT. LOL:D

[HJRodrigo]

indeed. if neuron2 tried to contact 3 different mods and had no answer then he has much less responsibility in what happened.

I disagree, we should always be fully responsible for our own actions and not try to put the blame on others. He should have not acted if he was knowingly breaking the rules. Patients is a virtue, there was no rush to act. Nobody was going to die if he waited for a mod to help out. Do you even know how long he waited before he acted? Let Doom9 figure it all out before you to try to absolve anyone of any responsiblity. Something went wrong here and that is clear. Both DS and N2 are good people, but both deserve to be held accountable for their own actions and not excused because he is a moderator or x264 developer. We cannot see what DS supposedly did or verify the severity of the situation... Only Doom9 can, so we need to stop trying to pass the buck and have faith Doom9 knows what is best for his board.

[Sharktooth]

that's not the point. i meant, if there were more mods available the situation would have been different.

[Guest]

Now, this sounds to me like bribery in public! Are you recruiting your counter-DS army or what?:p While a cynic may see it as blatant bribery I prefer to see it as a magnanimous gesture. Send me your email address to get your free license and priority access to my support.

[Guest]

Both DS and N2 are good people, but both deserve to be held accountable for their own actions Gee, I must have missed the posts where you cross-examine DS to hold him accountable for his actions. I'd be grateful if you could point me to them. Thank you.

[Guest]

Humor..... three minutes for all
Very funny indeed.

But borderline rule 4 violation at the end. I'll overlook it...this time! :)

[stax76]

@Henrikx

Being the first releasing a .NET application here wasn't that funny, endless arguments, IIRC using .NET or MKV you had to be careful with Koepi, a moderator I'm sure many remember.

[Guest]

Koepi, a moderator I'm sure many remember. Yes, indeed, a very fine chap. He helped me a lot when I was a video noob. (Also, need to acknowledge manono's kind mentoring. And sh0dan, the list goes on...) I miss not seeing Koepi around here.

[HJRodrigo]

Gee, I must have missed the posts where you cross-examine DS to hold him accountable for his actions. I'd be grateful if you could point me to them. Thank you.

My understanding is you already disciplined him for doing what ever it was that he did, so why should I cross examine him? You already held him accountable for breaking a rule... I believe in the Double jeopardy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy) principle. DS has already been tried and found quilty by you, if he wants his sentence changed or what ever it is Doom9 that needs to cross examine him. I am pretty sure I have never cross examined you, I only asked you to elaborate if you felt I was some how incorrect in my thinking.

BTW it is not up to me to hold anyone accountable for their actions, but for doom9 and the people he put in charge (In fact I believe it was you who said something very similar to that in another post)

that's not the point. i meant, if there were more mods available the situation would have been different.
Hopefully Doom9's changes will prevent such situations from happening again. I always recommend this board to people who are trying to learn more about video editing and compression, so I really don't want to see this resource disappear.

[Guest]

The actions I'd like to see DS held accountable for are the vile attacks emanating from his forum. Do they not bother you, or do you think that is all just fine and dandy?

why should I cross examine him? Why then do you cross examine me?

With all due respects, just go away back to your utopia Doom10.

BTW, you haven't claimed your free license. I'll hold the offer open for you, don't worry.

[HJRodrigo]

The actions I'd like to see DS held accountable for are the vile attacks emanating from his forum. Do they not bother you, or do you think that is all just fine and dandy?

Why then do you cross examine me?

With all due respects, just go away back to your utopia Doom10.

BTW, you haven't claimed your free license. I'll hold the offer open for you, don't worry.

I don't post on those forums nor have I ever joined them. I think you have me confused with kypec or Astrophizz. You offered them a free license and I believe one of them wanted you to specificly show proof about your actions. As I wrote previously, if my memory is correct I have never cross examined you. I only asked you to clarify a claim you made about a statement of mine.

If people are making vile attacks about you on DS' Forums, then ask DS to hold them accountable. Surely you don't blame DS for what is comming out of the mouths of others. It would be like me blaming you for anything bad people are saying about DS. BTW I think anyone speaky vilely ( <---is that even a word? LOL) about anyone else is wrong. I do not support such actions.

[Guest]

As I wrote previously, if my memory is correct I have never cross examined you. Your memory is failing you. Review your own posts. You can start with this one:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1433142#post1433142

It's not your place to cross-examine me here on this (especially since you are still a Doom9 noob).

If people are making vile attacks about you on DS' Forums, then ask DS to hold them accountable. I already have. And what is this "if" equivocation?
Surely you don't blame DS for what is comming out of the mouths of others. Of course I do. He owns and manages the forum. He encourages, condones, and rewards that behavior. Anyway, he is the prime offender. Go read up over there. One example: at Doom10 someone called another Doom10 member for intentionally posting provocative insults over here. DS replied something like this: "He's just trolling. That's what he does." The entire Doom10 forum is a slap in the face to Doom9, our respected leader who gives us so much...for nothing in return!

Let's be clear... I'm looking for a win-win resolution to this affair. DS is looking for a win-lose resolution. He has pushed all his chips in. Let them fall where they may.

[HJRodrigo]

Your memory is failing you. Review your own posts. You can start with this one:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1433142#post1433142

It's not your place to cross-examine me here on this (especially since you are still a Doom9 noob).

That was not a cross examination :rolleyes: . You made a claim about a statement I made and I asked you to expand on how I was I making a "total misrepresentation of the facts" and "creating new controversies". If I was to have cross examined you about your actions. I whould have asked you why did you ban or suspend DS, if and when did you issue him a warning, did you give him time to respond to the warning, if and who did you consult before carrying out your actions, and so on. BTW I am not a "noob". I have been editing and compressing video's for years and have been visiting these forums for years. I only recently joined like three years ago cause I felt I had some news to share with the "community". If you are hung up on things like post count and titles then you need to grow up. This is just an internet forum. You are not some god or king that us peons should fear. Seriously what kind of attitude is that to have that allows you to imply how dare the lowly me/noob have the nerve to ask you a question :confused: .


I already have. And what is this "if" equivocation?
Of course I do. He owns and manages the forum. He encourages, condones, and rewards that behavior. Anyway, he is the prime offender. Go read up over there.
Then you feel that Doom9 encouraged, condoned, and rewarded the behaviors on this forum that led to problems. I was an admin to my own organizations forum for years and it was quite a hassle (This was part of my REAL job and not some hobby). I had to deal with a bad moderator (This was a REAL job as well and not some volunteer position like it is for you) and bad forum members before, and all I can say is I hope nobody blamed me for those issues. Doom9 is the forum I visit for video editing and compression and I have no desire to visit another one.

Let's be clear... I'm looking for a win-win resolution to this affair. DS is looking for a win-lose resolution. He has pushed all his chips in. Let them fall where they may. You guys need to hook up with Sharktooth and learn to settle things like grown men.

[Bi11]

The entire Doom10 forum is a slap in the face to Doom9, our respected leader who gives us so much...for nothing in return!
*Ha ha ha* LOL
You want some cheese to go with that wine?
All hail Doom9!

I'm just trolling. That's what I do.:p

[Guest]

Then you feel that Doom9 encouraged, condoned, and rewarded the behaviors on this forum that led to problems. No, I don't feel that.

You guys need to hook up with Sharktooth and learn to settle things like grown men. Send Sharktooth a PM and ask him who is willing to hook up with him on this and who is not.

I'm done with you. Bye.

[Guest]

All hail Doom9! Another loser noob chimes in to throw more oil on troubled waters.

Just a little heads-up. I have to go run some errands so I may not be able to immediately defend myself from any attacks that accumulate in my absence. Don't worry, I'll be back later to address them, my immediate non-response should not be taken as acquiescence. Thank you for your understanding.

[HJRodrigo]

Another loser noob chimes in to throw more oil on troubled waters. How mature. I will let Doom9 worry about you. I love these forums and don't wish for my experience to be soured.

[Bi11]

Another loser noob chimes in to throw more oil on troubled waters.
I'll take up that matter in court.

[Bi11]

If anyone read my ramblings (http://paste2.org/p/982560), they would have seen at the end:
Other established members can continue that discussion, which should indicate to the moderator that the collective is challenging his decision. The moderator should attempt to prove his correctness at the satisfaction of the collective (probably not feasible).
The Established member rule is "probably not feasible" because this forum's rules (17,3,11 to be specific) stifle constructive free speech.

I mentioned "the graveyard" in my ramblings; that should now be called "Court".

What follows is a culmination of my previous ideas knitted together to form an elegant solution to the moderator-member relationship problems.


Court definition

The Court (hereafter called 'court') is the sub-forum where members or moderators who break forum rules can have their hearing to defend themselves.
At the very least, these court cases are viewable by all members (not general public) and will serve as proof that the forum acknowledges these disputes between moderators and members.

Court rules

Court proceedings still abide by all forum rules except those that hinder constructive free speech (i.e. rules 17,3,11).

Only super moderators/moderators can create threads/cases and only the administrator or a super moderator can close a case (giving a ruling if necessary).
All super moderators are assumed to be objective/neutral, hence they are responsible for upholding court rules.

Moderators are treated as police officers 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.

Moderators also act as prosecutors when they charge/accuse a member of breaking a rule. Members act as prosecutors when they report/accuse a moderator of breaking a rule.

The moderator in question cannot moderate the case, though related follow-up posts in the main forum should be brought into the case by the moderator (acting as prosecutor), or by super moderators if necessary. If members are prosecuting a moderator then related follow-up posts in the main forum should be brought into the case by other moderators or super moderators, and only established members of those posts be allowed to participate in the case proceedings.

Violating a court rule results in a strike, which can be appealed only to the administrator through the appropriate channels.
A rule 4 violation in court results in immediate suspension, thus forfeiting the right to participate in the case proceedings.

It is of utmost importance to preserve the integrity of the court by ensuring all parties respect each other at all times.


Court usage

If a member breaks a forum rule then the member's post is moved into a new court case with case/thread title:
moderator name v. member name : (rule numbers violated) Title of original thread

It works the other way around as well. Members can report, (citing rule numbers violated) to a super moderator, a moderator's posts that are in violation of the moderator/forum rules. The super moderator should then create a case in court (with title member name v. moderator name ...) containing the moderator's posts and the reports made by those members.
If many members report a moderator's post (or related posts) to super moderators then those super moderators can allow only some of those members (established members) to participate in the case to prosecute the moderator.

If a member's violating post is the first post of a thread, then the whole thread should be thrown in court, else the single post is thrown. In place of the original post, there should only be a link to the post in court (displayed as moderator name v. member name : (rule numbers violated) (or member name v. moderator name : (rule numbers violated) if the moderator's post is being challenged)). Violating posts (and follow-on discussions) after the first violating post should also be thrown into the same court case as long as the off-topic issue is the same.

Members whose posts were thrown into a case are entitled to participate in the case proceedings.
The owner of the first post (i.e. the accused) is entitled to a "lawyer"/member as an additional representative at the owner's request, but only if the lawyer voluntarily wants/requests to participate in the proceedings.

Other members may request participation in the proceedings, but they will only be allowed to do so at the discretion of any available super moderator. These "invited" members are essentially those whom the super moderator considers to be established members.

The rest of the proceedings is intended for all parties to reach an agreement by debating the issue frankly without rules 17,3,11 in the way.

The debate could be, essentially, one party tries to prove the correctness of their statements and the other party verifies the proof until satisfied.
The debate could also be completely different. Such as, moderator claims rule 3 violation, member counter-claims mod-rule 8 plus rules 3,11 violations.

Still, the goal is for the accused to have a forum (a thread actually) to (constructively) speak freely in order to show they were wrongfully accused.

Court case outcomes

If the accused forfeits the right to participate in the hearing, within a reasonable amount of time or within a reasonable number of their new forum posts, whichever comes first, then the moderator's actions (or member's report) stand and the case against that member (or moderator) is resolved.

If there is mutual agreement, either by the accused explicitly accepting the moderator's actions (or member's report) or by the moderator (or member) explicitly agreeing to undo those actions unconditionally, then the case against that member (or moderator) is resolved.

If no agreement can be reached then the moderator's actions stand until the administrator or a super moderator gives a ruling and closes the case.

Once a case is resolved and closed, a super moderator performs any actions necessary to rectify the matter.
All rulings can be appealed only to the administrator, who will then give a final ruling on the matter.


Prevention better than court

In the real world, police officers can inquire (interrogate?) and warn individuals without charging them, so there is no reason to go to court because no action was taken against the individual (other than harassment?).

How can moderators do the same?
If a warning is given in the thread and no follow-up discussion ensues then there is no problem.
If, however, a follow-up discussion ensues or the moderator makes an inquiry (which of course results in a discussion) then perhaps that discussion should be taken out of the main forum and placed into it's own thread in a sub-forum called "Inquires".
The Inquires sub-forum could have similar rules as the court rules (relaxed rules 17,3,11, etc.) but no immediate suspension for rule 4 violation. However, any rules broken there must be enforced and the issue taken to court.


Comments

Note that under this contrived System of Justice the administrator is still head judge and head law-maker, which is a recipe for dictatorship (that may be appropriate for dystopian societies, which this community is not imho). So good faith is assumed in the administrator.

Details of this contrived justice system require a lot more thought to ideally (though may not be possible) ensure all possibilities are covered and no contradictions exists.

This may all seem overly complicated, but essentially you could have:
Administrator (head judge, head law-maker) -> Super Moderators (jugdes; these are your true employees in the workplace analogy, so choose them wisely; also, judges must not do police/prosecutor work (mod-rule 8)) -> Moderators (police) ~ community members (citizens)

The overall result being a much higher level of transparency and accountability, in relation to administration of justice, than currently exists on this forum.
The ultimate goal being maximization of transparency and accountability within constraints imposed by rules of this forum.

:helpful:

[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...

[GodofaGap]

do i miss something or everyone is just free to ask if it does not brake the rules?
Yes you are missing the report button. ;)

If you are in doubt putting suspicion on a fellow member in public is definitely not the right way to handle this.

[Doom9]

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. And that's exactly why we have rule 16 on the books. Some rules do have an inofficial name which corresponds to the serial offender that was the most influential in why the rule was created.
setarip would be well served in reading the PM exchange we had in May 2008.

"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." Our FAQ has to say on that
I disagree with the actions taken by a moderator

If you do not agree with the conduct of a moderator, please use the 'Contact Us' link at the bottom to lodge a complaint. We'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please refrain from complaining in the thread itself, starting a new thread to complain about that moderator, or pick a fight with the moderator - your chances of successfully resolving anything will be decimated by taking such action.

[ricardo.santos]

Hi everyone!

I've been a member of this forum for 5 years, i've learned "most" of what i know from here, as a user and small contributter i find it unfair what some users said, some want the abbility to contest mods and their decisions but anyone that has managed a forum knows that is a "ticket" to the END, in my oppinion giving users the abbility to "contest" everything will ruin the forum and (in my opinion) i kind of think this whole "storm" was made to do exactly that.

The forum hierarchy needs to be respected, i don´t see anything wrong with it, some of the users that complained about Neuron here were behaving poorly over here (insulting users, always talking in a "god like manner") preventing first time visitors to even ask a second question because they were being treated unfairly sometimes insulted

Sure there were a few times when neuron was a bit strict and wasnt patient, nobody is perfect and like doom9 said this is a worldwide forum not some small community forum, it envolvs a lot of work and hours.... i wont even talk about the money (hosting etc)

Some might find it strange but as a user im perfectly fine how the forum is, if someone thinks they're bigger than this community and feel they can treat people like dirt feel free to move on, i actually think the forum lost some of its appeal due to attitude that some "god like users" were having here towards everyone that had a different oppinion.

[laserfan]

Rule 4 says "be nice to each other" but naturally there are some here who get on my nerves, and apparently I am not alone in this regard.

I have seen a few boards e.g. NetworkedMediaTank where there are Reputation and Thanks records on each user--I dunno how this works but it occurs to me that if there were a way for members to "rate" other members posts (with the absence of derogatory language) perhaps it would help to modify some members' behavior here. A new board software, I know--just a thought.

Shame can be a powerful motivator! :)

[Midzuki]

I have seen a few boards e.g. NetworkedMediaTank where there are Reputation and Thanks records on each user-

...

A new board software, I know--just a thought.

AFAIK, vBulletin already supports those "features" :) ,
it's just a matter of practical implementation.

-I dunno how this works but it occurs to me that if there were a way for members to "rate" other members posts (with the absence of derogatory language) perhaps it would help to modify some members' behavior here.

Shame can be a powerful motivator! :)

Maybe you're right, however I'm not sure if I'd like to be classified as "an unknown quantity at this point". :D

[ricardo.santos]

I just read a thread on the other site and just as i thought... some PM's were published from doom9 and everyone can see (if i followed the ugly quote system correctly) that one of them cursed a few times and spooke in a "godly" manner while the other one was polite, maybe doom9 could publish a few threads where that person was behaving inappropriately... i can remember lots of them towards newbies... i know he wont but i certainly would like too.

what i often witnessed here aswell was a "clash of minds", the big guys trying to be smarter and always right about something and always pinpointed the other side "tiny" mistakes just to stay on top (god like manner) i wouldnt like that if i was on the other side and the situation kind of evolved into something bigger ....that's my opinion anyway...

[stax76]

I understand your points though you are a little bit late, things have mostly settled down.

[Bi11]

I've been looking through "The rules explained" thread and I've noticed all the follow-up posts are about rule 6. This is just another thought, so take it fwiw...
A member starts a thread asking for help with a source.
A moderator makes the claim/suspects/accuses/asks for clarification about the legitimacy of the source.
The accused member replies, "The source/content in question is not illegitimate." So the member is essentially saying, "I am innocent until you prove me guilty."
What can/should the moderator do at this point?
Just guessing possible options...
1. The moderator can assume the authority of the strictest DMCA authority (or whoever else Doom9 fears), then attempt to prove the accused guilty (perhaps by explicitly basing the accusation/suspicion on evidence from the existing post(s), which the moderator thinks is sufficient to make the claim, as well as rooting their claim in at least one existing law, which the DMCA, or similar authority, would use to do whatever it is Doom9 fears they could do if no action was taken). Thereafter, if the accused is unable to defend their innocence by responding appropriately to the (presumably sufficiently substantial) evidence put forward by the moderator, then rule 6 is enforced, i.e. the accused member is struck and the thread is closed.
2. The moderator can assume a priori "accused member is guilty until proven innocent", and so continue to demand that the accused member prove his/her innocence. Upon failing to do so, the accused member is struck for rule 6 violation, the thread is closed, and the moderator pats himself on the back, saying, "ignorance is bliss."
The explanation of rule 6 clearly prescribes option 2 as the action the moderator should take, i.e. better safe than shut-down.

[Ghitulescu]

I think the biggest problem this forum faces towards the authorities is not the presence of downloaded material (which is not a priori illegal, otherwise RapidShare&Co likewise many other similar services, say torrents and Usenet would have been shut down). Yes, downloading can be illegal and dangerous...

Yet more dangerous is the uploading. Such posts are not usually noticed, because the mods blindly hunt "downloads", because this is how Rule 6 was formulated. Why more dangerous? Because uploading copyrighted materials is punishable (also harder than downloading) under most jurisdictions. Downloading is not [always]. To give a short example that concerns this forum too, youtube is full of so called AMVs, clips copied from anime that have the latest music hit as the background. Such a master-work infringes the copyright on at least 3 counts (depending on the country): it's not covered by fair-use (because it's longer than allowed and it supersedes the original intent), it infringes the CR of the movie and that of the audio. No wonder that many AMVs were deleted from youtube, as they are illegal in at least 186 countries out of an existing total of 193-203.

These posts can be easily recognised, but that's the job for mods, anyway ;)

Per Rule 17 this is not a criticism of Rule 6, just an exposé of facts.

[GodofaGap]

You can't really upload anything here. These things are concerns for youtube and vimeo and the like, not for doom9. There is not really anyway to discern is someone is doing just a back up of his things or if he is preparing something for an upload, unless he specifically states so and even then I doubt doom9 could be held liable as he is not really a party in this.

Actually, I think a similar thing can be said for downloading, but then an actual breach has already occurred, so I understand why he doesn't want to take his chances.

[Ghitulescu]

I don't see the point of your argument. You can't download anything illegal from doom9 either. The example with AMV was given because this is not really happening here.

Maybe I'll shorten the explanation saying that allowing this let doom9s' forum be considered as "The #1 Academy for Digital Pirating", people learning here how to convert the movies to be easier uploadable into sharing networks.

Maybe I'm too alarmist, but I found recently two posts of the same user, each question being promptly answered, and within about 1 week he upload 2 movies into 2 torrent fora, each movie being "solved" by the answers he got here. The simply fact that they were Indian movies and not American shouldn't play any difference, breaching is breaching (India is part of the Bern Convention).

[GodofaGap]

I don't see the point of your argument. You can't download anything illegal from doom9 either. The example with AMV was given because this is not really happening here.
The point of the argument is that the downloading has already happened, and the uploading hasn't. Yes, this makes a big difference. Both in the possibility of discovering the real intent of a member and in the responsibility of doom9.

What you are inferring is that people who give advice can be held responsible when that advice unknowingly is used in the future for malicious purposes. This is pertinently not true.

The consequence of your reasoning is the closing of this site and all other internet forums.

[Ghitulescu]

You're right, we are talking here about an act that happened (but not necessarily illegal) and about an act that might occur (and it's mostly illegal). But it's easy to spot the "future offenders" (not all of course) without incurring any harm to the real innocent user. The issue of copy protected CDs/DVDs/BDs shows us that the copyright holders consider any of us potential criminals and managed to bend the laws in accepting this situation, yet nobody seems to protest under the presumption of innocence principle (it is like that in most countries, including the USA).

I'm not saying that anyone should be held responsible, however, like in real life, one simply cannot give an advice when the purpose is blatantly illegal (imagine giving the details on how the neighbours' alarm system function and his working hours to someone on the street that looks suspicious).

I raised this issue because I've seen lots of animosities between people that have legally downloaded various files and some mods, and posts that were "politically correct" because the word DOWNLOAD[ed, -ing, and variations] was missing.

That was all my point. Nothing more. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[dragongodz]

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.

a few things with this. first being in authority(ie. MOD) doesnt give your statements on a subject(outside forum rules) any more status than anyone elses. so secondly there is no need or reason to bombard such a persons statements any more than a non-MOD person.
thirdly questioning of a MODs(or anyones) statements about a subject is not only allowed to be amicable but should be encouraged to be so. this hasnt always happened. in this very thread it can be seen that the a few statements of some have not been an attempt to be constructive or amicable.

The issue of copy protected CDs/DVDs/BDs shows us that the copyright holders consider any of us potential criminals and managed to bend the laws in accepting this situation, yet nobody seems to protest under the presumption of innocence principle (it is like that in most countries, including the USA).

you are incorrect that nobody has protested actions and law amendments etc forced by copyright holders. that however is beyond the scope of this thread.

however, like in real life, one simply cannot give an advice when the purpose is blatantly illegal

the problem is that yes when someone says they want to do something illegal you can say "not helping". however advice given here also has perfectly legal uses. MODs some times have to try to determine which the advice being asked is for. that is part of their job. of course its not going to make everyone happy, even if they have a valid reason for wanting the information. if they think a MOD is taking things too far then they take it up the chain to be looked at.

[Deepanshu]

I think you may have misunderstood Sharktooth. I think he's just saying that the Doom9 forum belongs to Doom9 and Doom9 has the right to decide and implement his personnel policies as he sees fit. That's how all businesses work.

[Bi11]

I guess we agree to disagree. I'm in a difficult position here..
Can we unconditionally agree (i.e. without exception, either "I agree." or "I disagree.") on at least this one statement:
"Authority (administrative or otherwise) does not imply absolute authority or absolute authoritative status, nor does it imply universal authority or universal authoritative status."

[dragongodz]

Can we unconditionally agree (i.e. without exception, either "I agree." or "I disagree.")

you wouldnt happen to be a lawyer by any chance ? you sound as if you are trying to mount a case with some of these statements. :sly:

what is the point you are trying to make with wanting that unconditionally agreed on ?

[Bi11]

what is the point you are trying to make with wanting that unconditionally agreed on ?
I am invoking the principle of contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction).

[dragongodz]

I am invoking the principle of contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction).

are MODs absolute authorities ? of course not, the fact there is a process where someone can call action taken by a MOD to be judged clearly shows that. on a forum the only absolute authority would be the forum owner.

are people experienced in an area(commonly called an authority) immune from being wrong, even in that area ? again of course not. history is resplendent with examples of that.

these should be pretty self-evident. so maybe you can understand why i am still failing to see the point you are wishing to make.

[Bi11]

Since this exercise could take indefinitely long, and the principle of contradiction probably doesn't apply here on second thought, I'll just jump to the conclusion.
Take it fwiw (baseless opinion) because I obviously have no proof of these claims.

"Authority (administrative or otherwise) does not imply absolute authority or absolute authoritative status, nor does it imply universal authority or universal authoritative status."
My reasoning about the statement goes like this (together with some terms, which I think already have a clear intended meaning),

Absolute means always true. Universal means applies for everything everywhere.

Whether or not you have the ability/freewill to actually/physically make/commit the incorrect statement/wrongful action is a different matter entirely.

I consider the statement close enough to and less subjective than the subjective statement "rule in good faith". By saying "I agree." to the statement, I trust Doom9 to "rule in good faith".

The reason why I think it is important to unconditionally agree to the statement is because Doom9 usually feels the need to wrap his administrative statements/rules/polices/actions (which he is entitled to by virtue of his administrative status) in a facade of "authoritative justifications" that are almost always outside the domain of the administrator role. This, in turn, leads to the spread of FUD (or whatever equates to it, such as, incorrect statements or improper use of correct statements about that particular domain/subject matter/role). This, in turn, leads to members questioning those improper analogies, for which Doom9 pretends that they are attacking his administrative authority or his deeply held beliefs. This, in turn, leads to nowhere other than strikes and bans.

Of course, such an accusation is not conclusively provable.

So, the whole point of this exercise was to show you, dragongodz, the reasoning behind the post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1446845#post1446845) I made after the post you quoted.

[dragongodz]

The reason why I think it is important to unconditionally agree to the statement is because Doom9 usually feels the need to wrap his administrative statements/rules/polices/actions (which he is entitled to by virtue of his administrative status) in a facade of "authoritative justifications" that are almost always outside the domain of the administrator role.

i have to disagree with that. first off he doesnt have to justify the reasoning behind any decision or rule etc. doing so fosters better understanding and probably a friendlier forum but it is not an obligation and it is his right to choose.
that doesnt mean you have to agree with his reasoning or think its wrong. for example if Doom9 never wanted the word "bee" on this forum because he said he had been "stung by one and now consider them all evil" then that is perfectly within his right. you and i may think thats the most bizarre rule and reason ever but it doesnt change his right to do it.

This, in turn, leads to the spread of FUD (or whatever equates to it, such as, incorrect statements or improper use of correct statements about that particular domain/subject matter/role). This, in turn, leads to members questioning those improper analogies, for which Doom9 pretends that they are attacking his administrative authority or his deeply held beliefs. This, in turn, leads to nowhere other than strikes and bans.

questioning in private(by PM for example) in a calm rational way would probably be fine and if you could present a good enough argument to why he was wrong about something may get him to reconsider or at least think again about the subject.
however when people do it publicly he may feel like they are trying to push him in to a corner and attack him(my opinion only of a possibility). that of course doesnt aid a persons argument.
even so look at how Doom9 has reacted to your publicly stated thoughts. he has considered them and explained his thoughts. all quite calmly. just because he hasnt agreed with you doesnt mean he hasnt taken you seriously enough or is doing something that is out of his purview.

[Bi11]

i have to disagree with that. first off he doesnt have to justify the reasoning behind any decision or rule etc. doing so fosters better understanding and probably a friendlier forum but it is not an obligation and it is his right to choose.
I agree he doesn't have to justify the reasoning behind his rules and policies, but he still does, and he tends to do so in a fairly broad manner, which can sometimes be used out of context.
So allow me to underscore the point I am trying to make...

Does Doom9 believe that the role/authority/statements/actions of the administrator (and by extension other authorities related to forum administration/moderation) must be deemed infallible in the eyes of the public? what does that usually imply? and where does that usually lead?
(Also, I think there is a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless, between... realizing you're doing something wrong, or not as good as could be done, and then quietly trying something else that may be better, and... explicitly acknowledging fault and then vowing to do things better.
I consider the former to be the sign of someone who tends to shirk responsibility if they can, and the latter as the sign of a responsible leader.)

If Doom9 had agreed to the statement I challenged him to agree upon, then it really becomes a question of how much he is willing to constrain his administrative authority, which, thinking logically, would be zero constraints for an administrator with total control of the forum.

As a member of this forum, I have no inherent/established administrator/moderator/or any other power or authority vested in me when I registered to be a member of this forum. So I think it should be clear that if I make a statement that extends outside my purview as a forum member, then that statement would have less weight (and clearly not absolute) than the weight of the statement made by someone with some inherent/established authority on the matter.

The point is that if you make "innocent" inaccurate statements within your authority, then I could easily overlook those statements because I trust in your understanding of the issue. But by drawing inaccurate analogies outside your authority, leads me to question your understanding of the issue.

that doesnt mean you have to agree with his reasoning or think its wrong. for example if Doom9 never wanted the word "bee" on this forum because he said he had been "stung by one and now consider them all evil" then that is perfectly within his right. you and i may think thats the most bizarre rule and reason ever but it doesnt change his right to do it.
Again, I don't think the issue is about what someone can or can't do, i.e. freewill or vested power/authority, but about what someone should or should not do assuming the person is willing to act responsibly in good will.

questioning in private(by PM for example) in a calm rational way would probably be fine and if you could present a good enough argument to why he was wrong about something may get him to reconsider or at least think again about the subject.
Well, there is always the issue as to what qualifies as a "good enough" argument, but if the authority on the matter is responsible and willing to act in good faith (or whatever it means to act in a reasonably fair interest of all parties involved) then it's a matter of trusting the authority's judgment of the evidence provided to support the subject/claim.

even so look at how Doom9 has reacted to your publicly stated thoughts. he has considered them and explained his thoughts. all quite calmly. just because he hasnt agreed with you doesnt mean he hasnt taken you seriously enough or is doing something that is out of his purview.
Yes, I agree he has taken steps to rectify some of the issues raised. Though I think it would be responsible of him to explicitly acknowledge and explain what were the problems with doing things the way he did before making the changes. I think we can all learn from such "confessions".

--

It is obviously not within my right as member of this forum to insist that the following solution be implemented, but I think it is within my right as member of this forum to at least constructively raise the issue and to suggest a possible/feasible solution.

If Doom9 understands and acknowledges the underlying problem I have been trying to raise, and really understands what Ben Parker meant when he said to his nephew, "with great power, comes great responsibility", then I expect to see rule 6 and its enforcement changed in a certain particular way (not openly like this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1447714#post1447714), but similar to the way spam posts are reported and the moderator unilaterally decides if the post violates the rules or not), such that the overall result will be, established members will be satisfied with the change, and members not well informed about the implications of violating rule 6 will be treated leniently.

--

I think what I did in some parts of this discussion, in an attempt to raise some of the issues I think should be addressed, could probably be called "show by example". If this "proof" technique is allowed to be used in public on matters related to the administration/moderation of this forum, even if the intent is to keep it confined to threads like this (which could be considered as one big court case), then it seems similar "examples" would inevitably spread throughout the forum, potentially causing chaos, which would eventually lead to the downfall of this forum.

So I acknowledge that the court idea is not feasible (and it seems Doom9 is using this thread, and the "show by example" technique, to show that point).

I have been graciously allowed to publicly make my point, which I take as a gesture of good will by Doom9 in an attempt to amicably resolve some of the issues raised.

Are there any other points you constructively raised that have not been constructively/reasonably addressed, Doom9?

--

Getting so much involved in this discussion has literally made me lose my appetite for food (probably because I felt I needed to prove an accusation, which is futile; I can only provide supporting evidence and trust that the powers-that-be are willing to consider the evidence and act responsibly in good faith), so I can understand why Doom9 feels sick just by looking at some of these posts, my posts included.

I’d like to thank dragongodz, for being an open-minded fellow (in my opinion anyway) in this debate. ;)

Finally, I’d like to quote jdobbs signature into this thread,
"I wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me." (Frank Burns)