The Backyard.. Your thoughts..

[ubuntu-geek]

What does everyone have to say about it? Is it bad? Is it good? I feel its good to keep it seperate from the main community chat section while most users don't want to read it.

[matthew]

Of course you knew I would jump in here. :)

I'm having fun with it and have been quite impressed at how the demeanor of the forums in general has remained consistent in this area as well.

I'm also not easily offended.

Anyway, it doesn't seem to be distracting from the real point of these forums so that's good as well.

[trash]

I think it is a good solution and am glad an unmonitored space exists, but I have doubts that most users won't be reading it.

[majikstreet]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=82974

[SilentCacophony]

After reading some of the recent threads that probably led to the making of The Backyard, I was thinking of suggesting such an idea then.

I think it's a good idea. Many people appear to be offended easily (human nature, I think,) and that gives those who don't a place to discuss controversial topics.

[az]

I think it is great. It looks like it is quite popular with some people and it suits them well. It solves a few problems.

I think the concern is that such a section would "spill over" and taint the rest of the forums. By keeping it seperate and pointing out that the section is not moderated, you get around that.

It would be nice to know if anyone has been put off by it.

I have one suggestion. If I post something like a link to illegal things (windows key generators, pirated software) will the thread be edited or deleted? I should hope so, but that would go against your announcement that only XXX and personal attacks will be moderated.

Perhaps have a small list of things that will be moderated and point the announcement to that list? (Ex: "only a small number of things will be moderated here. Visit here at your own risk.")

So far, the list is
1-XXX
2-Personal attacks
(3-) and my suggestion of illegal things.
perhaps there are one or two other things that will come up?

Will Spam be moderated?

[towsonu2003]

What does everyone have to say about it? Is it bad? Is it good? I feel its good to keep it seperate from the main community chat section while most users don't want to read it.

i'm having fun. especially the no-moderation policy seems to work (for now) and that's great. good job :KS

[towsonu2003]

I have one suggestion. If I post something like a link to illegal things (windows key generators, pirated software) will the thread be edited or deleted? I should hope so, but that would go against your announcement that only XXX and personal attacks will be moderated.

(3-) and my suggestion of illegal things.
perhaps there are one or two other things that will come up?

Will Spam be moderated?

it would be nice to delete spam and mark a notice for illegal stuff so that people can be careful.

By notice i mean: what is illegal in the us is perfectly legal (or at least okay) in many other countries. so if i post a link like

www.heyheythisisverybadlink.com

you could do:

[illegal in some countries] www.heyheythisisverybadlink.com

what about this?

+this would not require knowledge of the law as you're pretty much leaving it open.

[Edit] Trying to find a site no one owns...

[bored2k]

it would be nice to delete spam and mark a notice for illegal stuff so that people can be careful.

By notice i mean: what is illegal in the us is perfectly legal (or at least okay) in many other countries. so if i post a link like

www.heyheythisisverybadlink.com

you could do:

[illegal in some countries] www.heyheythisisverybadlink.com

what about this?

+this would not require knowledge of the law as you're pretty much leaving it open.

[Edit] Trying to find a site no one owns...
I don't think that's a good idea. Example: if this section turns into an Illegal BitTorrent Sites sharing tool, it can and will get the Forums and Canonical into trouble (these being the "official" forums). Unmoderated is not a synonym for illegal.

[Pathogenix]

I ended up getting dragged into a debate on the merits of legalisation, which I wasn't really expecting on a Linux forum, but it kept me busy through my coffee breaks. I'm all up for it I think, and it gives moderators somewhere to send inappropriate threads without attracting accusations of censorship.

I'd agree that illegal material has no place in the Backyard and I'd hope from what little I've seen of the community that it's sensible enough to be self-policing.

As far as xxx material goes, I'm not really concerned so long as it's marked NSFW.

But hey, I'm a n00b.

[ubuntu-geek]

It would be nice to know if anyone has been put off by it.

Agreed.. Thats why I started this thread.

I have one suggestion. If I post something like a link to illegal things (windows key generators, pirated software) will the thread be edited or deleted? I should hope so, but that would go against your announcement that only XXX and personal attacks will be moderated.

Good suggestions I updated it and also added a few things. I think the four rules that are created should lead to a clean and professional discussion enviroment for the people who choose to participate there.

[manicka]

I don't like it even though I have made one post so far. I think it's a mistake to believe that users will see this as something separate from the main forums. One of the things I've always liked about this forum is the strong stance it takes on keeping threads on topic and making sure it is a forum that focuses on Linux issues only.

When I was a SuSE user the main forum split in two for various reasons. The break away forum introduced a section like this but soon realised that it needed to become a protected forum so that only people who understood the rules of the forum and who were prepared for the consequences participated in it. Basically, unless you apply to be part of that section of the forum and agree to the rules etc, you don't see it when you log in. I don't think that the warning at the top of the page is enough and maybe such an approach may be necessary.

I know that there are opinions of some members here that I don't care to read and they probably aren't to big on my views either. Making this a protected forum where users have to decide if they want to participate would protect other users from being exposed to material that they may not want to be exposed to.

Just a thought...

[xequence]

Well, one suggestion... You know the front page where they have the last post for community chat, well could you make it to not include the backyard stuff? I dont know why but it just annoys me seeing "Sould weed be legalized?" there :P

I dont really mind having the backyard there. I doubt id use it, besides if we were allowed to talk about piracy. (Are we? I dont get how it would get Canonical or Ubuntuforums in any trouble, unless someone posts a serial or something.)

[manicka]

Well, one suggestion... You know the front page where they have the last post for community chat, well could you make it to not include the backyard stuff? I dont know why but it just annoys me seeing "Sould weed be legalized?" there :P

I dont really mind having the backyard there. I doubt id use it, besides if we were allowed to talk about piracy. (Are we? I dont get how it would get Canonical or Ubuntuforums in any trouble, unless someone posts a serial or something.)

Yes it would be nice not to see the posts when you hit the new posts button or search for unanswered posts.

[aysiu]

To follow up on Manicka's post, I think any special section that's unmoderated should definitely be opt-in as opposed to opt-out. By default no users should be seeing it in their searches and "New Posts" unless they make a special effort to say "include results from the Backyard."

I personally have no interest in seeing these Backyard threads at all. As far as I'm concerned, it's great that there's a place for potentially offensive threads to go, but I don't want to have to deal with them at all.

[Xian]

Yes it would be nice not to see the posts when you hit the new posts button or search for unanswered posts.
I don't know about unanswered posts, but if you goto:

UserCP > Edit Options

Scroll down to "Forums To Exclude From View"
Make selections as desired.

[aysiu]

I don't know about unanswered posts, but if you goto:

UserCP > Edit Options

Scroll down to "Forums To Exclude From View"
Make selections as desired. My point was that users shouldn't have to do that for the Backyard. They should have it excluded by default and should have to enable it to be included not enable it to be excluded.

[xequence]

3. No illegal activities in the US, Bittorent sites, Windows key generators or pirated software.

I just read the rules for the forum. Well, there goes any interest I might have in it :P

Oh, and Xian, thanks Ill do that :)

[Xian]

My point was that users shouldn't have to do that for the Backyard. They should have it excluded by default and should have to enable it to be included not enable it to be excluded.
I understood your point, aysiu. I was replying to (and quoted) manicka as their concern had not been addressed with a possible solution using tools that are available at this time.

[aysiu]

I understood your point, aysiu. I was replying to (and quoted) manicka as their concern had not been addressed with a possible solution using tools that are available at this time. Whoops.

[moopere]

I'd agree that illegal material has no place in the Backyard and I'd hope from what little I've seen of the community that it's sensible enough to be self-policing.


Ah, but theres the thing. You see the internet knows no legal/country borders. Whats illegal in the USA is hardly relevent to me if I live in Sweden, or Australia, or Italy....etc, etc.

Most things are probably illegal (or legal) somewhere in the world. So what do you do? Go authoritarian and ban pretty much everything or go liberal and leave things completely open?

I guess, practically speaking, you would be limited by the local laws of the country in which the server (this server) resides and to a lesser extent by the local laws governing the owners of this site.

Cheers,
Craig

[manicka]

I don't know about unanswered posts, but if you goto:

UserCP > Edit Options

Scroll down to "Forums To Exclude From View"
Make selections as desired.

I didn't know about this option ...thanks :)

Perhaps an explanation of how to do this could be included in the warning (for want of a better word) section at the top of the Forum.

Better still would be to make this a default setting for all users as per aysiu's suggestion. I believe that the opt-in is a much better way to go than opt-out


Edit: This setting removes the set forum from any search results as well. For example a search for 'feminism' after setting the options brings up no links to the backyard forum at all. Thanks again for pointing this out Xian

[trash]

Well, one suggestion... You know the front page where they have the last post for community chat, well could you make it to not include the backyard stuff? I dont know why but it just annoys me seeing "Sould weed be legalized?" there :P

I dont really mind having the backyard there. I doubt id use it, besides if we were allowed to talk about piracy. (Are we? I dont get how it would get Canonical or Ubuntuforums in any trouble, unless someone posts a serial or something.)


Um think about it as an excersise in tolerance, I'm not trying to be rude but if you had read the whole thread you would find some educational material too.... not just weed and legalize.

[manicka]

Um think about it as an excersise in tolerance, I'm not trying to be rude but if you had read the whole thread you would find some educational material too.... not just weed and legalize.

I'm sure that the thread mentioned contains some very interesting reading. To be honest, if I felt the desire to participate in that type of thread, I wouldn't do it on these forums.

My main concern is that the backyard is a definitive move away from the stated goals of the forums. Making it opt-in by default would keep the forums true to their original vision but allow those who need to partake in these types of conversation a chance to do so without everyone else having to be involved without a choice. i know you can choose not to open the thread but I'd rather not see it in the first place.

[WildTangent]

Although I can see the idea behind it...that is to have a seperate area for the "unwanted discussions" as far as the forum rules go...but I don't think it's a great idea. Sort of like giving the baby its bottle, you know? People will eventually take it for granted. I had a section sort of like this on my forum...and it wasn't pretty. People got too carried away, and there were some rude comments, a few insults, etc. Took a while to clean it up, feelings were hurt, toes stepped on, and it created a division among some of the staff.

In short, I think it lowers the forum's professional image, and I don't think it has a place on the Official Ubuntu Forums.

-Wild

[manicka]

People got too carried away, and there were some rude comments, a few insults, etc. Took a while to clean it up, feelings were hurt, toes stepped on, and it created a division among some of the staff.

I to am concerned about the ability for it to get out of hand and permanently damage the forums in general. Mind you I think the forum is big enough to absorb any damage, but it would be a shame to see good people leave unnecessarily.

[trash]

Though I do understand your concerns for Ubuntu, i'm not so sure todays standards of professionalism is so worth clinging to. Ubuntu is trying and succeeding in my opinion to break new ground, evolve, and I think that its user base is quite happy with that.
What is humanity without human issues? If Ubuntu was targeting the business community i'd probably even agree with you but then again I probably wouldn't be using Ubuntu if it were. If people want absolute professionalism in it's present state they are welcome to use or pay for a distro that targets the business world.
Ubuntu is for human beings... all of them, with all of our faults and issues.

Why is learning something unrelated to linux here an issue anyway?

[mlomker]

Will Spam be moderated?

I'll look at anything that is 'reported', but like Community Chat, I don't have any interest in policing the threads because that would require reading them all. There are a few mods that have no desire to go in that space at all, so it may have limited moderation in that sense.

As always, use the 'report' option if you see spam, illegal activity, etc. and it'll be looked at. Since the entire area is a trial things may be in flux for a bit.

[benplaut]

i agree that it should be disabled by default...

btw, why would anyone go in there looking for a Windows XP crack? :lol:

[Pathogenix]

Ah, but theres the thing. You see the internet knows no legal/country borders. Whats illegal in the USA is hardly relevent to me if I live in Sweden, or Australia, or Italy....etc, etc.
....

Cheers,
Craig

True, but I see the Backyard now has a brief list of things considered verboten on the front page. That seems like a good start, and my comment about self-policing will hopefully be borne out.

I also agree that the backyard should be disabled by default, but then I'd never have stumbled upon it. On second thoughts, perhaps what we really want is a separate forum altogether - Ubuntu's image isn't going to be improved by Lefty vs Libertarian rants or cries for the legalisation of all drugs. Not amongst business types, at least, and if Ubuntu is going to succeed as more than a geek-cult then it's going to need sensible backers.

But, I'm still a n00b, and I'm not going to tell you how to run your community :)

[mlomker]

Not amongst business types, at least, and if Ubuntu is going to succeed as more than a geek-cult then it's going to need sensible backers.

That may be taking on just a bit too much responsibility there. If the business types want a forum then perhaps they should make their own. ;) Seriously, though, I don't know of any large business running Ubuntu. They find comfort in commercial entities like Redhat that are also for-profit and have something to lose if they are sued for something or another.

But, I'm still a n00b, and I'm not going to tell you how to run your community :)

It doesn't matter. The Admins (Kassetra, Jdong, Ubuntu-geek) are awful sharp and the merit of what you have to say means more than how long you've been around.

[az]

Although I can see the idea behind it...that is to have a seperate area for the "unwanted discussions" as far as the forum rules go...

In short, I think it lowers the forum's professional image, and I don't think it has a place on the Official Ubuntu Forums.

-Wild


I think a real problem is identifying "unwanted" posts. That will always smack of censorship to someone, since we all have a different opinion as to what is appropriate and what is not. This solution is elegant in that it embraces everybody.

By sending a post here, you can make it mean "we refuse to pick sides, take it outside!" I think it is great.

As for opt-in or opt-out by default, perhaps the user setup page (for new users) can include a short desciption and offer the clear choice as to include it or not. Maybe that can be expanded to offer a few templates for users like:

Tech support only (which disables all non-tech forums (announcements, community chat and so forth)
Conservative (disable the backyard)
Everything (Everything - I would mark this template as the default, but that is just me)

Not that I know php and would be able to hack something like that...

Edit: I also would agree that the topics should not apprear on the front page for users who are not logged in. Your post count should not increase here, either.

[trash]

On second thoughts, perhaps what we really want is a separate forum altogether - Ubuntu's image isn't going to be improved by Lefty vs Libertarian rants or cries for the legalisation of all drugs. Not amongst business types, at least, and if Ubuntu is going to succeed as more than a geek-cult then it's going to need sensible backers.

There are thousands of business types worldwide who are indeed fighting prohibition, just because you don't know them does not mean they don't exsist.

Edit:
I should add that some others who oppose prohibition are retired Supreme and lower court judges, ex and retired police officers, educators, social workers and the list goes on and on.

[poofyhairguy]

Ok. Here is part of it. The hardest staff job so far in the forum is picking when to close threads. It sucks to close a thread but sometimes just deleting posts aren't enough. But some of those threads have merit in them. Now closing threads will not longer be a point of dispute.

[ubuntu_demon]

Ok. Here is part of it. The hardest staff job so far in the forum is picking when to close threads. It sucks to close a thread but sometimes just deleting posts aren't enough. But some of those threads have merit in them. Now closing threads will not longer be a point of dispute.
yeah maybe this can prevent closing threads too soon.

IMO it's a good thing to try.

[Pathogenix]

There are thousands of business types worldwide who are indeed fighting prohibition, just because you don't know them does not mean they don't exsist.


Yeah yeah yeah, let's not restart the debate here. I do know several, but having impassioned declamations on weed, ***** enlargement scams, and politics on the front page of the official Ubuntu forums perhaps doesn't give the best first impression. C'est tous.

[ubuntu_demon]

Yeah yeah yeah, let's not restart the debate here. I do know several, but having impassioned declamations on weed, ***** enlargement scams, and politics on the front page of the official Ubuntu forums perhaps doesn't give the best first impression. C'est tous.

yeah I agree. That's why it should be opt-in if this is possible.

(but spam posts get removed always when we see them or get a reported post about them)

[ubuntu-geek]

Ok I made a few adjustments to the permissions..

1. Only registered users can see the backyard.
2. The backyard is not included any searchs, new posts or daily posts by default.
3. Users are opt out by default.
4. Users can still opt out of any existing forum for new posts and daily posts.
5. The backyard threads titles will not show up on the community chat section any longer.

The goal was to take everyones suggestions and make it happen.

[Pablo_Escobar]

Backyard, maybe Backstreet so we could make our own boyzband :D (no pun intended to the female forum users).

[manicka]

Ok I made a few adjustments to the permissions..

The goal was to take everyones suggestions and make it happen.

A nice solution.... thankyou :)

[Stormy Eyes]

Backyard, maybe Backstreet so we could make our own boyzband :D (no pun intended to the female forum users).

Please, not Backstreet. I frigging hate boy bands.

[KiwiNZ]

I believe that the Backyard is a disaster and has no place on this forum.

We are a tech support forum we are not a soap box where people can pontificate their own brands of political social and anti social belief and BS .

Ubuntu Forums grew to where it is today because of the level of support, the level of friendly customer service we provide. We are here to help people that is our primary role.
Yes we moderate , yes we remove content we believe is unsuitable. Some call it censorship , so be it live with it , it happens every where and as responsible members of the community of mankind we are obliged to do so. If folk dont like the moderation then go peddle the rubbish on one of the hundreds of fourms out there on the web that allow it . Do a search probably under rubbish forums.

I believe that Ubuntu forums should ditch the back yard and return to the high standards that we set back in 2004.

After all we are the representatives of Ubuntu and we are the representatives of Canonical Ltd. We need to maintain the highest levels of Corporate standards if we are to do these organisations justice.

I have devoted my life to the service of my community be it here in New Zealand or overseas. I see the time I give this forum as fitting into that because of the way we were. That is what prompted me to join in the first week of the forum and to offer my services to help .
I belive if we continue down the raod we have taken in the last few weeks we will destroy all we have done because we have forsaken the hundreds that we help and need our help , just so we could allow a very small minority to peddle their line of BS and add little to the community.

I know this post is some what harsh , I am very passionate about this forum , if you were to talk to me face to face you would very quickly understand just how passionate . I do do not want to see it destroyed we have come too far and achieved too much to allow that to happen.

I say to the C C that if you think we need the backyard then you dont know Ubuntu Forums at all. I say to the C C come to our place more often and you would see.

[panickedthumb]

The CC didn't say that we needed a back yard, but that we should do something to limit censorship.

[poofyhairguy]

The CC didn't say that we needed a back yard, but that we should do something to limit censorship.

Well, then does anyone have a better idea how to meet both goals?

[az]

Mike, I love you. You are terrific. But, we dissagree...

We are a tech support forum we are not a soap box where people can pontificate their own brands of political social and anti social belief and BS .

Then rename the site "Ubuntu message board" because the word forum implies a public place to express one's self. This is how it is for just about every other forum out there.

Free Libre software is social software. If you eliminate the human interaction aspect of it, you lose a lot.

Ubuntu Forums grew to where it is today because of the level of support, the level of friendly customer service we provide. We are here to help people that is our primary role.

Actually it grew because of the amount of user who kept saying "What a community!"


Yes we moderate , yes we remove content we believe is unsuitable. Some call it censorship , so be it live with it , it happens every where and as responsible members of the community of mankind we are obliged to do so. If folk dont like the moderation then go peddle the rubbish on one of the hundreds of fourms out there on the web that allow it . Do a search probably under rubbish forums.

Didn't you just say this was not the place to pontificate your own brand of political social and anti social belief? The problem is that the greater Ubuntu community thrives on openness.

I believe that Ubuntu forums should ditch the back yard and return to the high standards that we set back in 2004.

What was the turning point for you? I think the standards have never been higher than right now. The number of users being disrespected is overshadowed by the vast number of satisfied users. That does not mean we should bury the problem.


After all we are the representatives of Ubuntu and we are the representatives of Canonical Ltd. We need to maintain the highest levels of Corporate standards if we are to do these organisations justice.

...And follow their lead. Ubuntu has no private mailing lists. No private meetings. Open conferences. Beyond just the transparency, there is community involvement. As it is, the users of the forums do not get an accurate representation of the spirit of Ubuntulinux from the forums.


I have devoted my life to the service of my community be it here in New Zealand or overseas. I see the time I give this forum as fitting into that because of the way we were. That is what prompted me to join in the first week of the forum and to offer my services to help .
I belive if we continue down the raod we have taken in the last few weeks we will destroy all we have done because we have forsaken the hundreds that we help and need our help , just so we could allow a very small minority to peddle their line of BS and add little to the community.

What was so harmful about the person asking the members of the forum about their political tendancies? That is a great question for someone who does not know anything about GNU/linux or open source software. Where else can it be asked and answered accurately?

I know this post is some what harsh , I am very passionate about this forum , if you were to talk to me face to face you would very quickly understand just how passionate . I do do not want to see it destroyed we have come too far and achieved too much to allow that to happen.

I see it as the complete opposite. If you do not put what the users want in the forefront, you are doomed to fail. It takes a lot more work to do it that way, but it is not like there is a loack of hands on deck. We topped 50000 users this week!


I say to the C C that if you think we need the backyard then you dont know Ubuntu Forums at all. I say to the C C come to our place more often and you would see.

Say it at the meeting! It is an open meeting, of course. Everyone is encouraged to attend.
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/ForumsMeetingAgenda

[az]

Just a though here. How political is this post?:

Post number ten of this thread:
"Usability in adding restricted & commersial soft":

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=84640

Quote:
"I think it is actually a good thing to not include things like mp3 support "out of the box". I think it really brings the issue to the forefront...
...
We can't legally include that because the US is stupid (or something to that effect ) but you can get it here if you want it."

Is this in or out? Because it contains both an enlightened view about restricted formats (I wish everybody saw it this way instead of saying "It Don't Work!") and a something not far from a violation of the code of conduct by implying the US is stupid. The poster edited the post to re-iterate that he does not harbor ill-will towards the US...

*Edit: What I am getting at is 1. We cannot avoid political discussions. 2. We need criteria for moving posts from the mainstream to the Backyard.

[KiwiNZ]

Azz i will only say

That's interesting , because most of the 50,000 users here are asking for technical support, not for 'free speech' ..

[panickedthumb]

Azz i will only say

That's interesting , because most of the 50,000 users here are asking for technical support, not for 'free speech' ..
while this is quite true, most of the complaints that we see coming up on the forums are related to being censored.

[matthew]

So far the political-type stuff has been really tame, more along the lines of getting to know one another and maybe bandying about a little bit. I don't see anything anywhere close to out of hand and I don't think that is likely in these forums either. The overwealming tone and demeaneor of people in all of the ubuntuforums is kind, helpful, and considerate. Those who act or speak differently are the exception, not the norm. I don't really think a little back-room discussion area is likely to change that.

I also kind of think that as the novelty wears off we will probably see even less activity in the Backyard, and there really isn't a lot now. So far it is a place where people who have begun to make some relationships in these forums beyond the "Can you help me configure X?" sort of things can just sit and shoot the bull a little...just like we would if we were hanging out in the break room at work (or in the cafe/bar afterward). Everyone is still being moderate and appropriate in their tone. Besides, not everyone likes irc.

Admittedly, I tend to fall into the camp that believes if you trust people by giving them both freedom and responsibility you are more likely to get good results than if you attempt to legislate morality and quash opportunities for interaction. Most people probably won't care one way or the other about the Backyard and will ignore it. A few will love it because now the rules for "what can I say and where is it appropriate" are made clearer. Others won't like it at all because they don't want to participate in that sort of forum. It seems reasonable that in a group as large as these forums (50000 now!) we will have things upon which we disagree. What I fear is not the disagreement nor the potential for negative backlash (which I admit does exist, but I don't think is all that great). What I fear is censorship.

When ideas and their expression are banned openness ceases to exist, even if the banned ideas don't seem to be directly related to the topic at hand. Unlike most of us in the West I am not willing to compartmentalize myself and say that my politics, my religion, my friendships and my favorite brand of toothpaste (you see what I mean) can not and will never have any interaction one with another. I am who I am because of the combined and very interrelatedness of my thoughts, opinions, ideas and beliefs as well as my education, my experiences, and my work. My humanness is defined by all these factors, not merely my inner "I like to make computers do things" geekiness.

I use linux because I like the principle of openness, and I especially like how Ubuntu as a distribution is open. It is possible for anyone to know anything about the distro, activities in the leadership and development arena and so on. To the extent that people feel it is necessary they share openly the things that make them who and what they are. I like that Mark Shuttleworth posts things on the wiki like this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth and gives us a glimpse into his thinking and reasoning. Does he share on that page about politics?? Maybe not in the national government sense, but certainly in the politics of choosing to make Ubuntu a compeltely free (as in liberty) distro. We also see glimpses into his sense of humor and playful side. That is certainly not mere technical info.

Wow. I intended to write a couple of sentences and instead wrote a book. I think I'll stop here for now.

[nocturn]

The CC didn't say that we needed a back yard, but that we should do something to limit censorship.

I agree with you that we should limit censorship, but we differ in the extent we want to limit it.
I do not feel that this is the right forum to announce or discuss one's religion or personal life. This forum is here to discuss Ubuntu Linux in many aspects.

[nocturn]

Then rename the site "Ubuntu message board" because the word forum implies a public place to express one's self. This is how it is for just about every other forum out there.


Yes, it is a forum, but it is the Ubuntu forum, a place to voice questions and opinions on Ubuntu, not your favorite religion or political views. There are places out there just for that.


Didn't you just say this was not the place to pontificate your own brand of political social and anti social belief? The problem is that the greater Ubuntu community thrives on openness.


Yes, it does. But the forums are here for Ubuntu discussions. All Ubuntu meetings are open, but they do have an agenda. I can bring up problems with release management in an online meeting, but not the back-problems of my ant Sue. It is not censorship, but having an open discussion on a topic.

If I do want to social-chat, why not use an IRC channel? Even the forums have one.


What was so harmful about the person asking the members of the forum about their political tendancies? That is a great question for someone who does not know anything about GNU/linux or open source software. Where else can it be asked and answered accurately?


Because the past has shown that this leads to flamewars and arguments. Just visit Gentoo's 'off the wall' and you'll see what I'm talking about. If you go there, just look at the number of muslim-bashing threads.


I see it as the complete opposite. If you do not put what the users want in the forefront, you are doomed to fail. It takes a lot more work to do it that way, but it is not like there is a loack of hands on deck. We topped 50000 users this week!


Our goals are the same, our methods differ. I would prefer not to see a new user greeted with a thread that offends either his political views, nationality or religion. I would like for everyone to feel welcome here.

[poptones]

Ubuntu (and linux) exists because of the politics of its developers and, to a lesser extent, its users.

The "backyard" is a fantastic compromise and if it "devolves" into a forum of thousands of flames that will only prove the popularity of free expression in this forum. No one is compelled to participate.

[nocturn]

I will try to convey my point by citing a personal experience from the Gentoo Off the Wall forum (I'm an ex-Gentoo user).

It hosts discussion about just about anything. One thread I came across there was a question if the forum members thought Turkey should be allowed to join the EU.

A lot of posts expressed bad (even aggressive) feelings about Turkish people and muslims in general. A lot of the posters did not even know anything about the people or the country, they just echoed popular opinions.

Although I do not think I'm overly sensitive, this thread hurt my feelings because it directly insulted a large part of my family (on my wife's side), people I care a lot about.
If I read this on my first visit to a forum, I would leave and never return.

I have always liked the 'mood' here, and I'm much afraid that religious/political flamewars will lead to allianation between our members.

[ubuntu-geek]

while this is quite true, most of the complaints that we see coming up on the forums are related to being censored.

I have yet to see any "real" complaint filed by someone other then one you three.. Just a thought.. But thats a minor issue compared to the bigger one.. Does the CC want this allowed on the forums, do they allow it on the Mailing lists? Do they allow it on the wiki? Do they allow it on IRC?

[az]

I have yet to see any "real" complaint filed by someone other then one you three.. Just a thought..

Here is the result of a two-minute search:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=76983
"i was really happy that the thread below was going on without flaming or shouting whatsoever. why did you close it? "
phen

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=64819
"Lately, I've been seeing quite a few locked threads on this forum. I've considered Ubuntuforums to be the best community, and at the point that I joined it, it had great sense of eagerness to help others. So seeing these locked threads, I feel a bit disheartened. It also gives the community a bad impression."
lao_V

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=65603
"I look forward to a similar even handed response to anyone who finds offense at any sig attributable to anyone else who might be an 'offensive person' to them ."
moorepere

[az]

But thats a minor issue compared to the bigger one.. Does the CC want this allowed on the forums, do they allow it on the Mailing lists? Do they allow it on the wiki? Do they allow it on IRC?


So, are you considering closing the Testimonials and the Community Chat, too? I am serious. Where would you draw the line?

[ubuntu-geek]

Here is the result of a two-minute search:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=76983
"i was really happy that the thread below was going on without flaming or shouting whatsoever. why did you close it? "
phen

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=64819
"Lately, I've been seeing quite a few locked threads on this forum. I've considered Ubuntuforums to be the best community, and at the point that I joined it, it had great sense of eagerness to help others. So seeing these locked threads, I feel a bit disheartened. It also gives the community a bad impression."
lao_V

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=65603
"I look forward to a similar even handed response to anyone who finds offense at any sig attributable to anyone else who might be an 'offensive person' to them ."
moorepere
I am talking about a complaint filed with the CC.. Not forum posts.

[ubuntu-geek]

So, are you considering closing the Testimonials and the Community Chat, too? I am serious. Where would you draw the line?
Sure, argue that the testimonial and community chat should be removed then. However, the posts made there are not nearly as controversial as religion and politics..

[matthew]

Ubuntu (and linux) exists because of the politics of its developers and, to a lesser extent, its users.

The "backyard" is a fantastic compromise and if it "devolves" into a forum of thousands of flames that will only prove the popularity of free expression in this forum. No one is compelled to participate. I have to agree here.

The only argument I have heard against the Backyard has been fear of what might happen.

Don't let FUD rule your life.

[aysiu]

Am I the only one who doesn't think it's such a big deal--either to have the backyard or not have the backyard? I'm fairly new (been here since only May), so I don't know the whole history of the forums and its relationship with the community council, but the forum seems fine the way it is.

It was fine before the backyard. It still seems fine with the backyard.

I don't think we should go for total control over community chat because if some people can have an outlet for more controversial topics and other people don't have to see them, who cares? Personally, I don't see what the big deal is because I don't read the backyard. It's very easy for me to avoid. I help out in the support forums, and I occasionally participate in regular community chats.

I don't agree with Azz's "freedom of speech to the extreme" stance, but I don't agree with KiwiNZ's "no garbage whatsoever anywhere" stance, either. A forum flooded with garbage everywhere ends up a garbage forum. A forum with no outlet for discussion makes some members feel frustrated.

The backyard is the perfect solution. I really don't see what the big deal is. Again, though, I haven't been around forever. Frankly, I don't see a lot of newbies coming in here saying, "You know, the support here is terrific, but I can't respect any forum that has the kinds of discussions that are going on in the backyard." Likewise, no one can complain that they're being censored--we just move them to the appropriate place.

[kassetra]

I have to agree here.

The only argument I have heard against the Backyard has been fear of what might happen.

Don't let FUD rule your life.

Hmm. The fear of what might happen.
Why don't we remove police/firefighters/hospitals from cities? After all they're there because of what might happen.

It's awfully convenient for them to be around when things do happen though.

Just a thought.

[aysiu]

Kassetra, I don't know if I agree with that analogy. The argument here seems to be about whether or not we should have the backyard based on what might happen rather than what we should do if something happens.

Firefighters and police officers aren't around because people are arguing about what might happen if we let people do what they want. Firefighters are there because we already let people do what they want--we just know what to do if things get out of hand (arson, for example).

It's kind of like arguing about whether Linux becoming more popular will make it as virus-ridden as Windows is now. Who cares? I don't because it's not as popular as Windows and not as virus-ridden either. When the viruses come for Linux, people will come up with other solutions. Likewise, we can't anticipate every single kind of problem the backyard experiment will turn up, so why don't we see what happens?

I think if newbies start complaining en masse "I thought this was a support forum. Why do you allow the backyard garbage? This is unprofessional," then we just can the backyard. Why do we need firefighters and policemen?

[az]

Sure, argue that the testimonial and community chat should be removed then.

What, to the CC? My question was to you. Where do you draw the line between when is too contraversial and what is not?

However, the posts made there are not nearly as controversial as religion and politics..

Before the Backyard was put in place or afterwards? There are some posts that were in the Community Chat that have been moved into the Backyard.

[az]

Hmm. The fear of what might happen.
Why don't we remove police/firefighters/hospitals from cities? After all they're there because of what might happen.

It's awfully convenient for them to be around when things do happen though.

Just a thought.


I think it is more like telling the police they are not allowed to enter your house without a warrant, if you want to use a metaphor. Police are convenient because they protect your freedom.

[ubuntu-geek]

What, to the CC? My question was to you. Where do you draw the line between when is too contraversial and what is not?

I really don't see how allowing religion and politic threads helps to improve ubuntu forums at all. It only allows people to satisfy ego's and beliefs and is that what this forum is really about? No not all. However, by closing/editing those threads only causes *certain* people to cry wolf..

Its a catch 22..


Before the Backyard was put in place or afterwards? There are some posts that were in the Community Chat that have been moved into the Backyard.

Either way, before the backyard they were closed. With the backyard they get moved.

[KingBahamut]

Freedom of speech does not exceed the right to support the userbase. While I see your point of the freedom to express oneself in an appropriate manner, what I see with respect to the Backyard is not the freedom of speech and expression but more an act of promoting Tolerance based on such speech. I think that Bolligner puts it best by saying -- "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters." Such social encounters can lead to a variety of emotions, some controlled, and some not. No matter the offensive nature of such. This permits the permissibility of a person to express their feelings, while in the sense not involving one's self in criminal behavior.

The Backyard however shows no sign of even the remotest tolerance. The caring or uncaring sense that it may have , or the impact that it has on the community as a whole is largely detrimental to the community.

You want such a place, I respect that, but I also respect the right to go to such a place, and spell your name with an S rather than a Z.

[az]

Okay, the argument that there are only a small number of people who are dissatisfied is bollocks. Not everybody wants to speak up about this because they either just leave or do not want to lose their positions. How do you think I know some posts were deleted and then put back in the thread I mention in the complaint? A moderator told me.

I get private messages from users and forums staff (current and former - and I am not talking about the four of us who brough a complaint to the CC) about this issue.

Not every user who has an issue with the way things are done actually complains about it, let alone brings it to the CC. They just leave and think Ubuntu sucks. This is why I am passionate about this issue.

To be honest, I do not care about the politics of the Ubuntu user. I do not care about the latest news from the politico-software marketplace. I am not particularly interested in the topics found in the Backyard. Others seem to be very interested.

I just want the forums to represent their users. And that means not picking and chosing what they can and cannot say.

[az]

The Backyard however shows no sign of even the remotest tolerance. T

Huh?

You want such a place, I respect that, but I also respect the right to go to such a place, and spell your name with an S rather than a Z.

That is a violation of the code of conduct, sir.

[Master Shake]

Another forum I belong to actually created a totally seperate forum on a totally seperate website for controversial topics -- politics, religion, favorite beers, why I rule you, that sort of thing. :)

But seriously, it seemed to work a lot better that way, then another forum I belong to which created a whole off-topic section that got very heated.

[KingBahamut]

First off Andrew, dont call me sir. Not a sir. Just some guy. Get it right.

Now then, actually Andrew, what I am doing is expressing my opinion. In no uncertain terms am I breaking any rule other than the expression of my opinion. I have that right, do I not? To express myself as I see fit? or should I be moderated because I expressed an opinion that is undesireable to just you? A personal attack? Freedom of speech states such that I have that right and ability. But we arent talking about that now are we Azz. We are talking about who can say what and when they can say it.

For that matter Andrew, let us let Racists, the Religious, the Criminal , and the unfit allow to post things on our forums about their particular favorite activities. That too , is freedom of speech, is it not? Should I cease to allow the constraints of tolerance to allow such people to make such statements of facts about themselves.

You want freedom of speech, you either open that door all the way, or you dont. You cant just have it the way you see fit for it to stand open.

[aysiu]

You want freedom of speech, you either open that door all the way, or you dont. You cant just have it the way you see fit for it to stand open. Or you can have the backyard, as we have it now. Then Azz and others can say whatever they want (with a few restrictions) and not bother anyone else (like me) who just wants to use this forum as support and engage in the occasional (lighthearted) community chat.

[az]

You want freedom of speech, you either open that door all the way, or you dont. You cant just have it the way you see fit for it to stand open.

The Backyard has rules. That is part of this discussion. I did not think that the code of conduct was waived there, in favor of those rules.

If that is the case, perhaps that should be revised?

If you have a clear set of rules, and make those rules open to discussion, you solve the problem of being accused of censorship. I thought that is what we were doing here.

[KingBahamut]

Assuming that it is truely unmoderated.

Jdodson seems to think so. Use of profanity , is that considered sexual in nature and therefore a misuse of the forum?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=85389

Depends on how many words you can think of that are spelled in four letters that arent allowed to be used? correct? what about the word ****? Ill let you is the use of the work **** a clear violation of those rules?

[kassetra]

The Backyard has rules. That is part of this discussion. I did not think that the code of conduct was waived there, in favor of those rules.

If that is the case, perhaps that should be revised?

If you have a clear set of rules, and make those rules open to discussion, you solve the problem of being accused of censorship. I thought that is what we were doing here.

Nope. I don't see any reference to the CoC.

Hmm... about the CoC... we didn't ask the community if we should follow it or not, so... maybe we should hold a discussion on that as well. After all, you DID say you wanted rules open to discussion.

[ubuntu_demon]

IMO it's a good thing to try the backyard for a while. It can't hurt to try it for some more time. My hope is that this backyard will be a way to prevent some jailing / closing of threads. If it turns out that it seems to cause unwanted behavior elsewhere on the forums we can always stop the trial.

Also I think we should be relaxed and positive and we shouldn't get too emotional. If the trial doesn't work so be it. If the community council decides to stop the trial I don't have any problem with that too.

[aysiu]

Also I think we should be relaxed and positive and we shouldn't get too emotional. If the trial doesn't work so be it. If the community council decides to stop the trial I don't have any problem with that too. Same here. I'm feeling like I'm missing something here. People are getting very emotional about something that seems to me to be okay either way. I could live with the trial. I could live without it.

I get the sneaking suspicion, though, that the arguments here have a lot more to do with personal beefs and arguments about larger Ubuntu issues than just whether or not we have a backyard.

[matthew]

Same here. I'm feeling like I'm missing something here. People are getting very emotional about something that seems to me to be okay either way. I could live with the trial. I could live without it.

I get the sneaking suspicion, though, that the arguments here have a lot more to do with personal beefs and arguments about larger Ubuntu issues than just whether or not we have a backyard. I think you and ubuntu_demon are right on target here.

Try it, if it doesn't work chalk it up as a learning experience. Ultimately the Backyard is not why I am here (nor anyone else as far as I know) and it won't be responsible for any decision [that I might make] to leave, should that ever happen. I think it is a nice thing to have, but it isn't "all that." There must be something bigger driving the emotional content.

[ubuntu-geek]

I get the sneaking suspicion, though, that the arguments here have a lot more to do with personal beefs and arguments about larger Ubuntu issues than just whether or not we have a backyard.

Bingo.. The bottom line for me personally I can't be at a meeting ever other week when azz decided he doesn't like something and cry's to the CC its a waste of my time .. Thats my beef... I don't care if the BY stays or goes.. do I feel it helps the forums no not at all and its getting away from what the forums are for and that one thing is Ubuntu Support and Discussion.

Its not about being fair or unfair to users or groups on the forums. For me its about the true reason I started this forum to provide technical support for ubuntu, to provide a method of support that wasn't yet provided, provide users an easier way to use the mailing lists and find information nothing more, nothing less.

Why a Community chat area then you might ask? to give people a place to discuss topics related to linux, open source, ubuntu, other distro's. Sure the rules should have been clearer in regards to what is/isnt allowed but the purpose of this forum is still not politics and religion. Its Ubuntu.

Drop the ******** and get to reality thats all I gotta say.. What is the reality I sponsor this forum with my money and frankly no one or body can direct me to do what they want or don't want. I'll take whatever guidance or suggestions given and implement them, if they have a benefit to the forum. End of my story...

[poptones]

For that matter Andrew, let us let Racists, the Religious, the Criminal , and the unfit allow to post things on our forums about their particular favorite activities. That too , is freedom of speech, is it not?

Actually, it is. The rulkes say "no illegal activity" but there are people here from all over the world. I know on both Ars and Slashdot there are expatriated westerners participating who live in China, so it's also likely there are or will be some here. So the very existence of that forum, with its zealous discussions about various forms of liberty and freedom, is illegal for some participants. Should it be shut down?

Ubuntu's own mission statement talks about "freedom" - a word that is censored from online discussions in China. Perhaps the entire forum should be taken down?

[aysiu]

Actually, it is. The rulkes say "no illegal activity" but there are people here from all over the world. I know on both Ars and Slashdot there are expatriated westerners participating who live in China, so it's also likely there are or will be some here. So the very existence of that forum, with its zealous discussions about various forms of liberty and freedom, is illegal for some participants. Should it be shut down? I don't get your point. Slashdot is not subject to the Ubuntu forum rules. The admin at the Ubuntu forums are responsible for what goes on here, not Slashdot.

[kassetra]

"no illegal activity"

"No illegal activities in the US"
is the direct quote from the small rule list.
The US is the key part.

[ubuntu_demon]

Same here. I'm feeling like I'm missing something here. People are getting very emotional about something that seems to me to be okay either way. I could live with the trial. I could live without it.


My personal preference is to extend the trial. But yeah I can live with all outcomes.


I get the sneaking suspicion, though, that the arguments here have a lot more to do with personal beefs and arguments about larger Ubuntu issues than just whether or not we have a backyard.

Yeah. Let's not make this about personal beefs. Let's not get too filosofical about this. Let's just be pragmatic.

[az]

I attached the text of the special forums Community Council meeting about this topic. It is an IRC log.

[mlomker]

It was an interesting meeting and the first that I'd attended.

Here's the logs (http://people.ubuntu.com/~fabbione/irclogs/) from previous meetings, I believe. I'm going to look through them when I get some time.

[panickedthumb]

The bottom line for me personally I can't be at a meeting ever other week when azz decided he doesn't like something and cry's to the CC its a waste of my time ..

Unless I'm an idiot (not a theory I'm dismissing), the original complaint sparked a lot of changes, a lot of changes were already being implemented, and the rest of the meetings about the forums have been follow ups. It was decided by the CC (suggested by Mark himself I believe) that the 4 of us filing the complaint should be instrumental in discussing the changes and making sure that agreement could be reached. Furthermore, the CC didn't seem to think that the issues were a matter of someone crying about problems, since they made many suggestions based on our points, and even suggested we be invited back to take our mod positions again.

The kind of attitude you're showing in that quote only achieves driving an even larger wedge between the two sides of the issue. The issue that the CC wanted us to all come together on.

[nocturn]

discussions about various forms of liberty and freedom, is illegal for some participants. Should it be shut down?


That's an interesting point. Some things may be illegal in the US (DeCSS), but fine in the rest of the word.

This is the difficult part in moderation, determining what to allow and what not. We generally allow discussions about win32 codecs and DeCSS, but ban threads about copying Windows CD's.
The second is off course also free speech (as in most places, only the act is illegal, not talking about it).

It's a fine line.

[mhancoc7]

I think it is fine to have an area for general chit chat. I wish however that post in the backyard would not appear when I search or click new posts. I figure if you want to use the Backyard you can go there to read the posts. I am usually searching for the latest tip or looking for an answer to my latest issue. I would rather not have to sift out the Backyard posts.

That is just my thoughts. By the way, I LOVE UBUNTU!!!

God Bless, Jereme:)

[mlomker]

I would rather not have to sift out the Backyard posts.


You don't have to. Go into UserCP and then click on Edit Options. At the bottom you'll see a place to select boards that you want to hide. That has been made the default setting for new users.

[trash]

You don't have to. Go into UserCP and then click on Edit Options. At the bottom you'll see a place to select boards that you want to hide. That has been made the default setting for new users.

I can't seem to enable the backyard in new posts, I select the reset thingy at the top but nothing changes.. is it working?

[ubuntu-geek]

I'd be curious to see the numbers if we opened a public survey on this subject to the users of this forum.. The numbers would clearly set a precedence in what this forum community thinks about the subject..

I think I will do that..

[poptones]

And if you survey the mass of americans you might very well find a simple majority thinks it would be ok to ban abortion. If you were to poll america circa 1920 you might find the majority supported segregation.

There is a reason Jefferson called absolute democracy "the tyranny of the majority."

[aysiu]

And if you survey the mass of americans you might very well find a simple majority thinks it would be ok to ban abortion. If you were to poll america circa 1920 you might find the majority supported segregation.

There is a reason Jefferson called absolute democracy "the tyranny of the majority." That logic holds only if you believe the backyard debate is one about morality (some people think it is--I don't). For example, if five people want to go out for dinner, how is it the tyranny of the majority if four of them want to go to restaurant A and one wants to go to restaurant B? If having the backyard is not a moral choice but one of simple preference, what the majority agrees upon is what should be enacted.

[ubuntu-geek]

And if you survey the mass of americans you might very well find a simple majority thinks it would be ok to ban abortion. If you were to poll america circa 1920 you might find the majority supported segregation.

There is a reason Jefferson called absolute democracy "the tyranny of the majority."
True.. but we are not talking about that. We are talking about the opinions of 50,000 people who visit this forum.. And if I want i'll create a survey.. so...

[poptones]

if five people want to go out for dinner, how is it the tyranny of the majority if four of them want to go to restaurant A and one wants to go to restaurant B?

...if four of them want to go to Pat's Pig Roaster and the fifth eats kosher.

[aysiu]

if five people want to go out for dinner, how is it the tyranny of the majority if four of them want to go to restaurant A and one wants to go to restaurant B?

...if four of them want to go to Pat's Pig Roaster and the fifth eats kosher. See? You have to qualify it again. My point is that voting can sometimes have value if there is no moral question involved. You decided--just to be argumentative, it appears--to make my hypothetical scenario a moral one. You do realize, though, that it very well could have been amoral, which was my only point.

I happen to think the existence of a backyard is not a moral decision. Others here may disagree.

[mlomker]

If having the backyard is not a moral choice but one of simple preference, what the majority agrees upon is what should be enacted.

Well said.

[poptones]

You decided--just to be argumentative, it appears--to make my hypothetical scenario a moral one.

Duuuuhhh.. I answered your question.

Takes two to tango, chief.

[aysiu]

You decided--just to be argumentative, it appears--to make my hypothetical scenario a moral one.

Duuuuhhh.. I answered your question.

Takes two to tango, chief. Once again. Just to be argumentative.

Your "tango" is different from my "tango." I was arguing to make a new point. You were arguing even though you understood and conceded my point. You just wanted to argue.

[az]

I'd be curious to see the numbers if we opened a public survey on this subject to the users of this forum.. The numbers would clearly set a precedence in what this forum community thinks about the subject..

I think I will do that..

Okay, so two days ago you say that I am crying wolf. You say you do not have time to deal with these kids of issues.

he bottom line for me personally I can't be at a meeting ever other week when azz decided he doesn't like something and cry's to the CC.

Then the CC rules that you should not eliminate these threads:

"Nov 02 20:27:53 sabdfl proposal: rename "The Backyard" to something non-prejudicial, apply standard CoC and moderation approach, and let's see how it goes. The CC explicitly agrees that there *should* be a place for forums users who have a common interest in Ubuntu to discuss other things in which they are interested."
Nov 02 20:37:46 elmo I agree there should be a place for offtopic chat, I don't see a reason to special case religion/politics (people see FLOSS as both of those), and if the CoC and enforcing it doesn't work to keep people in line, that's an aorthogonal problem"
Sabdfl = Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu.
Elmo = James Troup, Community Council member

So now, you decided that you do not like that. Today, you have enough time to run a poll on the topic.

Just make it clear in your poll that those who run the community (the CC) are those who have invested the most time and effort into the community. Ubuntu shows more vision than any other linux distribution to date because of the investment into the community. It it their community and the forums serve it.

Otherwise, you can always rename the forums.

"Nov 02 20:37:19 ubuntugeek well i think your going in the wrong direction.. and frankly I dont think i want to be a part of it"

Obviously. It that why the forums have always been a seperate part of Ubuntu proper? They (Ubuntu proper - the Community Council) have made great strides to try to tie in the wiki, allow fourm administrators to elect Ubuntu Community members, involve the forum in the greater ubuntu society (the Fridge, doc team, etc...) Why has all that gone next to nowhere?

[poptones]

You were arguing even though you understood and conceded my point.

I was? I did? Perhaps I should entirely give up thinking for myself and ask you for my opinions, since you seem to know my thoughts.

I concede nothing to you, save that you obviously have as much interest in "arguing" as me. I didn't even enter this discussion to argue, I simply made a point which you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that you will attempt rhetorical and syntactical hair splitting in order to divert attention from it.

I happen to think the existence of a backyard is not a moral decision. Others here may disagree.

I do. Many of us do. Not the backyard in itself, but in having a place for uncensored discussion. To not have to wonder with every post if our choice of words will trigger some arbritrary and uninvited "correction" of our spoken thoughts.

I have 436 posts in this forum. You may think they are all argumentitive and you're welcome to that opinion - but I have answered questions, contributed to documentation, and I stand behind every last one of my posts before they were "moderated." You may not consider this a moral issue but many of us do - and not just people whom you may think are "here to argue."

Care to dance (around the point) some more?

[KiwiNZ]

[quote=azz]


Then the CC rules that you should not eliminate these threads:

"Nov 02 20:27:53 sabdfl proposal: rename "The Backyard" to something non-prejudicial, apply standard CoC and moderation approach, and let's see how it goes. The CC explicitly agrees that there *should* be a place for forums users who have a common interest in Ubuntu to discuss other things in which they are interested."
Nov 02 20:37:46 elmo I agree there should be a place for offtopic chat, I don't see a reason to special case religion/politics (people see FLOSS as both of those), and if the CoC and enforcing it doesn't work to keep people in line, that's an aorthogonal problem"
Sabdfl = Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu.
Elmo = James Troup, Community Council member

I do not see here a ruling as you state. “"Nov 02 20:27:53 sabdfl proposal´ that clearly states that they are making a proposal and not a ruling.

My interpretation is they are offering a suggestion I see no binding requirement to follow that proposal.

[quote=azz]
So now, you decided that you do not like that. Today, you have enough time to run a poll on the topic.

Just make it clear in your poll that those who run the community (the CC) are those who have invested the most time and effort into the community. Ubuntu shows more vision than any other linux distribution to date because of the investment into the community. It it their community and the forums serve it.

Are you saying here that Ubuntu Forum is owned by Ubuntu? If that is your premise I disagree strongly.
Ubuntu was foundered by Mark Shuttleworth and vested with Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu Forums were founded by Ubuntu-Geek. They are separate entities.

Azz at the end of the day Ubuntu-Geek is the owner and Chairman of the Board of the Forum. To that end he has the moral and legal grounds to make decisions that he deems to be in the best interest of the Forum.

Also given the purpose of the forum is to provide a technical support forum for the benefit of Ubuntu linux users, then it may well be deemed appropriate and fitting that discussion be limited to technical support. If Ubuntu-Geek does deem it thus then it is his right to do so.


You say ( time and time again) that disallowing threads about politics is denying peoples rights and censoring those persons. I disagree. Disallowing them to state it here is simply asking them to pursue their discussion in a more appropriate place. There is hundreds of forums on the WWW for just about any subject one would like to discuss. And folks are free to do so. There is nothing wrong with that. Or are you saying that everyone should be free to say what ever they want, where ever they are, to whom ever they wish at anytime? If so , then with all due respect I don’t think that is at all realistic.

I think it is time that this subject was brought to a close as it has been festering for too long. I believe we should be focusing on our primary objective that is providing technical support to Ubuntu users. This obsession with freedom of speech is a smoke screen to continue discontent for an issue that is now closed and it is time to move on.

[manicka]

Well said , KiwiNZ. Couldn't agree more with all your points, especially the last couple.
It's time to move on.

[az]

Azz at the end of the day Ubuntu-Geek is the owner and Chairman of the Board of the Forum. To that end he has the moral and legal grounds to make decisions that he deems to be in the best interest of the Forum.

Then do not pretend that you are the official ubuntu forums.


I think it is time that this subject was brought to a close as it has been festering for too long.

You are right. The Community Council has made it's decision. Why bother going on with it and starting polls and so forth?

The decision will have to be made by Ryan. Do you want to represent Ubuntu and heed the council or do you want to go and do your own thing and not be part of this community?

Personaly, I think the former would be more productive for everyone. It's up to UbuntuGeek.

[kassetra]

Then do not pretend that you are the official ubuntu forums.
There is no pretending about it. We are official and ubuntu-geek IS the owner of the forums. That is the reality.

You are right. The Community Council has made it's decision.
Recommendation.

The decision will have to be made by Ryan. Do you want to represent Ubuntu and heed the council or do you want to go and do your own thing and not be part of this community?
Those are your *opinions* regarding options for the forums.

Personaly, I think the former would be more productive for everyone. It's up to UbuntuGeek.
I think you've made it crystal clear in post after post what your position is. Since you have stated that it is up to ubuntu-geek, why don't you let him make his own decisions?

[az]

I certainly hope he changes his mind.

In that event, here are my suggestions:

Reword the Community chat description from "General Discussion about whatever fits.." to something like "mainstream discussions" or something. Name the Backyard "Offtopic chat" or the like and describe it as such.

Change the warning that is displayed in the section itself to say that the Code of Conduct is till upheld in the section. Posts from the section will not appear in search results by default. This option can be changed by registered users by modifying their preferences in their control panel.

[mhancoc7]

I don't have a problem with the section since I can disable it. However, I don't really see where it fits here. I mean I come here to discuss Ubuntu and Linux as a whole. If I want to discuss something OT I just do it in Community Chat.

Jereme

[ubuntu_demon]

come on mods just relax a bit.

either do a communtiy poll and get back to the CC OR do the backyard trial for two months and report the results to the CC then.

[poofyhairguy]

It that why the forums have always been a seperate part of Ubuntu proper?

Nope. Its because unlike the wiki or the mailing lists or even the IRC channel the forum started off as Unofficial. It is seperate because it started that way. It does not have the same login system as the wiki or bugzilla because the original plan never intented for a forum.

Ubuntu-Geek built it with his own labor and money. He added to what Ubuntu IS as an OUTSIDER and has had to work to keep the forum going ever since. Even today someone attacked the forum- it takes a lot just to keep it on the net.

They (Ubuntu proper - the Community Council) have made great strides to try to tie in the wiki, allow fourm administrators to elect Ubuntu Community members, involve the forum in the greater ubuntu society (the Fridge, doc team, etc...)

Great strides?

No. Thats not what they did. They gave recommendations from the bench. Helpful sure, but not great strides.

Why has all that gone next to nowhere?

Because the forum is still the outsider for reasons that are not of its own doing. Why does only ONE official developer hang out here? Why don't the people on the Community Council who care so much about working with the forums or wanting to help its users ever come here and talk to users and ask them what they think?

THE LEADER OF LINSPIRE HAS MORE POSTS ON THE FORUM THAN ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CC COMBINED!!!!!!

That is your reason why to this day the forum feels like a seperate part.

[panickedthumb]

at the first meeting about this whole scenario, I believe Mark said he would pay for the forums, but he didn't want to step on Ryan's toes (I can't find the log for this, and I don't remember the date of the first meeting to look it up). This means two things:

1) Ryan has total control, with a few exceptions to make the forums the official forums. Mark and the CC could most likely pull that "official" tag whenever they want, but that doesn't seem to be the way of it, regardless of whether Ryan takes their recommendations.

2) Mark and the CC do believe in the worth and potential of the forums.

Are you OK with the forums' privilege to control things as they wish (again, with the few issues of compliance that Canonical passed down), regardless of the CC's suggestions? If so, this is a non-issue. Ryan can do as he chooses.

If not, then take your proposal to the CC, though I doubt it will get you anywhere.

That said, I do think that in order to unify the community, Ryan should take more of the suggestions of the CC, because I think they're good ones, but he does not have to. And in reality, if he's not going to, they why does he even keep coming to the CC meetings? The CC has said that they are just providing suggestions on how to do things.

However, this comment is concerning, and I'd like some clarification if you can, Ryan:
"well i think your going in the wrong direction.. and frankly I dont think i want to be a part of it"
What did you mean by that?

[az]

It is seperate because it started that way. It does not have the same login system as the wiki or bugzilla because the original plan never intented for a forum.
Not true. Launchpad did not even exist back then, but was in planning. The ability for Launchpad to be able to tie things together was there from day one. That is the whole point!

Ubuntu-Geek built it with his own labor and money.

Canonical has offered to pay for the server costs. Ryan turned them down.

He added to what Ubuntu IS as an OUTSIDER

Wasn't he one of the first ubuntu members, though for starting the forums?


and has had to work to keep the forum going ever since. Even today someone attacked the forum- it takes a lot just to keep it on the net.

You should not confuse tremendous technical skill with leadership skills.


Great strides?

Oh yes, great strides!

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ForumsCommunityIntegration (Mako)
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GrantingMembership (Mark Shuttleworth)
http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/2005-May/002263.html (Henrik Nelson Oma)
http://fridge.ubuntu.com/about (Jeff Waugh)


No. Thats not what they did. They gave recommendations from the bench. Helpful sure, but not great strides.
That has no credibility. How many posts do they need to have for you to beleive that it is not possible to dissalow topics with as broad a description as "politics and religion"? Are twenty posts enough to convince you that it is more dammaging to decide what is a proper topic than to just moderate the posts properly and provide an atmosphere whereby the Code of Conduct is followed and people are respected. Ten?

I think it is a universal enough concept to forgo post counts.

The CC does not care about the Gentoo forums. Or perhaps you want them to frequent those forums, too? If the Code of Conduct does not handle the problems you imagine will happen, then that is another problem.



THE LEADER OF LINSPIRE HAS MORE POSTS ON THE FORUM THAN ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CC COMBINED!!!!!!

Kevin Carmony came in to pimp Linspire. Big Wup.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=47436

[poofyhairguy]

The CC does not care about the Gentoo forums. Or perhaps you want them to frequent those forums, too? If the Code of Conduct does not handle the problems you imagine will happen, then that is another problem.

They shouldn't care about the Gentoo Forums- because they have nothing to do with Gentoo!! But they ARE in charge of Ubuntu, and they ARE all English speakers, yet NO ONE on the CC has any sort of presence on this forum. Not even a little "hello forum users." Nothing.

It IS the "Official" Ubuntu forum. With almost no Officia presence. Bad point Azz.


Kevin Carmony came in to pimp Linspire. Big Wup.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=47436

Thats not what I see. I see that the leader of the most successful OEM Linux (Sold by the biggest company in the world- Wal-Mart) came here to discuss Linspire in relation to Ubuntu. I see the he must have thought this forum is SOMEHOW important because he came in here and tried to clear things up. I don't see him astroturfing on all the other forums....yet he came here.

I see a forum that has 50,000 users that matter and care about Ubuntu enough to get through the process.

I see the forum mentioned in such high profile places like PC World:

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,122643,00.asp

I see a forum that is full of helpful users and has tons of positive energy. I see the forums as an important part of Ubuntu. Where a good chuck of the community lives. Yet the CC is completely uninvolved.

In the end, thats why they allow the forums to make their own decisions even if they don't agree. Because they understand that when it comes to the forums, THEY are the outsiders. And they don't want to be rude.

[az]

In the end, thats why they allow the forums to make their own decisions even if they don't agree.

What do you mean by this?

[KiwiNZ]

What do you mean by this?

Its simple we are a seperate entity and thus able to make our own decisions.

[panickedthumb]

Well, the CC has said repeatedly that they aren't trying to tell the forums what to do, but merely to provide ways to do things in a way that they think will work. They have suggested a lot of things that Ryan has declined to do, and the forums are still official. So they allow the forums to make their own decisions even if they don't agree.

[panickedthumb]

Its simple we are a seperate entity and thus able to make our own decisions.
I think this is the point of contention. We're a separate entity but we have the "official" tag, which implies integration, not separation. That's what I meant in my big reply earlier.

[KiwiNZ]

I think this is the point of contention. We're a separate entity but we have the "official" tag, which implies integration, not separation. That's what I meant in my big reply earlier.

Legally we are a seperate entity. Just like your local General Motors Dealer respresent General Motors but is a seperate entity with is own officers and articles of association.

And surely that by just being representative of Ubuntu meant we surrender our autonomy to Ubuntu , that would be contrary to the fundimentals of the "free" software movement .The act of control resulting from representation would imply the Ubuntu is proprietory.

[ubuntu-geek]

Canonical has offered to pay for the server costs. Ryan turned them down.
um.. i never got anything stating this information.. if you got proof then post it up.. if the someone from ubuntu reads this i am confused as to when i turned you down.. The only written contact I have had is when they offered the $900 donation. Nothing else.

[ubuntu-geek]

Well, the CC has said repeatedly that they aren't trying to tell the forums what to do, but merely to provide ways to do things in a way that they think will work. They have suggested a lot of things that Ryan has declined to do, and the forums are still official. So they allow the forums to make their own decisions even if they don't agree.

Just curious as to what you are refering too? The fact of the staff section still? Give some more detail as to what I am not doing :)

[az]

um.. i never got anything stating this information.. if you got proof then post it up.. if the someone from ubuntu reads this i am confused as to when i turned you down.. The only written contact I have had is when they offered the $900 donation. Nothing else.

You were present at the first meeting about all this when sabdfl said that Canonical would cover server costs no problem. You did not accept.

This was reiterated by James Troup at the last meeting. Again, you said nothing.

[az]

EDIT: All these logs (and more) are available online at the link provided by mlonker a few posts back...

Sep 27 17:41:24 sabdfl if the forums are 100% part of ubuntu, then the governance structure should embrace the forums
Sep 27 17:41:36 sabdfl that means (a) code of conduct, and (b) community council
Sep 27 17:41:52 ubuntugeek sabdfl: agreed..


...



Sep 27 17:57:46 sabdfl ubuntugeek: theres some more
Sep 27 17:58:01 sabdfl there's a suggestion that canonical and the foundation don't support the forums
Sep 27 17:58:19 sabdfl in fact, canonical offered to match donations and ended up contributing to the server fund
Sep 27 17:58:26 ubuntugeek sabdfl: i would disagree based on your contribution a few months back
Sep 27 17:58:32 dataw0lf Ack, Tru64 servers going down, I must bow out of the conversation now :) Everyone take care, and I hope for the best for the forums, as always.
Sep 27 17:58:37 sabdfl ubuntugeek: ?
Sep 27 17:58:47 * dataw0lf (n=dataw0lf@66.219.227.114) has left #ubuntu-meeting ("Leaving")
Sep 27 17:58:50 Kamion sabdfl: he's disagreeing with "don't support the forums"
Sep 27 17:58:55 Kamion IRC lag strikes again :)
Sep 27 17:59:00 sabdfl and i'm more than willing to offer to host the forum storage and bandwidth
Sep 27 17:59:12 sabdfl (22:58:31) sabdfl: in fact, canonical offered to match donations and ended up contributing to the server fund
Sep 27 17:59:14 ubuntugeek sabdfl: canonical has supported the forums based on the $900 donation a few months back. This is noted on our about page on the forums.
Sep 27 17:59:31 * Schpenke (n=Schpenke@c-67-162-255-225.hsd1.tx.comcast.net) has left #ubuntu-meeting
Sep 27 17:59:38 elmo ubuntugeek: we also offered to match any future donations in a similar way
Sep 27 17:59:47 ubuntugeek sabdfl: I am not sure were that rumor is coming from..
Sep 27 17:59:57 sabdfl ok, i just read comments in the thread about the foundation announcement, that suggested that moderators / admins believed that canonical made no support and funds available to the forums
Sep 27 18:00:25 sabdfl the only reason we did not offer to host them previously is because i did not want to undermine ryan
Sep 27 18:00:44 sabdfl on the same lines, integrated login across wiki and forums is doable
Sep 27 18:00:47 sabdfl quite easily
Sep 27 18:00:47 ubuntugeek sabdfl: I was not part of that conversation although I have read it. I would like to note public, canonical has donated to us and helped us.


...

Sep 27 18:12:36 ubuntugeek I dont think I personall every considered myself not part of the community or i would have not poored the last 11 months of my life into the forums.

[KiwiNZ]

I have seen over the last few weeks increasing slurs of Ubuntu_geeks leadership and his approach to running this forum.

I will be away from tonight and for reason I wont state here ,it is possible that I may not make it back here . So I wanted to go on record in the forum as follows.

I have been a member here since the begining.Ubuntu_Geek created this forum and has largely brought it to where it is now by his actions and expense.

He has my absolute confidence and absolute support . His leadership is in my opinion fantastic and he has provided us with a fabulous place to meet and discuss Ubuntu.

He is the founder and Chairman of the Board and as such has the mandate to make decisions , something he has done to date with exceptional foresight stewardship.

[ubuntu-geek]

EDIT: All these logs (and more) are available online at the link provided by mlonker a few posts back...

Sep 27 17:41:24 sabdfl if the forums are 100% part of ubuntu, then the governance structure should embrace the forums
Sep 27 17:41:36 sabdfl that means (a) code of conduct, and (b) community council
Sep 27 17:41:52 ubuntugeek sabdfl: agreed..


...



Sep 27 17:57:46 sabdfl ubuntugeek: theres some more
Sep 27 17:58:01 sabdfl there's a suggestion that canonical and the foundation don't support the forums
Sep 27 17:58:19 sabdfl in fact, canonical offered to match donations and ended up contributing to the server fund
Sep 27 17:58:26 ubuntugeek sabdfl: i would disagree based on your contribution a few months back
Sep 27 17:58:32 dataw0lf Ack, Tru64 servers going down, I must bow out of the conversation now :) Everyone take care, and I hope for the best for the forums, as always.
Sep 27 17:58:37 sabdfl ubuntugeek: ?
Sep 27 17:58:47 * dataw0lf (n=dataw0lf@66.219.227.114) has left #ubuntu-meeting ("Leaving")
Sep 27 17:58:50 Kamion sabdfl: he's disagreeing with "don't support the forums"
Sep 27 17:58:55 Kamion IRC lag strikes again :)
Sep 27 17:59:00 sabdfl and i'm more than willing to offer to host the forum storage and bandwidth
Sep 27 17:59:12 sabdfl (22:58:31) sabdfl: in fact, canonical offered to match donations and ended up contributing to the server fund
Sep 27 17:59:14 ubuntugeek sabdfl: canonical has supported the forums based on the $900 donation a few months back. This is noted on our about page on the forums.
Sep 27 17:59:31 * Schpenke (n=Schpenke@c-67-162-255-225.hsd1.tx.comcast.net) has left #ubuntu-meeting
Sep 27 17:59:38 elmo ubuntugeek: we also offered to match any future donations in a similar way
Sep 27 17:59:47 ubuntugeek sabdfl: I am not sure were that rumor is coming from..
Sep 27 17:59:57 sabdfl ok, i just read comments in the thread about the foundation announcement, that suggested that moderators / admins believed that canonical made no support and funds available to the forums
Sep 27 18:00:25 sabdfl the only reason we did not offer to host them previously is because i did not want to undermine ryan
Sep 27 18:00:44 sabdfl on the same lines, integrated login across wiki and forums is doable
Sep 27 18:00:47 sabdfl quite easily
Sep 27 18:00:47 ubuntugeek sabdfl: I was not part of that conversation although I have read it. I would like to note public, canonical has donated to us and helped us.


...

Sep 27 18:12:36 ubuntugeek I dont think I personall every considered myself not part of the community or i would have not poored the last 11 months of my life into the forums.

well i stand corrected, thanks officer..

[kassetra]

Thank you all for your comments. This thread has ran it's course and I am closing it now.

Also, in the future, please remember that we have a policy in place for all areas of the forum outside of designated ones that threads need to remain on topic. This area is not a designated off topic area.